[Senate Prints 116-60]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


           
116th Congress}                                         { S. Prt.

  1st Sessio  }        COMMITTEE PRINT   	        { 116-60   

======================================================================

                           BUSINESS MEETINGS

                                 OF THE

                     COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

                          UNITED STATES SENATE


                               DURING THE

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             First Session

                   January 3, 2019 to January 3, 2020


                                     
[GRAPHIC(S) 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                    
45-166 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2021                     
          
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



                 COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS        

                JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho, Chairman        
MARCO RUBIO, Florida                 ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin               BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
CORY GARDNER, Colorado               JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
MITT ROMNEY, Utah                    CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina       TOM UDALL, New Mexico
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia              CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming               TIM KAINE, Virginia
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio                    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
RAND PAUL, Kentucky                  JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
TODD YOUNG, Indiana                  CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
TED CRUZ, Texas
              Christopher M. Socha, 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

                     116th Congress, First Session

Thursday, February 7, 2019

  Summary of Action Taken by the Committee.......................     1

  Meeting Transcript.............................................     1



Wednesday, April 3, 2019

  Summary of Action Taken by the Committee.......................     5

  Meeting Transcript.............................................     7



Thursday, May 2, 2019

  Summary of Action Taken by the Committee.......................    17

  Meeting Transcript.............................................    18



Wednesday, May 22, 2019

  Summary of Action Taken by the Committee.......................    29

  Meeting Transcript.............................................    31



Tuesday, June 25, 2019

  Summary of Action Taken by the Committee.......................    61

  Meeting Transcript.............................................    62



Thursday, July 25, 2019

  Summary of Action Taken by the Committee.......................    91

  Meeting Transcript.............................................    93



Wednesday, July 31, 2019

  Summary of Action Taken by the Committee.......................   119

  Meeting Transcript.............................................   119



Wednesday, September 18, 2019

  Summary of Action Taken by the Committee.......................   151

  Meeting Transcript.............................................   152



Wednesday, September 25, 2019

  Summary of Action Taken by the Committee.......................   155

  Meeting Transcript.............................................   156



                                 (iii)

Wednesday, November 20, 2019

  Summary of Action Taken by the Committee.......................   169

  Meeting Transcript.............................................   170



Wednesday, December 11, 2019

  Summary of Action Taken by the Committee.......................   175

  Meeting Transcript.............................................   177



Wednesday, December 18, 2019

  Summary of Action Taken by the Committee.......................   225

  Meeting Transcript.............................................   225


 
                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                       THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2019

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

                Summary of Action Taken by the Committee

                           COMMITTEE MATTERS

  The Committee Rules for the 116th Congress, agreed to by voice vote

  Subcommittee Membership and Jurisdiction for the 116th Congress, 
        agreed to by voice vote

                              LEGISLATION

  S. Res. 56, Authorizing expenditures by the Committee on Foreign 
        Relations, agreed to by voice vote

                           Meeting Transcript

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:14 p.m., in 
Room S-116, U.S. Capitol, Hon. James Risch, chairman of the 
committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Risch [presiding], Rubio, Johnson, 
Gardner, Romney, Graham, Isakson, Barrasso, Portman, Cruz, 
Menendez, Cardin, Udall, Murphy, Markey, and Merkley.

           OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. RISCH, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO

    The Chairman. The committee will come to order, and we 
appreciate everyone coming. We have got an agenda to roll 
through today and should be able to get through it pretty 
quickly.
    Before we start on that, I want to recognize Senator 
Isakson, who is going to give kudos to Ryan Evans, who is 
leaving us.
    Senator Isakson. Mr. Chairman, you know, a husband learns 
in marriage to stay married, respect your wife, be nice to 
them--be nice to them, honoring them when they need to be 
honored, and say good things about them and be proud. If you do 
that, you are doing a pretty good thing. You are really lucky 
if you have had somebody work for you on your staff who is not 
your wife, but who has worked for you and made you what you 
are. And I have got a lady on our committee, Ryan Evans, who 
for the last 11-and-a-half years has been my foreign relations 
advisor, and, quite frankly, she is a lot smarter than I am and 
very patient.
    She has been to Africa with me. She has traveled me. She 
has been offered the job of regional trade representative to 
the United States for Great Britain. And she is taking it with 
my blessing because they will be getting a great person who is 
very knowledgeable in what they do. And I will be glad we will 
have somebody of that intellect to deal with the country.
    But she is a very special lady. I risk saying something 
that I would not apply to anybody else, but I think she is 
unique among all the people I have ever worked with. She has 
worked hard, she cares, and she has done things for a lot of 
you that I see and a lot of you that I do not see but have 
written me notes about what Ryan did. So I just wanted to say 
that she is officially gone tomorrow as far as our office is 
concerned. And the next time you see her, she will be in Great 
Britain for the queen and Great Britain.
    So I have enjoyed having her. She has done everything for 
me she could possibly do, and I think we were all lucky to have 
great staff. You all do and I do, too. Ryan, we are going to 
miss you, but we love you very much.
    The Chairman. Ryan, thank you. [Applause.]
    The Chairman. Ryan, thank you for your service. Today we 
are going to--I would appreciate it if you would stick with us. 
We need a dozen people to do this. These are things we are 
going to do. We are going to establish our subcommittees, and 
approve the committee rules, and authorize committee 
expenditures for this Congress.
    And the first thing we will do is consider the proposed 
committee rules for the 116th Congress. These rules have served 
this committee well in the past, and I believe they will 
continue to do so this Congress. Next we will consider the 
proposed subcommittee membership jurisdiction for the 116th 
Congress. I know our subcommittees will continue to play a 
vital role in the work that this committee does. I also want to 
thank each of you for your willingness to serve on these 
important subcommittees, and I look forward to working with the 
respective chairmen and ranking members of each subcommittee.
    Most of you know that I intend that the subcommittees will 
play a less passive role as we go forward. And because of the 
breadth of the things that we deal with in this committee, it 
is all together appropriate that the subcommittees also are 
weighed in on some of these things to take the weight off of 
the whole committee. So with that, I want to recognize the 
distinguished ranking member for his comments.
    Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. And thank you for working with us on this.

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

    Senator Menendez. Well, Mr. Chairman, first of all, I will 
tell you publicly--I told you privately--congratulations on 
your elevation to chairman. I look forward to working with you 
to ensure the committee is addressing some of the most pressing 
challenges our country faces in the world today.
    I also want to welcome all the members and particularly the 
new members: Senator Graham, Senator Cruz, and Senator Romney. 
You are joining the committee at a critical time, and I look 
forward to collaborating with you when we can agree, which I 
hope will be more often than not, and have spirited debates 
when we do not.
    Mr. Chairman, I do not recall a time when there has been 
more turmoil on issues within our jurisdiction. There are so 
many challenges and corresponding opportunities facing the 
United States today, from Russia to the Middle East, to China, 
to North Korea, and beyond. I expect, and we have a 
responsibility as the Foreign Relations Committee, to tackle 
these challenges and to help guide U.S. foreign policy in these 
tumultuous times. I know we are both interested in finding 
common ground to meet these challenges together.
    I support all of the items on the agenda, including the 
committee rules, which are time-tested and have served us well 
over the years. And finally, I will say again, as I have said 
to members individually, this committee is somewhat unique in 
the Senate in light of our longstanding tradition of comity, 
which provides a roadmap for how the majority and the minority 
work together on behalf of the American people. It is this 
tradition of comity more than any written rule which has 
nurtured our ability to operate in a bipartisan and productive 
manner.
    I look forward to continuing this tradition. I have upheld 
it both as a former chairman and more recently as the ranking 
member, and I look forward to working with you in that spirit. 
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator, and I want to 
tell you that I have every intention of working together. Your 
observations about the kinds of things we are going to be 
dealing with are very, very appropriate. This committee is up 
to it. This is an outstanding membership that we have in this 
committee.
    Thank you for welcoming the new members publicly. As you 
know, we have done so privately, and so publicly it is good to 
welcome them. But we intend to discharge the role that the 
founding fathers gave us as we deal with foreign relation 
matters, both in the construction and execution of foreign 
policy. So thank you for those remarks.
    So with that, I would like to consider the committee rules. 
Are there any additional comments before we vote on the rules?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, I will entertain a motion to adopt 
the rules.
    Senator Menendez. So moved.
    Senator Rubio. Second.
    The Chairman. The motion has been made and second.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed, nay?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it, and the rules have been 
adopted.
    Next, we will adopt the subcommittee membership 
jurisdictions, and are there any additional comments on this 
particular issue?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, I would entertain a motion to 
consider the subcommittee membership and jurisdiction.
    Senator Menendez. So moved.
    Senator Rubio. Second.
    The Chairman. There is a motion and a second.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed, nay?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it, and the membership and 
jurisdiction have been approved.
    Finally, we will consider a resolution authorizing 
expenditures by this committee during the 116th Congress. Are 
there any additional comments on expenditures?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, I will entertain a motion.
    Senator Menendez. So moved.
    Senator Rubio. Second.
    The Chairman. The motion has been made and second that we 
adopt the authorizing expenditures by this committee for the 
116th Congress.
    All in favor, signify by saying aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed, nay?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it, and that has been adopted.
    And with that, that completes the committee's business. 
Anything else for the good of the order?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, the committee is adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 2:22 p.m., the meeting was adjourned.]


                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, APRIL 3, 2019

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

                Summary of Action Taken by the Committee

                              LEGISLATION

  S. Res. 23, a resolution supporting the goals and ideals of 
        Countering International Parental Child Abduction Month and 
        expressing the sense of the Senate that Congress should raise 
        awareness of the harm caused by international parental child 
        abduction, with an amendment, agreed to by voice vote

     Preamble Amendment, agreed to by voice vote

  S. Res. 27, a resolution calling for a prompt multinational freedom 
        of navigation operation in the Black Sea and urging the 
        cancellation of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, without amendments, 
        agreed to by voice vote (Paul recorded as ``no'')

  S. Res. 35, a resolution supporting democratic principles and 
        standards in Bolivia and throughout Latin America, with an 
        amendment, agreed to by voice vote (Coons to be added as a 
        cosponsor)

     Preamble Amendment, agreed to by voice vote

  S. Res. 67, a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate on the 
        importance and vitality of the United States alliances with 
        Japan and the Republic of Korea, and our trilateral cooperation 
        in the pursuit of shared interests, with an amendment, agreed 
        to by voice vote (Coons to be added as a cosponsor)

     Preamble Amendment, agreed to by voice vote

  S. Res. 95, a resolution recognizing the 198th anniversary of the 
        independence of Greece and celebrating democracy in Greece and 
        the United States, without amendments, agreed to by voice vote

  S. Res. 96, a resolution commending the Government of Canada for 
        upholding the rule of law and expressing concern over actions 
        by the Government of the People's Republic of China in response 
        to a request from the United States Government to the 
        Government of Canada for the extradition of a Huawei 
        Technologies Co., Ltd. Executive, without amendments, agreed to 
        by voice vote

  S. Res. 123, a resolution supporting the North Atlantic Treaty 
        Organization and recognizing its 70 years of accomplishments, 
        without amendments, agreed to by voice vote

                              NOMINATIONS

  General John. P. Abizaid, United States Army, Retired, of Nevada, to 
        be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United 
        States of America to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, agreed to by 
        voice vote

  Mr. Stephen Akard, of Indiana, to be Director of the Office of 
        Foreign Missions, with the rank of Ambassador, agreed to by 
        voice vote

  Mr. John Barsa, of Florida, to be an Assistant Administrator of the 
        United States Agency for International Development (Latin 
        America and the Caribbean), agreed to by voice vote

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

  Mr. Joseph Cella, of Michigan, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and 
        Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic 
        of Fiji, and to serve concurrently and without additional 
        compensation as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of 
        the United States of America to the Republic of Kiribati, the 
        Republic of Nauru, the Kingdom of Tonga, and Tuvalu, agreed to 
        by roll call vote (14-7)

          Ayes: Risch, Rubio, Johnson, Gardner, Romney, Graham (proxy), 
        Isakson, Barrasso, Portman, Paul (proxy), Young, Cruz, Udall 
        (proxy), and Murphy

          Nays: Menendez, Cardin, Coons, Kaine, Markey, Merkley, and 
        Booker

  Mr. R. Clarke Cooper, of Florida, to be an Assistant Secretary of 
        State (Political-Military Affairs), agreed to by voice vote

  The Honorable Jane L. Corwin, of New York, to be Commissioner on the 
        part of the United States on the International Joint 
        Commission, United States and Canada, agreed to by voice vote

  Mr. Michael J. Fitzpatrick, 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 Ecuador, agreed to by 
        voice vote

  The Honorable Kenneth S. George, of Texas, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Oriental Republic of Uruguay, agreed to by voice 
        vote

  The Honorable Brett P. Giroir, of Texas, to be Representative of the 
        United States on the Executive Board of the World Health 
        Organization, agreed to by voice vote

  Dr. 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. Ronald Douglas Johnson, of Florida, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Republic of El Salvador, agreed to by voice vote

  Mr. W. Patrick Murphy, of Vermont, 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 Kingdom of Cambodia, agreed to by voice vote

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

  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, 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

  The Honorable Robert C. Sisson, of Michigan, to be Commissioner on 
        the part of the United States on the International Joint 
        Commission, United States and Canada, agreed to by voice vote

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

  The Honorable Matthew H. Tueller, of Utah, 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 Iraq, agreed to by roll 
        call vote (19-2)

          Ayes: Risch, Rubio, Johnson, Gardner, Romney, Graham (proxy), 
        Isakson, Barrasso, Portman, Young, Cruz, Menendez, Cardin, 
        Coons, Udall (proxy), Murphy, Kaine, Markey, and Booker

          Nays: Paul (proxy) and Merkley

  Mr. Lance V. Yohe, of North Dakota, to be Commissioner on the part of 
        the United States on the International Joint Commission, United 
        States and Canada, agreed to by voice vote

  Mr. Keith Krach, of California, to be an Under Secretary of State 
        (Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment), United States 
        Alternate Governor of the European Bank for Reconstruction and 
        Development, United States Alternate Governor of the 
        International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and 
        United States Alternate Governor of the Inter-American 
        Development Bank, agreed to by voice vote

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

  Brigadier General David Stilwell, USAF, Retired, of Hawaii, to be an 
        Assistant Secretary of State (East Asian and Pacific Affairs), 
        agreed to by voice vote

  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, agreed to by voice vote

                           Meeting Transcript

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:20 p.m., in 
Room S-116, The Capitol, Hon. James Risch, chairman of the 
committee, presiding.
    Present. Senators Risch [presiding], Rubio, Johnson, 
Gardner, Romney, Isakson, Barrasso, Portman, Young, Cruz, 
Menendez, Cardin, Coons, Murphy, Kaine, Markey, Merkley, and 
Booker.

           OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. RISCH,
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO

    The Chairman. The committee will come to order. We waited, 
Senator Menendez, but just barely.
    In our business meeting today, what we are going to have is 
24 nominees and seven resolutions. Thanks to the staff for 
working hard to iron out the vast majority of the differences. 
I am going to try to run through this very quickly, but anybody 
who has something for the good of the order, do not hesitate to 
throw a wrench in the works.
    So I want to briefly talk about the seven resolutions. The 
first resolution is Res. 23, supporting the goals and ideals of 
Countering International Parental Child Abduction Month. I 
would like to thank Senator Tillis for his work on this 
resolution along with other co-sponsors on this committee.
    The second resolution is Res. 27, a resolution calling for 
prompt multinational freedom of navigation operation in the 
Black Sea and urging the cancellation of the Nord Stream 
pipeline. I would like to acknowledge Senator Johnson for 
introducing this important legislation along with numerous co-8 
sponsors.
    Next is Senate Res. 35, a resolution supporting democratic 
principles and standards in Bolivia and throughout Latin 
America. I want to thank Senator Menendez and Senator Cruz for 
introducing this.
    Senate Res. 67 is next, a resolution emphasizing the 
importance and vitality of U.S. alliances with Japan and the 
Republic of Korea. I would like to recognize Senators Menendez, 
Gardner, and Markey for their support of this measure.
    Next is Res. 95, the 198th anniversary of the independence 
of Greece. Thank you to Senators Menendez, Barrasso, and other 
members of our committee for supporting this annual resolution. 
We will probably have a bigger one in a couple years I would 
think, considering this year.
    Res. 96 is next, a resolution commending Canada for 
upholding the rule of law and expressing concern over actions 
by the Chinese in response to a United States request to Canada 
for the extradition of a Huawei Technologies executive. I am 
proud to sponsor this resolution and appreciate the support of 
Senator Menendez and many other members of this committee. This 
resolution draws a stark contrast between the Chinese 
government's lawless behavior and the lack of reciprocity on 
the one and Canada's steadfast defense of the rule of law on 
the other. Since the arrest of Huawei's chief financial 
officer, Canada has granted access to both consular officials 
and an attorney. Chinese authorities are meanwhile subjecting 
Canadian citizens--Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor--to 
arbitrary and abusive treatment. Our message of support to 
Canada is unwavering. The Chinese government should release 
those two people immediately and ensure due process.
    Finally, we will consider Senator Res. 123, a resolution 
supporting the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and 
recognizing its 70 years of accomplishments. I would like to 
thank Senator Menendez and other co-3 sponsors for joining me 
to sponsor this measure, which is a robust demonstration of the 
Senate support for it. Tomorrow marks the 70th anniversary of 
NATO's founding. This resolution recognizes the alliance's 
singular contributions to maintaining the safety, security, and 
democratic systems of its members. It calls on NATO member-
states to fully meet their pledges of percent of their GDP on 
defense and to more fully share the security burden, but also 
emphasizes our belief that NATO will continue to be a 
cornerstone of U.S. security. I urge all of my colleagues to 
support this important and timely resolution.
    And I will now recognize Senator Menendez for his comments.

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

    Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me first say 
that I must admit that I am struck by the profound irony of the 
majority leader exercising the nuclear option on the Senate 
floor today, pointing in part to this committee's nominees as 
the reason why, when we are moving 24 nominees just at this 
business meeting alone. And I want to take a look at the 
overall picture of this Congress because I have been crunching 
numbers.
    After today's markup, there will be approximately 40 
additional nominees pending before the committee. Of that 
number, only seven or eight are ready for hearings. The rest 
have incomplete files, outstanding vetting, or other issues. 
And our staffs are actively working together to get these 
hearings scheduled, so in reality there is no problem in this 
committee. So while the complaints we are hearing about 
Democratic delays are much ado about nothing, there are serious 
problems with the administration's approach to nominations and 
the advise and consent process.
    I don't plan on repeating my entire floor speech from last 
week, but I want to emphasize two key points. First, we do not 
have some of the important nominees because the President has 
delayed nominating qualified candidates. I am glad we are going 
to vote on General Abizaid today, but it took 23 months before 
the Trump administration bothered to nominate him. It took even 
longer--over years--before the Trump administration nominated a 
candidate to be U.S. ambassador to Turkey. We are now 26 months 
into the Trump administration, and we still lack ambassadorial 
nominees to critical countries like Egypt, Pakistan, and our 
close ally, Jordan.
    And second, political nominees we do receive often are not 
vetted. There have been plenty of political nominees that have 
gone through this process who have gone on to serve in 
ambassadorial roles. The issue of being a political nominee in 
and of itself is not a problem, but there are many that are not 
vetted. And when the President nominates and re-nominates 
individuals with restraining orders for threats of violence, 
who engage in incidents that should, frankly, mean they should 
never have been nominated, make material omissions on their 
statements, sometimes on a repeated basis even when it is 
brought to their attention in their nomination materials, when 
they have made horrendous comments about members of the Senate, 
including members of this committee who will have to cast a 
vote on them, the Foreign Relations Committee must do our due 
diligence on behalf of the American people.
    With that said, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that we are 
having this business meeting today and expect that we will be 
reporting the entire agenda. I note that while we are advancing 
seven important resolutions and a large number of nominations 
today, there are no bills on the business meeting agenda, and I 
hope that working with the chairman--we had a good discussion 
the other day--we can change this dynamic moving forward.
    The committee will only be relevant if we make it so, and, 
in part, that means legislating. We have a lot of bipartisan 
bills out there--DASKA, Caesar, and many others--on critical 
foreign policy and national security issues. We need to debate 
and vote on them. It is important for the committee and for the 
country.
    With regard to the resolutions, I am pleased to see all of 
them on today's agenda. I will support of all them and 
congratulate all the members who have been engaged. I want to 
speak briefly about a couple.
    I am pleased to join the chairman on the NATO resolution in 
light of the Alliance's 70th anniversary and also to join 
Senator Johnson on S. Res. 27. Russian aggression is in total 
disregard for international law. It shows why it is incredibly 
important that we maintain and strengthen NATO and why our 
European partners should not be dependent on Putin and Russia. 
I was proud to introduce, along with Senator Barrasso, S. Res. 
95, which recognizes the 198th anniversary of the independence 
of Greece. Our Nation's representative democracy was heavily 
influenced and shaped by ancient Greece, and Greek-2 Americans 
are indispensable to the rich fabric of this Nation.
    My resolution, S. Res. 35, sends a bipartisan message of 
support for Democratic principles and standards in Bolivia and 
throughout Latin America. I want to thank Senator Cruz and 
Durbin for their co-sponsorship. I am also pleased to sponsor 
S. Res. 67, which reaffirms strong congressional support for 
the U.S. alliances with South Korea and Japan and the critical 
importance of trilateral cooperation. I am also pleased to co-
sponsor S. Res. 96 with Chairman Risch to show our support for 
Canada and appreciation for their upholding extradition treaty 
obligations in the recent Huawei case.
    And last but certainly not least, I want to thank Senator 
Tillis and Feinstein for introducing S. Res. 23, which makes 
clear that the United States can and must do better to protect 
the welfare of children hurt by the trauma of international 
parental abductions. I would note that S. Res. 23 highlights 
the often devastating short- and long-term impacts to children 
resulting from separation from a parent in child abduction 
cases. And I would urge all of my colleagues to recognize that 
thousands of children have suffered the same way, or maybe even 
worse, when we have child separation policies on the border of 
the United States.
    I look forward to supporting these resolutions, Mr. 
Chairman, and I thank you for putting this meeting together.
    The Chairman. Senator Menendez, thanks so much for those 
remarks, and I want to respond briefly. And, again, as you 
know, I think you and I have both discussed that we want to 
keep this as nonpartisan as we possibly can. I want to respond 
to just a couple of things that you said. Again, I do not want 
to escalate this to a point where we start arguing on these.
    But look, the remarks you made about working towards 
getting these nominations done, I concur that we want to 
continue to work at it, but all is not well. President Clinton 
in his first years sent 274 noms to this committee; 96.3 
percent were confirmed. Senator Obama in the first years 
submitted 247 noms to this committee; 89 percent were 
confirmed. President Trump only sent 225, but we have only got 
65 percent of them done, so all is not well here. Now, that 
does not mean we cannot continue to work at it, and you and I 
had a really good discussion the other day, and I commit to you 
again that I want to continue to work at this as best we can.
    We have got four of the six undersecretary positions 
vacant. We have got of the 22 assistant secretary positions 
vacant. And it is really important that we get the State 
Department up and running. The criticism of President Trump not 
having filled all the positions, it is not much of a--if we 
were sitting here with an empty table and no positions to work 
on, I think it would be a legitimate criticism. But, gosh, when 
we have got 40 of them backed up already, I do not think it is 
much criticism.
    But, again, I want to keep this on a--I want to continue to 
keep operating on as bipartisan basis as we can because we are 
all--we are all interested in the same thing when it comes to 
foreign relations.
    Senator Menendez. Well, Mr. Chairman, if I may.
    The Chairman. You may.
    Senator Menendez. And I know we are trying to keep it as 
bipartisan as we can. Of the 40 left, only seven are ready for 
a hearing, and those can be called by the committee or the 
subcommittees. The others are not ready, plain and simple. They 
are not. Their files are not ready. I am not responsible for 
answering for nominees who do not fill out their files or do 
not fill it out correctly.
    The Chairman. I agree.
    Senator Menendez. So do not hold us responsible for that, 
number one. Number two, General Abizaid, I had to listen to a 
remark by the majority leader on the floor. He just got 
nominated very recently. Two years without a nomination. He was 
the first nominee that went through this session of Congress. 
He had a hearing and he is getting voted out today. And so the 
reality is you nominate somebody very late in the process and 
then you say, oh, look, it is being held up when, in fact, they 
are moving quickly.
    And as it relates to your percentages, I will just say that 
in the last Congress, the first years of this administration, 
overwhelmingly, if I recall the numbers, there were, you know, 
over 140, 150, maybe 160 persons that were nominated and put 
out the committee. And then of the 24 nominees that did not 
make it, they were cleared by us on the Senate floor. They did 
not make it because of time or other obligations. I am not 
responsible. I do not control the Senate floor.
    So at the end of the day, we have worked extremely hard to 
do this, but when there are comments made by individuals 
nominated to be an ambassador of the United States about 
Senator Cruz and his family, about Senator Romney and others 
that show that the lack of temperament of someone to be an 
ambassador of the United States, it is just not particularly 
helpful. It is not particularly helpful to have restraining 
orders. It is not particularly helpful when somebody shoots 
bullets at a target and says this is the way I am going to take 
care of the problem.
    These are the people who are going to be ambassadors of the 
United States, so I take a backseat to no one in terms of 
trying to move the process. But some of these nominees, even 
the Secretary of State, who I spoke to when he first came on 
board, agreed with me that he had hoped they would not be re-14 
nominated. Well, here we are. They are. So that is what we are 
dealing with.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. Again, I 
commit to you to continue to work to move these forward.
    Senator Menendez. As do we.
    The Chairman. I hope we can continue. I am going to take up 
the resolutions first, and then we will move to the noms. 
Unless there is objection, we will consider en bloc all of the 
resolutions on the agenda--S. Res. 23, 27, 35, 67, 95, 96, 
123--as amended by the noticed amendments to these resolutions. 
Would any members like to give comments on any of these?
    Senator Coons. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Yes?
    Senator Coons. If you would just--my staff will 
communicate. I would like to be added as a co-sponsor on 
several.
    The Chairman. Is there objection? Well, if there is no 
objection, we will add you, Senator. Is there a motion to 
approve en bloc the resolutions----
    Senator Menendez. So moved.
    Voice. Second.
    The Chairman. --as amended by the noticed amendments?
    There has been a motion, seconded.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye?
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed, nay?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it, and the resolutions are 
agreed to.
    We will now move to the nominations. We have been back and 
forth this the last couple of days. I received a letter to hold 
over the nomination of Mr. David Schenker to be assistant 
secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs. We will consider 
this nomination at the next business meeting. Without 
objection, unless anyone has an objection, we will now consider 
all of the other noms as are listed and posted--I am not going 
to read them unless someone insists--on the agenda en banc.
    Is there a motion to favorably report all the noms on the 
agenda----
    Senator Murphy. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. --except Mr. Schenker?
    Senator Murphy. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Yes?
    Senator Murphy. Can I speak to one of the nominees?
    The Chairman. You may, sure.
    Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I just 
want to speak to Matthew Tueller for a moment, who is on this 
list here, ambassador to Iraq. He has been our ambassador to 
Yemen over the past several years, and I do think we got a 
window into the ineffectiveness of our policy in Yemen when he 
testified before our committee that it was his belief that 
Saudi Arabia bore zero percent responsibility for the civilian 
deaths that have occurred on the ground inside Yemen, a 
conclusion that no other expert on the Yemen civil war would 
make.
    He did clarify that response in written questions for the 
record, but our policy in Yemen has been a disaster. Simple 
things have not been able to get done. If it were not for 
Senator Young's herculean efforts, cranes that the U.S. had 
paid for to move humanitarian assistance in and out of Hodeida 
would still be sitting in a warehouse. And so I do have 
reservations about promoting Mr. Tueller to one of the most 
important posts in the State Department. I appreciate his 
clarification on his answers, and so I will support him today.
    And while I have the floor, if I may just note----
    The Chairman. Excuse me. Did you say you were going to 
support?
    Senator Murphy. I will support him today, but I raise those 
issues as a note to the committee to watch his impartiality in 
his new post as well. But, Mr. Chairman, I just want to note 
that we are right on the 6-month mark of the murder of Jamal 
Khashoggi, a United States resident. We have received news 
since then of other similar brutal treatment of other U.S. 
residents in Saudi custody. Amongst the legislation that this 
committee has to consider in the coming weeks and months is 
bipartisan legislation to make it clear that the status of our 
relationship with Saudi Arabia as it stands today is 
unacceptable. There is no way that we cannot find a bipartisan 
path to get that legislation before this committee, and I hope 
that remains at the top of your list and the ranking member's 
list.
    The Chairman. Senator Murphy, you and I have discussed 
this, and you know that I concur with your views in that 
regard. I think it is probably not a very well-kept secret that 
there are active negotiations going on amongst all interested 
parties, both the first and second branch of government, to 
accomplish exactly what you have just indicated. To coin a 
phrase, "it is complicated," but we are going to continue at 
it, and I am cautiously optimistic that we will get there, and 
we appreciate your support. Senator Merkley was next.
    Voice. No, go right ahead.
    Senator Merkley. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that we hold a 
separate vote on Mr. Joseph Cella and on Matthew Tueller.
    The Chairman. So you want those two as individual votes. Is 
that right?
    Senator Merkley. Yes, please.
    The Chairman. Okay. Who were the two?
    Senator Merkley. Joseph Cella, Fiji Islands, and Matthew 
Tueller for Iraq.
    The Chairman. So has there been a motion yet to----
    Senator Menendez. I will make a motion that all the other 
nominees, except for those----
    The Chairman. Those two.
    Senator Menendez. --would be voted on en bloc.
    The Chairman. Is there a second?
    Voice. Second.
    Senator Kaine. Does no one have trouble with this Ron 
Johnson that is on this list?
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Johnson. None whatsoever. It sounds serious.
    The Chairman. No, just with the real----
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. Are there--are there further comments on any 
of the nominees?
    Senator Gardner. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Yes?
    Senator Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Not to comment on 
our colleague, Ron Johnson, but General Stilwell, who is 
nominated, of course, to fill the role as assistant secretary 
of state for East Asia and Pacific affairs, I will be 
supporting his nomination going forward. But there are a couple 
of very important reports that the State Department owes to 
this Congress that they are past due on, including our strategy 
as it relates to North Korea.
    We had a committee hearing, a very good committee hearing, 
just last week on this matter. It is very important that they 
get and meet the obligations of the law as passed by this 
committee, signed into law, and get these reports over to us. 
So I will be supporting his nomination, but the first order of 
business is comply with these reports.
    The Chairman. Senator, I will be certain that your remarks 
are forwarded to the appropriate parties who will take note.
    Senator Isakson. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Senator Isakson?
    Senator Isakson. One question for the gentleman from 
Oregon. Do you have a reason that you can say for your 
objection to Matthew Tueller?
    Senator Merkley. Are you guys addressing me?
    Senator Isakson. Yes.
    Voice. Yes.
    Senator Merkley. Yes. It was my questioning and Senator 
Murphy's questioning which he responded that Saudi Arabia bore 
no responsibility. And the fact is that they have deliberately 
targeted the infrastructure of Yemen, producing the worst 
cholera epidemic in the history of the world, and that cholera 
epidemic is erupting now again. I was appalled that he could 
take that position. It seemed completely at odds with the 
facts. And my colleagues are more generous because I do intend 
to vote no on his nomination.
    Senator Isakson. Thank you.
    The Chairman. There being no further debate, we will turn 
first to the motion to vote en bloc on all except Mr. Cella and 
Mr. Tueller.
    All in favor, signify by saying aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed, nay.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it. We will now proceed to the 
confirmation of Mr. Joseph Cella. I guess the motion included 
that we would have--that it be done separately. So the clerk 
will call the roll on Joseph Cella.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Rubio. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Johnson. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Gardner?
    Senator Gardner. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Romney?
    Senator Romney. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Graham?
    The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Isakson?
    Senator Isakson. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrosso. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Portman?
    Senator Portman. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Paul?
    The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Young?
    Senator Young. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Cruz?
    Senator Cruz. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Menendez?
    Senator Menendez. No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. No.
    The Clerk.  Mrs. Shaheen?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk.  Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons. No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Udall?
    Senator Menendez. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. Is this on Cella? 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. Report?
    Voice. You have to vote.
    The Chairman. Oh, aye.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. Report.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 14; the nays are 7.
    The Chairman. The nomination has been confirmed, and we 
will send the nomination to the clerk.
    We will now call the roll on Matthew Tueller.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Rubio. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Johnson. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Gardner?
    Senator Gardner. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Romney?
    Senator Romney. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Graham?
    The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Isakson?
    Senator Isakson. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrosso. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Portman?
    Senator Portman. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Paul?
    The Chairman. No by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Young?
    Senator Young. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Cruz?
    Senator Cruz. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Senator Menendez?
    Senator Menendez. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mrs. Shaheen?
    [No response.]
    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 Markey. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Booker?
    Senator Booker. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Aye.
    Report, please.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 19; the nays are 2.
    The Chairman. The motion is passed, and the nomination will 
be sent to the clerk. Senator Menendez?
    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, if I may?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Senator Menendez. I understand all the work has been done 
now. I just wanted to echo Senator Murphy's remarks as it 
relates to Saudi Arabia. There is bipartisan legislation. 
Senator Young is one of the many members who has been a 
forceful advocate of this and has joined us in bipartisan 
efforts, the Saudi Arabia Accountability in Yemen Act. And I 
hope that it can be a basis for us expressing the very views 
that many on a bipartisan basis have as it relates to Saudi 
Arabia and our relationship there.
    It is an important relationship, but no relationship should 
be so important that it can be carte blanche at the end of the 
day. And I hope we can come together to express that sooner 
rather than later.
    The Chairman. I concur in your remarks. This concludes the 
committee's business. We received a request from Senator Paul 
to be recorded as a ``no'' on Senate Res. 27. Unless there is 
objection, he will be so recorded.
    I ask unanimous consent that staff be authorized to make 
and technical conforming changes. Without objection, that is so 
ordered.
    With that, the committee is adjourned.

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


                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                         THURSDAY, MAY 2, 2019

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

                Summary of Action Taken by the Committee


                              NOMINATIONS

  Mr. Sean Cairncross, of Minnesota, to be Chief Executive Officer, 
        Millennium Challenge Corporation, agreed to by roll call vote 
        (13-9)

          Ayes: Risch, Rubio, Johnson (proxy), Gardner, Romney, Graham, 
        Isakson (proxy), Barrasso, Portman, Paul (proxy), Young, Cruz, 
        Coons (proxy)

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

  Mr. Robert A. Destro, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of 
        State (Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor), agreed to by roll 
        call vote (12-10)

          Ayes: Risch, Rubio, Johnson (proxy), Gardner, Romney, Graham, 
        Isakson (proxy), Barrasso, Portman, Paul (proxy), Young, Cruz

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

  Mr. David Schenker, of New Jersey, to be an Assistant Secretary of 
        State (Near Eastern Affairs), agreed to by roll call vote (19-
        3)

          Ayes: Risch, Rubio, Johnson (proxy), Gardner, Romney, Graham 
        (proxy), Isakson (proxy), Barrasso, Portman, Paul (proxy), 
        Young, Cruz, Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen (proxy), Coons (proxy), 
        Murphy, Merkley (proxy), Booker (proxy)

          Nays: Udall, Kaine, Markey

  Mr. Edward F. Crawford, of Ohio, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and 
        Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to Ireland, 
        agreed to by voice vote

  Mr. Jeffrey L. Eberhardt, of Wisconsin, a Career Member of the Senior 
        Executive Service, to be Special Representative of the 
        President for Nuclear Nonproliferation, with the rank of 
        Ambassador (Held Over)

  The Honorable James S. Gilmore, of Virginia, to be U.S. 
        Representative to the Organization for Security and Cooperation 
        in Europe, with the rank of Ambassador, agreed to by voice vote

  The Honorable David Michael Satterfield, of Missouri, 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 Turkey, agreed to by voice 
        vote

  Mr. Alan R. Swendiman, of North Carolina, to be Deputy Director of 
        the Peace Corps, agreed to by voice vote

  Ms. Kate Marie Byrnes, 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 North Macedonia, agreed to by voice 
        vote

  Mr. Brian J. Bulatao, of Texas, to be an Under Secretary of State 
        (Management), agreed to by voice vote

                           Meeting Transcript

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 
S-116, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. James E. Risch, 
chairman of the committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Risch [presiding], Rubio, Johnson, 
Gardner, Romney, Graham, Barrasso, Portman, Young, Cruz, 
Menendez, Cardin, Udall, Murphy, Kaine, and Markey.
    The Chairman.  The committee will come to order.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. RISCH
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO

    This morning we are here for a business meeting to consider 
nominations, and we have in front of us 10 nominations. One is 
going to be taken down until our next business meeting.
    The list has been published. Without objection, I am not 
going to read that list unless someone has not read the list 
and thinks they need to go over it, but these have all been 
considered by the committee for some time, and it is my intent 
to vote en banc, with the exception of Mr. Cairncross and Mr. 
Destro, which the Ranking Member has indicated they wish a roll 
call vote on.
    Senator Kaine.  Mr. Chair, could I ask for a roll call vote 
on Mr. David Schenker?
    The Chairman.  And Mr. Schenker? There will be a roll call 
on Mr. Schenker.
    Senator Menendez, I will give you the floor.
    Senator Menendez.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, before I discuss the business before the 
committee, I want to take a point of personal privilege. We 
will not be here in session tomorrow, but I understand there is 
a great occasion tomorrow, and that is your birthday.
    So in advance of that, let me just say: Happy birthday to 
you. [Members sing Happy Birthday.]
    [Applause.]
    The Chairman.  On personal privilege, number one, if I 
could fire you, I would.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman.  Number two, if I knew this was going to 
happen, I would not have run for Chairman.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman.  And number three, I do not count birthdays 
anymore. [Laughter.]
    The Chairman.  Moving on, thank you very much, everyone. I 
appreciate it.
    Senator Menendez.  It just shows you how we can all come 
together.
    The Chairman.  Yes, let's do that.

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

    Senator Menendez.  We have several nominations on today's 
agenda, most of which I support. I want to reiterate my focus 
on ensuring that the next mark-up includes meaningful 
legislation. The committee is at its best when we are working 
together to help shape U.S. foreign policy, and that requires 
legislation.
    I would like to speak about a few of the nominees on 
today's agenda.
    First of all, I would just note that I understand one of 
the members has asked for the nominee, a career diplomat, to be 
held in reference to the nuclear nonproliferation. I respect 
every member's right to do this. This will now be a third 
career diplomat that has been held either on the floor or in 
the committee by a Republican. So when I hear a chorus of 
voices that we are not moving enough nominees, including those 
that have been moved out of the committee, I would note that 
our Republican colleagues are holding up individuals, including 
career nominees.
    I am, however, pleased that Brian Bulatao, the nominee for 
Under Secretary for Management, has been added to today's 
agenda, as the Secretary of State's right-hand man responsible 
for managing the internal business of the Department. I expect 
he will do an excellent job.
    However, I am disappointed that it has taken us so long to 
vote on Mr. Bulatao. Last summer I requested documents related 
to political targeting of the State Department, and it took 
nearly a year for the administration to finally engage in a 
negotiation to provide me with the necessary documents. As I 
have said before, targeting career foreign and civil service 
officers because of their political beliefs is unacceptable.
    I support Ambassador Satterfield's nomination, and I trust 
that his impressive experience at State and around the world 
will serve him well in Ankara. We have a number of serious 
challenges there, and it is no secret that the bilateral 
relationship with Turkey is strained. I have particular 
concerns about the Turkish relationship with Russia, whose 
potential acquisition of the S-400 system, its military 
presence in Cyprus, and violations of weak air space have also 
called into question its reliability as a NATO partner.
    I will note that my support of Ambassador Satterfield's 
nomination is despite his answer to me on the indisputable 
historic truth of the Armenian genocide. I plan to follow up on 
this issue, as well as my questions concerning what concrete 
actions he would take to address the declining human rights 
situation in Turkey.
    Let me speak briefly on the nomination of Kate Byrnes to 
North Macedonia, which I strongly support. North Macedonia and 
Greece made the Prespa Agreement in June 2018. North Macedonia 
currently seeks secession to NATO. The U.S. ambassador there 
will need to ensure North Macedonia meets its NATO goals, as 
well as implements all the provisions of the Prespa Agreement, 
and I am confident that Ms. Byrnes has the diplomatic 
experience and good judgment to see these goals through.
    Finally, I will be opposing the nomination of Mr. Destro to 
the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. That bureau 
leads many of the State Department's most significant efforts 
to advance American values, including the rule of law, 
democracy, individual rights, religious freedom, and labor 
rights. Its programs train NGOs and civil society leaders to 
try to turn the principles of democracy into practice, to 
combat violence and discrimination against women, LGBTI 
persons, and other minorities.
    Ensuring that all people have the tools to participate 
freely in the life of their societies is critical to the 
security, stability, prosperity, peace, and progress that we 
are seeking around the world. But our national security and 
foreign policy goals can only be realized in bold, assertive, 
and principled American leadership on these fundamental issues. 
I do not believe Mr. Destro can be that leader. His long-held 
views and deeply troubling public statements on a wide range of 
issues, particularly around LGBTI issues and women's rights, 
give me great pause, and I cannot in good faith support his 
nomination.
    I still have a number of concerns concerning the nomination 
of Sean Cairncross to be the CEO of the Millennium Challenge 
Corporation.
    Nevertheless, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your 
joint commitment to MCC oversight.
    And with that, I look forward to supporting the rest of the 
agenda.
    The Chairman.  Thank you very much. Anything else before we 
move on?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  If not, we are going to vote on six: Mr. 
Crawford, Mr. Gilmore, Mr. Satterfield, Mr. Swendiman, Ms. 
Byrnes, and Mr. Bulatao, and we will do so by voice vote, 
unless there is objection.
    There being none, all those in favor of the confirmation of 
those six, please signify by saying aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed, nay?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it, and those six will be 
handled appropriately.
    We will now take up individually Cairncross, Destro, and 
Schenker. The first one is Mr. Sean Cairncross.
    The Clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Rubio.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Johnson?
    The Chairman.  Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Gardner?
    Senator Gardner. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Romney?
    Senator Romney.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Graham?
    Senator Graham.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Isakson?
    The Chairman.  Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Portman?
    Senator Portman.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Paul?
    The Chairman.  Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Young?
    Senator Young.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Cruz?
    Senator Cruz.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Menendez?
    Senator Menendez.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin.  No.
    The Clerk.  Ms. Shaheen?
    Senator Menendez.  No by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Coons?
    Senator Menendez.  Aye 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.  Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Menendez.  No by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Booker?
    Senator Menendez.  No by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Aye.
    The Clerk will report.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 13, the nays are 9.
    The Chairman.  The motion has passed. We will take up Mr. 
Destro.
    The Clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Rubio.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Johnson?
    The Chairman.  Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Gardner?Senator Gardner.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Romney?
    Senator Romney.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Graham?
    Senator Graham.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Isakson?
    The Chairman.  Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Portman?
    Senator Portman.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Paul?
    The Chairman.  Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Young?
    Senator Young.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Cruz?
    Senator Cruz.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Menendez?
    Senator Menendez.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin.  No.
    The Clerk.  Ms. Shaheen?
    Senator Menendez.  No by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Coons?
    Senator Menendez.  No by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Udall?
    Senator Udall.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Markey?
    Senator Markey.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Menendez.  No by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Booker?
    Senator Menendez.  No by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Aye.
    The Clerk will report.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 12, the nays are 10.
    The Chairman.  The motion has passed.
    We will now consider the appointment of Mr. David Schenker.
    Senator Kaine.  May I speak to the nomination?
    The Chairman.  You may. I am sorry. Absolutely.
    Senator Kaine.  Mr. Chair, I have been in the Senate now 
for six-and-a-half years, and I have only placed a hold on one 
nominee, and it is on David Schenker. I want to explain why.
    I vote yes or I vote no depending on the qualifications, 
but I have had a hold on this nominee, and I want to explain 
why. I do not challenge his qualifications for the position.
    The Trump administration launched missile strikes against 
Syria in April of 2017 based on a legal memorandum that is 
unclassified that I believe, as a member of this body and from 
this committee and the Armed Services Committee, I have a right 
to see. I asked the administration to provide that memo in 
April of 2017; they refused. I continued to ask for a year.
    In the spring of 2018, many things happened about the same 
time. Mr. Schenker was nominated for this position. Secretary 
Pompeo was nominated to be Secretary of State after the 
resignation of Rex Tillerson, and the Trump administration 
launched missile strikes against Syria.
    I continued to ask for the 2017 legal memo. When Secretary 
Pompeo was before us a year ago, I asked him would he work with 
me to get me to read the memo that I believe I and other 
members of this committee are entitled to see because it lays 
out the administration's belief about their executive power to 
take military action without coming to Congress for permission. 
Secretary Pompeo indicated in that hearing that he would work 
with me to do it.
    With no other lever, I put a hold on the Schenker 
nomination to try to force the revelation of this legal 
memorandum. I have been in a discussion with
    Secretary Pompeo and the White House Counsel's Office now 
for a year, and they still have not produced the memo.
    I have asked for the memo because I think we are all 
entitled to see it.
    They have not produced it. I have said give it to me in a 
classified setting, I will take no notes on it; they have been 
unwilling to do that. Recently the White House Counsel said we 
are not going to give you the memo, but why do you not write a 
series of questions that we will answer about the memo. I sent 
them a series of questions over a month ago. They have not 
answered them, and they have given us, frankly, no indication 
that they will ever answer the questions.
    I believe this memo--and in my conversations with them, I 
have every reason to believe the memo lays out the executive's 
belief about when they can wage war without coming to this 
body, without coming to this committee.
    Whether or not I agree with the memo, I think I am entitled 
to see it.
    The refusal to give us this memo is now part of a very 
disturbing pattern and activity with respect to this particular 
region. In March it was revealed that the U.S. has approved a 
secret transfer of nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia. I say 
secret because in the past, when administrations have approved 
these Part A-10 transfers, they have made them public, both to 
the Congress and to the press, and to the American public. When 
we learned this via a press report in March, we asked both 
Secretary Perry and Pompeo to give us information about these 
nuclear transfers; they have refused.
    We have understood that they have given some information to 
a House committee, the House committee staff, and they said you 
cannot share this with anyone under threat of prosecution.
    We had a classified hearing recently, and I am not going to 
get into the topic of it, but the classified hearing was made 
necessary because information that the administration should 
have shared with us about arms proliferation in the region had 
not been shared with us. One of our members found out about it 
and forced the administration to come in and answer questions 
about it.
    I am very, very concerned about, whether it is a legal memo 
about the authorization of military action without coming to 
Congress, information about nuclear transfers, information 
about arms proliferation in the region, we are not being kept 
in the loop. That is why I put a hold on this nomination. I 
think it is the only leverage I have to try to get information 
I think is relevant to the entire committee, and I would urge 
my colleagues to vote no on Mr. Schenker.
    As soon as the information is provided, I will lift the 
hold and gladly support his nomination. But they have been 
playing games with me now for two years, so I am going to vote 
no.
    The Chairman.  Thank you. Senator Young was next.
    Senator Young.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be voting 
in support of the nomination.
    That said, I do want to affirm my support for allowing the 
Senator to exercise his prerogatives to look at this memo. I 
think our war powers have been eroded over successive 
administrations, and it is very important that we have access 
to these sorts of materials so we can duly perform our 
oversight roles.
    The Chairman.  Thank you, Senator. Senator Menendez?
    Senator Menendez.  Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the 
right and, I believe, the committee's institutional prerogative 
to have information that is critical to our decision-making 
process when we are casting votes on critical national security 
and foreign policy issues. I think that Senator Kaine is 
probably one of the most reasonable members of this committee 
in trying to find comity whenever he can with his colleagues, 
and even with the administration. So I have supported him 
throughout this process in not allowing Mr. Schenker to have a 
hearing, a mark-up, but I agreed that it was time to move him 
along.
    I strongly support and would urge you, Mr. Chairman--this 
is now a disturbing pattern, and it does not matter to me who 
is sitting in the White House. I hope we come to an 
understanding as an institution that, regardless of who is 
sitting in the White House, there is certain critical 
information that we need as a limited number of Americans, 100 
of 320 million, that makes decisions about their lives that 
affects whether or not we will send their sons and daughters 
abroad into harm's way, that potentially affects global 
commerce, the future of nuclear proliferation, and so much 
more, that we need this information.
    And so when we have a classified hearing that only came 
about because I instigated the classified hearing based on 
knowledge that I came by, instead of that having come to us 
automatically by the administration to inform us of a critical 
issue that would have, if all members had had that knowledge, 
affected how they voted on certain issues.
    The reality is that this is a disturbing pattern. I am 
going to vote for Mr. Schenker simply because I think we need 
an Assistant Secretary of State for this region. I fully 
continue to support Senator Kaine in his efforts. I will find 
other means to join him in this effort, and I would urge you, 
Mr. Chairman, to help us get to something that--you know, 
whenever the administration, this or any other, when it is 
their decision-making view for when they can enter into 
conflict in sending the sons and daughters of America into 
harm's way, they can assert what their views are, but let us 
know what it is. Let us debate it in the Senate, as we have in 
the past over previous resolutions that have taken us decades 
beyond, and I hope you will join us in that effort.
    But on this particular occasion, recognizing Senator 
Kaine's very legitimate issues that really affect beyond his 
interests to all of our interests, I am still going to support 
Mr. Schenker, but I am going to find other ways to try to help 
the Senator get the information that he deserves.
    The Chairman.  Senator Cardin?
    Senator Cardin.  I just really want to concur strongly with 
Senator Menendez' comments. Senator Kaine's request is very 
reasonable, whether it is a Democratic or Republican member of 
this committee making that request, and this committee should 
be supporting Senator Kaine in getting that information.
    I agree with Senator Menendez that Senator Kaine is 
absolutely within his rights. On the whole, I do think it is 
important that we have a confirmed person for this position, 
but I would urge the committee Chair to support Senator Kaine 
as a member of this committee to get the information that he 
needs and that our committee needs in order to properly act.
    I thought it was extremely embarrassing the classified 
meeting we had to have because information was not made 
available to this committee that should have been made 
available to this committee. This is not a partisan issue. This 
is the ability of this committee to conduct its work, and the 
issues Senator Kaine is raising about executive authority and 
congressional responsibility, we need to understand that. We 
need to understand how the administration is acting on what is 
our authority delegated to the executive branch.
    So I would urge the committee Chair and Ranking Member to 
come to an agreement so that this committee can get the 
information we need to carry out our responsibility, which we 
do without partisan considerations.
    So I will support the Ranking Member's decision and vote to 
confirm, but I just urge, for the sake of our responsibilities, 
that the Chair find a way to get this information to this 
committee.
    The Chairman.  Thank you very much.
    Before we lose any more members, I want to get to a vote. 
But let me briefly say this.
    There are two issues here. One is Senator Kaine's issue on 
the war powers matter. Senator Kaine--I have been on this 
committee 11 years, and on Intel 11 years, and I have found 
Senator Kaine to be an absolute honest broker when it comes to 
war powers matters.
    I have sat through dozens and dozens and dozens of 
arguments between the first branch and the second branch, with 
an army of lawyers on each side, arguing why they do what they 
do and what powers they have. It has never been resolved other 
than by argument. I think our branch of government needs to 
continue to press to assert what our powers are in that regard. 
We always have the power of the purse, of course, but we 
obviously have to have more than just that, and I will 
certainly support the efforts in that regard.
    As far as the classified information that Senator Menendez 
discovered, he is absolutely right on that. That was classified 
information. Indeed, it was given in the classified compliance 
report that we got a year ago, and nobody read it. As I said 
before, this is a problem.
    Only Senator Rubio and I are on the Intel committee. There 
are 17 Intel organizations. If you reduce the reports that they 
made every single day to paper and put them in this room, they 
would fill this room, and then some. First of all, the analysis 
is difficult, but then more importantly is placing it in the 
appropriate place in the puzzle is difficult.
    I can tell you there is lots and lots of stuff out there 
that we just do not have time to deal with, and this falls into 
that category. I am not saying that was wrong, Senator 
Menendez. You were right in that you were entitled to hear that 
information and get it.
    I am told we are going to lose members if we do not vote 
here----
    Senator Menendez.  One second, Mr. Chairman. This is so 
critical.
    We are not all privileged to be on the Intelligence 
Committee. That is not an excuse for us not having critical 
information that directly bears on foreign policy issues that 
this committee has exclusive jurisdiction over. They can 
segment out and let us know when there is something that 
clearly falls within this domain and give us a briefing. I have 
asked that the subject of that briefing that we had that we 
have been referencing be a subject for all members, because I 
think that all members need to have the opportunity to be 
briefed on that particular classified matter. I am making that 
request to Senator McConnell and Senator Schumer. I hope you 
will join me in that effort.
    The Chairman.  And I do not dispute anything that you say, 
Senator. I appreciate that.
    All right. We are all ready to vote. We will vote on Mr. 
Schenker.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Rubio.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Johnson?
    The Chairman.  Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Gardner?
    Senator Gardner.  This is on Schenker? Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Romney?
    Senator Romney.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Graham?
    The Chairman.  Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Isakson?
    The Chairman.  Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Portman?
    Senator Portman.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Paul?
    The Chairman.  Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Young?
    Senator Young.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Cruz?
    Senator Cruz.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Menendez?
    Senator Menendez.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Ms. Shaheen?
    Senator Menendez.  Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Coons?
    Senator Menendez.  Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Udall?
    Senator Udall.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy.  Aye.
    Senator Menendez.  Aye--aye by in person. [Laughter.]
    The Clerk.  Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Markey?
    Senator Markey.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Menendez.  Aye by proxy.
    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 19, the nays are 3.
    The Chairman.  Thank you. The motion has passed. This will 
complete the business of the committee.

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


                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, MAY 22, 2019

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

                Summary of Action Taken by the Committee

                              LEGISLATION

  S. 178, Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act of 2019, with an amendment, 
        agreed to by voice vote

     Managers Amendment, agreed to by voice vote

  S. 249, A bill to direct the Secretary of State to develop a strategy 
        to regain observer status for Taiwan in the World Health 
        Organization, and for other purposes, with an amendment, agreed 
        to by voice vote

     Managers Amendment, agreed to by voice vote

  S. 1025, Venezuela Emergency Relief, Democracy Assistance, and 
        Development Act of 2019, with an amendment, agreed to by voice 
        vote

     Managers Amendment, agreed to by voice vote

     Merkley 1st Degree Amendment 1--failed by roll call vote (10-12) 
        (Paul to be added as co-sponsor)

          Ayes: Paul, Cardin, Shaheen (proxy), Coons, Udall, Murphy 
        (proxy), Kaine (proxy), Markey (proxy), Merkley, and Booker

          Nays: Risch, Rubio, Johnson, Gardner (proxy), Romney, Graham, 
        Isakson (proxy), Barrasso (proxy), Portman (proxy), Young, 
        Cruz, and Menendez

  S. 1340, A bill to authorize activities to combat the Ebola outbreak 
        in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and for other 
        purposes, with an amendment, agreed to by voice vote (Isakson 
        to be added as co-sponsor)

     Substitute Amendment, agreed to by voice vote

  H.R. 31, Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act of 2019, with an 
        amendment, agreed to by roll call vote (20-2)

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

          Nays: Paul and Udall

     Managers Amendment, agreed to by voice vote

     Udall 1st Degree Amendment 1--failed by roll call vote (9-13) 
        (Booker and Merkley to be added as co-sponsors)

          Ayes: Paul, Cardin, Shaheen (proxy), Udall, Murphy, Kaine 
        (proxy), Markey (proxy), Merkley, and Booker

          Nays: Risch, Rubio, Johnson, Gardner (proxy), Romney, Graham, 
        Isakson (proxy), Barrasso (proxy), Portman (proxy), Young, 
        Cruz, Menendez, and Coons
     Paul 1st Degree Amendments (2--Revised, 3--Revised, 4, 5, and 6) 
        en bloc --failed by roll call vote (5-16)

          Ayes: Johnson, Paul, Cardin, Udall, and Merkley

          Nays: Risch, Rubio, Gardner (proxy), Romney, Graham, Isakson 
        (proxy), Barrasso (proxy), Portman (proxy), Young (proxy), 
        Cruz, Menendez, Shaheen (proxy), Coons, Murphy, Kaine (proxy), 
        and Markey (proxy)

  S. Res. 74, A resolution marking the fifth anniversary of Ukraine's 
        Revolution of Dignity by honoring the bravery, determination, 
        and sacrifice of the people of Ukraine during and since the 
        Revolution, and condemning continued Russian aggression against 
        Ukraine, with an amendment, agreed to by voice vote

     Preamble Amendment, agreed to by voice vote

  S. Res. 81, A resolution calling for accountability and justice for 
        the assassination of Boris Nemtsov, with amendments, agreed to 
        by voice vote

     Preamble Amendment, agreed to by voice vote

     Resolving Clause Amendment, agreed to by voice vote

  S. Res. 135, A resolution expressing the gratitude and appreciation 
        of the Senate for acts of heroism and valor by the members of 
        the United States Armed Forces who participated in the June 6, 
        1944, amphibious landing at Normandy, France, and commending 
        those individuals for leadership and bravery in an operation 
        that helped bring an end to World War II, with an amendment, 
        agreed to by voice vote

     Preamble Amendment, agreed to by voice vote

  S. Res. 184, A resolution condemning the Easter Sunday terrorist 
        attacks in Sri Lanka, offering sincere condolences to the 
        victims, to their families and friends, and to the people and 
        nation of Sri Lanka, and expressing solidarity and support for 
        Sri Lanka, with amendments, agreed to by voice vote

     Preamble Amendment, agreed to by voice vote

     Paul 1st Degree Amendment 1, agreed to by roll call vote (12-10)

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

          Nays: Risch, Rubio, Johnson, Gardner (proxy), Romney, Graham, 
        Isakson (proxy), Barrasso (proxy), Portman, and Cruz

  S. Res. 188, A resolution encouraging a swift transfer of power by 
        the military to a civilian-led authority in the Republic of 
        Sudan, and for other purposes, with amendments, agreed to by 
        voice vote

     Revised Preamble Amendment, agreed to by voice vote

     Revised Resolving Clause Amendment, agreed to by voice vote

                              NOMINATIONS

  Mr. Jeffrey L. Eberhardt, of Wisconsin, a Career Member of the Senior 
        Executive Service, to be Special Representative of the 
        President for Nuclear Nonproliferation, with the rank of 
        Ambassador, agreed to by voice vote

  Ms. Bridget A. Brink, of Michigan, 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 Slovak Republic, agreed to by voice vote

  Mr. Kenneth A. Howery, of Texas, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and 
        Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Kingdom 
        of Sweden, agreed to by voice vote

  Colonel Matthew S. Klimow, USA, Retired, of New York, a Career Member 
        of the Senior Executive Service, to be Ambassador Extraordinary 
        and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to 
        Turkmenistan, agreed to by voice vote

  Mr. John Jefferson Daigle, of Louisiana, 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 Cabo Verde, agreed to by 
        voice vote

                                FSO LIST

  Kenneth H. Merten, et al., dated March 25, 2019 (PN 519), agreed to 
        by voice vote

  Lisa Anne Rigoli, dated April 10, 2019 (PN 604), agreed to by voice 
        vote

  Timothy Ryan Harrison, et al., dated April 10, 2019 (PN 607), agreed 
        to by voice vote

                           Meeting Transcript

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:55 p.m., in 
Room S-116, U.S. Capitol, Hon. James Risch, chairman of the 
committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Risch [presiding], Rubio, Johnson, 
Gardner, Romney, Graham, Barrasso, Portman, Paul, Young, Cruz, 
Menendez, Cardin, Coons, Udall, Murphy, Merkley, and Booker.

           OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. RISCH, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO

    The Chairman.  The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will 
come to order. On the agenda today are 10 pieces of 
legislation, five nominees, and three Foreign Service Officer 
lists. We are going to--it gets a little confusing from time to 
time, and we may stop to get explanations. But I want to thank 
the staff, both the majority staff and the minority staff, for 
working together to try to iron out as many of these things as 
we can. There are a few we probably will have to vote on. We 
will do that as we go through.
    So first on the agenda is S. 178, the Uyghur Human Rights 
Policy Act of 2019. This bill provides for a comprehensive 
review of the serious human rights abuses perpetrated by the 
Chinese Government against Muslim populations. I would like to 
thank Senator Rubio and the other co-sponsors for their 
leadership on this important piece of legislation.
    The second item on the agenda is Senate Bill 249, a bill 
that directs the Secretary of State to provide an overview of 
changes and improvements that have been made in the U.S. 
strategy to endorse and obtain Taiwan's observer status at the 
World Health Assembly. I would like to recognize Senator Inhofe 
and the co-sponsors for their support of this bill.
    Next on the agenda is S. 1025, the VERDAD Act of 2019. I 
would like to thank Senator Menendez and his staff for working 
with us on the substitute amendment to this bill, and I would 
also like to recognize Senator Rubio and the numerous other co-
sponsors from the committee. The dictatorship of Nicolas Maduro 
and his henchmen is an undisputed threat to U.S. national 
interests and peace and stability throughout the Western 
Hemisphere. This legislation provides additional humanitarian 
assistance to the Venezuelan people. It would also reinforce 
the administration's capacity to go after individuals actively 
subverting the constitutional order in Venezuela or engaging in 
human rights violations.
    We will also consider S. 1340, a bill to authorize 
activities to combat the Ebola outbreak in the Democratic 
Republic of the Congo. I am glad our staffs were able to work 
together on the substitute amendment to this bill, which 
strengthens the message that the Ebola outbreak is a serious 
concern that the U.S. should be addressing to avoid this 
terrible disease spreading and potentially reaching the United 
States.
    And we will consider H.R. 31, the Caesar Syria Civilian 
Protection Act. This has been a labor for a lot of us over a 
long period of time. This measure is named for a Syrian 
military defector who opened the world's eyes to Assad's 
atrocities. The Assad regime, with the support of its backers, 
have perpetrated grave human rights abuses throughout the 
country, including the use of chemical weapons. This 
legislation makes it absolutely clear that the U.S. will not 
tolerate such despicable acts.
    The text we will mark up today incorporates the Senate 
version of this bill, S. 52, which I was proud to introduce 
with Senators Menendez and Rubio on January 8th. That text was 
modeled after the version of the Caesar bill that passed this 
committee by voice vote last year, but failed to clear the 
Senate floor. That effort was the culmination of lengthy 
negotiations with the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the 
administration. The administration ultimately issued an 
official statement last fall strongly supporting the passage of 
the legislation.
    We also have five resolutions on the agenda, which I am 
proud to support: Senate Resolution 74, a resolution marking 
the 5th anniversary of Ukraine's Revolution of Dignity by 
honoring the bravery, determination, and sacrifice of the 
people of Ukraine during and since the Revolution, and 
condemning continued Russian aggression against Ukraine; Senate 
Res. 81, a resolution calling for accountability and justice 
for the assassination of Boris Nemtsov; Senate Resolution 135, 
a resolution recognizing the 75th anniversary of the amphibious 
landing of the Allies on D-Day, June 6th, 1944, at Normandy, 
France; Senate Resolution 184, a resolution condemning the 
Easter Sunday terrorist attacks in Sri Lanka, offering sincere 
condolences to the victims, to their families, and friends, and 
to the people and nation of Sri Lanka; and Senate Resolution 
188, a resolution encouraging a swift transfer of power by the 
military to a civilian-led authority in the Republic of Sudan.
    Thank you to all of the sponsors and co-sponsors of these 
important resolutions. I also want to recognize and welcome Mr. 
Vladimir Kara-Murza, who has joined us for the business 
meeting. Vladimir is a friend of this committee and a tireless 
advocate for democracy in Russia and for justice for Boris 
Nemtsov, the Russian opposition politician who was assassinated 
in front of the Kremlin 4 years ago. We are glad to have you, 
Vladimir.
    I will now turn it over to Senator Menendez for any 
comments he would like to make.

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

    Senator Menendez.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling a 
business meeting. I am pleased that we have a robust 
legislative agenda before us. As you and I have discussed, I 
believe the committee is at its strongest and contributing to 
the Senate and the country in the most meaningful way when we 
are legislating. And I want to thank you and your staff for all 
of your efforts with regard to today's markup. It took hours of 
work and a willingness to find common ground to get there, and 
I appreciate that you and your staff were completely committed 
on both fronts. And I want to salute our staff as well for 
their incredible work.
    I know that there are other legislative items that did not 
make it to this agenda, and I look forward to continuing to 
advocate for colleagues to have that opportunity to have their 
legislation considered.
    I support passage of all the bills and resolutions before 
us, as well as the nominations, and I will only take a moment 
to briefly speak about a couple of them. I, too, want to join 
and recognize Mr. Murza for his advocacy, for his leadership on 
human rights, and for his support of the Nemtsov resolution and 
his advocacy for justice for Mr. Nemtsov.
    Let me again thank you and the staff for working with me to 
advance the VERDAD Act. I would like to thank several members 
of the committee--Senators Rubio, Cardin, Cruz, Kaine, Young, 
Shaheen, Graham, Coons, Barrasso, and others --for joining us 
in introducing this bipartisan bill. The VERDAD Act provides a 
comprehensive response to the situation in Venezuela. The U.S. 
and more than 50 countries, including our closest allies and 
partners, have recognized National Assembly President Juan 
Guaido as the interim president of Venezuela and have made it 
clear that Nicolas Maduro does not have a legitimate mandate.
    In response to Venezuela's ongoing political, economic, and 
humanitarian crisis, the VERDAD Act expands U.S. humanitarian 
assistance to 400 million people, requires that the State 
Department coordinate sanctions with our Latin American and 
European partners, requires the coordination of international 
efforts to freeze and recover the billions of dollars stolen 
from Venezuelan people, and establishes U.S. policies in 
support of a peaceful negotiated solution to Venezuela's 
crisis. I look forward to moving the bill out of the committee 
and onto the floor.
    I am also pleased that we are taking up the Caesar bill. 
This bill was reported out of the committee, as you noted, by 
voice vote last Congress. I appreciate the chairman's 
dedication to this issue, and I am pleased that we are taking 
up the bill given the enormous effort and leadership of 
Chairman Engel in the House on this legislation.
    Iran and Russia's lifelines to Assad are the reasons the 
current regime has survived. Together with Hezbollah, Iran-
backed Shia proxy groups, and Russian mercenaries, Assad has 
fomented regional instability, created a massive humanitarian 
catastrophe, used chemical weapons, and deliberately targeted 
civilians and civilian structures. The Trump administration can 
and should do more to compel the Assad regime and its enablers 
to commit to a political process of civilian protection and a 
diminished Iranian role in Syria. That is what is best for the 
Syrian people, for Israel's security, and for regional 
stability. The war in Syria will only end with a conclusive 
political settlement, and Caesar can help achieve this 
objective. I urge my colleagues to advance the bill.
    I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for working with me to 
bring forward the Ebola outbreak bill. For almost a year, the 
United States, the Government of the Democratic Republic of 
Congo, the World Health Organization, and others have been 
responding to an Ebola outbreak that continues to spiral out of 
control with over 1,600 cases and 1,100 fatalities. The 
response to this outbreak faces unique challenges. Healthcare 
workers in particular are in mortal danger. Much of the 
violence stems from deeply-ingrained mistrust of the DRC 
Government officials, healthcare workers, and Ebola responders. 
Health centers and healthcare workers face ongoing attacks, and 
at least one WHO doctor has been killed.
    USAID officials briefed committee staff on a proposed new 
strategy to address basic assistance needs of disenfranchised 
communities as a means of countering community distrust. 
Unfortunately, because the DRC is listed as a Tier 3 country 
under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, the 
administration has chosen to implement sanctions in a way that 
prohibits these proposed activities. That is a grave problem, 
but not one that cannot be solved.
    There are waivers in the TVPA that would allow these 
activities to be carried out, and we hope the administration 
will do so because in the interim, people in the Congo are 
dying every day. The legislation before us directs Administer 
Green to immediately respond to the Ebola outbreak with 
resources commensurate with the need.
    I am very pleased to see S. 249 on the agenda, which I co-
sponsored with Senator Inhofe, on Taiwan and the World Health 
Organization. I believe that Taiwan deserves to be there. I am 
also pleased to see the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act, which I 
co-sponsored with Senator Rubio, on the agenda today. The 
situation in Xinjiang and China's treatment of its Uyghur 
minority is beyond abhorrent. Passage of the bill in both the 
Senate and the House and taking action to address the situation 
in Xinjiang is critical.
    I join my colleagues, including Chairman Risch and Senators 
Romney and Murphy, in introducing S. Res. 184, condemning the 
Easter Sunday terrorist attacks in Sri Lanka. I support passage 
of Senate Resolutions 74, 81, 135, and 1884, and I commend my 
colleagues, especially Senators Portman, Rubio, Coons, Boozman, 
and Cruz, for their introduction. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman.  Thank you very much, Senator Menendez, and I 
want to associate myself with your remarks about how well we 
have worked together to get to where we are. This committee 
works well when we do something, and the objective here is to 
try to do something. And sometimes in pursuit of perfection, we 
stumble over ourselves, and as a result of that, I am going to 
be opposing some of the amendments that are made here, some of 
which are poison pills and some of which will cause legislation 
not to be enacted. So we will just have to plow through these 
as we can. But we have got a good chunk of work here to do what 
we have had a lot of agreement on, and I would like to get 
through that.
    First of all, without objection, we will consider all the 
nominations on the agenda en bloc: number one, Mr. Jeffrey 
Eberhardt to be Special Representative for Nuclear 
Nonproliferation; number two, Ms. Bridget Brink to be 
Ambassador to Slovakia; three, Mr. Kenneth Howery to be 
Ambassador to Sweden; number four, Colonel Matthew Klimow to be 
Ambassador to Turkmenistan; and five, Mr. John Daigle to be 
ambassador to the Republic of Cabo Verde. We also have three 
Foreign Service Officer lists on the agenda which are quite 
long.
    Is there a motion to favorably report all the noms on the 
agenda and the FSO lists, en bloc, by voice vote?
    The motion has been made and duly seconded.
    All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying 
aye?
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed, nay?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it, and the motion has been 
adopted.
    We will take up S. Res. 184. I was proud to introduce it 
with Senator Menendez earlier this month. Is there a motion to 
approve the preamble amendment?
    You have heard the motion and the second.
    All those in favor, say aye?
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed, nay?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it, and the preamble amendment 
has been adopted.
    Are there further amendments?
    Senator Paul.  Which bill are we on again?
    The Chairman.  Sri Lanka.
    Senator Paul.  Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have one amendment. It 
is a standard amendment that we have been offering to a variety 
of resolutions where we are developing an adversarial 
relationship or encountering an adversarial relationship, where 
we add to the resolution that basically nothing in this 
resolution is to be construed as an authorization for the use 
of military force. You would think this would not be necessary, 
but we are still fighting a war, basically a worldwide war 
based on the 2001 AUMF that has been, I think, misused and 
misconstrued to mean a lot of things.
    I think it is a very simple addition that can be made to a 
lot of these bills. We have accepted it on two of the others 
today, but I would ask that we have a vote on simply adding 
this language to prohibit the provisions of the resolutions 
from being construed as an authorization for the use of 
military force.
    The Chairman.  Senator Paul, will you accept a voice vote?
    Senator Paul.  Yes.
    The Chairman.  Okay. I am going to oppose this amendment. 
This is a resolution that is not law, and there is no risk 
whatsoever that this is going to be construed for an 
authorization of military force. It is a simple amendment that 
offers condolences. I do not know how you could use that.
    Senator Paul?
    Senator Paul.  I would just make one quick response to 
that. Several years ago there was a sense of the Senate 
resolution passed on a Thursday afternoon when we were flying 
out of town and we were not--there was not anyone on the floor 
to object that said the sense of the Senate was basically for 
regime change in Libya. Well, we got that, and when President 
Obama looked to justify it, he looked at the sense of the 
Senate resolution, and he announced that that was his 
justification for the war in Libya.
    So I think while it is a sense of the Senate and it does 
not have force of law, I find it, you know, sort of hard to 
oppose why we would--why we would not simply add conditions 
like to be very clear that it is not. And I guess I would 
recommend--I would change my recommendation to say we ought to 
vote on it, have a recorded vote.
    The Chairman.  Okay. Again, Senator Paul, I think a 
resolution that calls for regime change is different than a 
resolution that offers condolences for people who have died. 
But in any event, is there a motion to adopt Senator Paul's 
amendment?
    Senator Paul.  I make that motion.
    The Chairman.  Pardon?
    Senator Paul.  Yes.
    The Chairman.  Yeah, okay. There has been a motion to adopt 
Senator Paul's amendment. Is there a second?
    All right. We have heard the motion, duly seconded. So the 
secretary or--the clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Rubio.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Johnson.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Gardner?
    The Chairman.  No by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Romney?
    Senator Romney.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Graham?
    Senator Graham.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Isakson?
    The Chairman.  No by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Barrasso?
    The Chairman.  No by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Portman?
    Senator Portman.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul.  Yes.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Young?
    Senator Young.  Yes.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Cruz?
    Senator Cruz.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Menendez?
    Senator Menendez.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Menendez.  Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Coons?
    Senator Menendez.  Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Udall?
    Senator Udall.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Menendez.  Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Markey?
    Senator 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 yeas are 12; the noes are 10.
    The Chairman.  So the amendment has been adopted. The 
question is now on the resolution.
    All those in favor of the resolution, please signify by 
saying aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed, nay?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it. The resolution has been 
adopted.
    We have four other resolutions that we will consider en 
bloc if we have no objection thereto. These are as follows: 
Senate Res. 74, as amended by the preamble amendment; Senate 
Res. 81, as amended by the preamble and resolving clause 
amendments; Sen. Res. 135, as amended by the preamble 
amendment; Sen. Res. 188, as amended by the revised preamble 
and revised resolving clause amendments. Would any members like 
to comment on any of these resolutions before we approve them?
    There has been a motion and second to adopt the four 
resolutions en bloc.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed, say nay?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it, and they have been 
adopted.
    We will now move to the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act, 
Senate Bill 178. And I am pleased that we were able to 
negotiate a manager's amendment, which incorporates the first-
degree amendments filed by Senators Gardner and Merkley. I will 
be supporting the manager's amendment. Are there any members 
who would like to comment further on this bill?
    Senator Rubio.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Senator Rubio.
    Senator Rubio.  I just want to thank you both for putting 
this on the agenda. I think we have all read the report of the 
grotesque violations of human rights, upwards of a million 
Uyghur Muslim minorities in China in internment camps, which, 
by the way, the Chinese authorities call vocational schools and 
all sorts of other outrageous things. It has been to the shame 
of the world that more nations have stayed silent about this 
for economic or other reasons. And this, by the way, calls for 
our Government to do more, including the resolution of the 
Senate asking the President to speak out about it, asking that 
the State Department and others consider the Magnitsky--global 
Magnitsky application against individuals in the Chinese 
Government that are responsible for implementation of this.
    And so I just want to thank you. I think this will send a 
powerful message on behalf of the Senate and can hopefully 
elevate attention paid to this issue. So thank you.
    The Chairman.  Thank you, Senator. Is there further 
comment?
    Senator Merkley.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Yeah, Senator Merkley?
    Senator Merkley.  I want to praise Senator Rubio for 
pursuing this. This is something on a scale that is just 
unbelievable what is being done to this community in China. The 
slavery, the incarceration, the treatment, not to mention the 
absolute use of facial recognition technology outside of the 
slave camps to track every single person in every single way. 
It is important that America stand up and be heard and that 
Congress stand up and be heard.
    The Chairman.  Thank you, Senator. Further comments?
    There has been a motion to adopt the manager's amendment.
    It has been seconded. All those in favor, signify saying 
aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Oppose, nay?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it. The manager's amendment 
has been adopted.
    Is there a motion to approve Senate Bill 178, as amended?
    It has been moved and seconded that Senate Bill 178, as 
amended, be approved.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed, nay?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it, and S. 178 has been agreed 
to.
    We will now turn to Senate Bill 249, Taiwan/World Health 
Organization. And the manager's amendment to this bill 
incorporates the first-degree amendments filed by Senator 
Gardner. I will be supporting the manager's amendment.
    Are there any members who would like to comment further on 
this bill?
    Senator Gardner.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Senator Gardner?
    Senator Gardner.  Just to thank you for the work you have 
done. I know we had some amendments on it, and I just 
appreciate the opportunity to work with you. Thank you.
    The Chairman.  Thank you, Senator. Is there a motion to 
approve the manager's amendment?
    Seconded?
    It has been moved and seconded that we approve the 
manager's amendment.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye?
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed, nay?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it. And is there a motion to 
approve S. 249, as amended?
    It has been moved and seconded that we approve Senate Bill 
249, as amended.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed, nay?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it. S. 249, as amended, has 
been adopted.
    We will turn to S. 1340, The Ebola Eradication Act. Are 
there any members who would like to comment further on this 
bill?
    [No response.]
    Senator Paul.  Which bill are we on again?
    VOICES. Ebola.
    Senator Menendez.  Ebola eradication.
    The Chairman.  We have a substitute amendment to the bill. 
Is there a motion to adopt--
    The motion has been made.
    There has been a motion to adopt the substitute amendment. 
Is there a second?
    It has been moved and seconded that the substitute 
amendment be adopted.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed, nay?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it, and the substitute 
amendment has been adopted.
    Is there a motion to approve S. 1340, as amended?
    It has been moved and seconded that we approve Senate Bill 
1340, as amended.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye?
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed, nay?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it. Senate Bill 1340, as 
amended, has been adopted.
    We will now turn to Syria--Caesar Syria Civilian Protection 
Act. The manager's amendment incorporates the Paul first-degree 
1 amendment and a sense of Congress that it is in U.S. 
interests to continue to provide assistance to the people of 
Syria in order to promote peace, stability, and development, 
including through multilateral organizations. I will be 
supporting the manager's amendment.
    Is there a motion to approve the manager's amendment?
    It has been moved and seconded that the manager's amendment 
be approved.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed, nay?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it, and the manager's 
amendment has been adopted.
    Are there additional amendments?
    Senator Udall.  Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, I would like to 
call up Udall Amendment 1 to H.R. 31. And before I start, I 
would just like to add Senator Murphy as a co-sponsor.
    Let me just be brief here. This is a very simple amendment 
in terms of Iran and going to war with Iran. I was here like a 
few people on the panel in 2001. I was over in the House. We 
took a vote. We have an AUMF, a 2001 AUMF, and I can just tell 
you I cannot believe the way this has been used since we voted 
on it. What we voted on was to go into Afghanistan in a very 
limited way, and that is what was represented to us. And our 
objectives have long ago been achieved, and here we are 17 
years later still in a war.
    That AUMF has been used all over the world to go into wars 
in various places, so I do not want that to happen with Iran. I 
think we have to exercise our authority as the Congress and 
take back congressional power to declare war. Congress ever 
since the 2001 AUMF, I believe, has given up its power in terms 
of evaluating whether we should go to war or not, and I have 
seen it happen over and again. We cannot let this happen 
anymore.
    So today just before we are about ready to have a 10-day 
break where we are going to go out on break, everything is 
escalating. We could return and we are in the middle of 
hostilities, and so that is why I think this is very timely 
today. Senator Paul, I appreciate your work with me on this, 
the other members that have been co-sponsors. I think we have 
about 20 co-sponsors at this point.
    The resolution is very simple. It is just 5 pages. You can 
pull it out of your stack. But let me just read you the key 
phrase: ``No funds may be used for kinetic military operations 
in or against Iran except pursuant to an act or joint 
resolution of Congress specifically authorizing such use that 
is enacted after the date of enactment of this act.'' So 
basically, we are saying in the--in the simplest terms, if you 
are going to go to war in Iraq, come to Congress. And it is 
what I have watched happen many times when Congresses asserts 
its authority, the administration has to come in in a public 
way, not like yesterday, secret. Come in in a public way, make 
their case to the American people, make their case to the 
Congress and say we want to go to war, and then the 
representatives vote on it. And so what we are trying to do in 
this is prevent a war that Congress that does not authorize.
    And I just want to say yesterday, my impression being in a 
lot of these meetings, you did not hear one time these 
administration witnesses say, oh, they said--they were all 
doing all these activities to prevent, but not once did they 
say if we are going to war, we are going to come to you and ask 
for your permission. We are going to come to you and let you 
engage your constitutional authority. So this is--I think this 
is long overdue, and I would just urge you to support our 
effort to exercise our constitutional authority.
    It is no--it is no more complicated than that. If we 
exercise our authority and you want to go to war, that is fine. 
That is not the issue today. The issue is, is Congress going to 
play a role on our constitutional authority. And I am finished, 
Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman.  Thank you, Senator Udall. And I really, 
really respect that you are acting in good faith on this, and 
you believe this sincerely. And you and I both have sat through 
hours and hours and hours of debate on the AUMF, none of which 
have ever resolved anything. But I am going to vote against 
this, not because of--that it does not deserve legitimate 
consideration and it does not deserve legitimate debate.
    But I do not want to speak for Senator Menendez, but he and 
I and others on this committee have worked really, really hard 
to get this Syria bill across the line. And look, this thing 
has gotten caught up in BDS, and it has gotten caught up in 
other things. And if we start hanging stuff on there and we 
have got four different senators who have amendments to this, 
we are going to wind up with the exact same thing. I really 
want to see this Syria bill get across the line.
    So I am not questioning your good faith on it. I think you 
are acting in good faith on it, but it really endangers the 
bill as it goes through the process. So I will be opposing--I 
will be opposing it. Others? Senator Menendez?
    Senator Menendez.  So let me say that I truly appreciate 
this work that has been going on for some time. I agree with 
your concerns, and I have been quite vocal about it over the 
last couple of weeks. That is why, with agreement from the 
chairman, we included in the manager's package a rule of 
construction, noting that nothing in the bill itself is an 
authorization for the use of force, along the lines of Senator 
Paul's efforts.
    Now, I understand that is not the same thing as prohibiting 
the use of force, but this is a serious bill that has been 
introduced in the past three Congresses regarding the gross 
abuses of Syria's Government against the people of Syria. Those 
abuses continue today. And we actually have an opportunity to 
get the bill on the President's desk and for him to sign it. We 
would send an incredibly powerful message and provide a new 
tool for us to hold Assad accountable.
    So I am afraid that this amendment would sink the entire 
bill. And even if it passed the committee, which I am not sure 
it would, but fails on the floor, it actually sends the 
opposite message that I think the senator is intending to send, 
and it will send a message that Congress does not have the 
votes to stop military action in Iran. So for all those 
reasons, at this point in time I am going to have to vote no, 
although I fully share your concern.
    The Chairman.  Senator Graham?
    Senator Graham.  Yeah. Well, I just want to say not only 
would it undercut the efforts to send a very strong signal on 
Syria, which is long overdue, I think it would send the wrong 
signal to adversaries in the country who are intent on killing 
Americans. So nobody on this committee objected when Obama sent 
troops back into Iraq, pulled them all out, and he sent them 
back in to destroy ISIS. Nobody on this committee suggested we 
could not fight ISIS because the AUMF did not include ISIS. I 
do not think anybody wanted to go on record to say that ISIS is 
not a radical Islamic organization that threatens us and 
included within the four corners of the AUMF.
    So I find it odd now that have troops in Iraq to make sure 
ISIS does not come back that the Iranians are trying to break 
our will and drive us out, and that we are going to as a body 
say you can attack our troops, you can kill our people put 
there legitimately, and we will debate later on whether or not 
you should get hit. If you have got a son or daughter or loved 
one in Iraq, this is the worst signal you can send.
    My point of view is that if a troop is serving in theater 
to represent the legitimate interest of the United States, if 
we hesitate to tell anybody, Iran included, if you kill them we 
are going to come after you, you are jeopardizing those that we 
send. That is not fair to them. It is not fair to the State 
Department to have a mixed message. If Iraq or their proxies 
attack American forces in Iraq, we will respond in force.
    They are there legally. They are there within the scope of 
the AUMF. And anybody that takes on American forces doing their 
job, they need to be hit and hit hard. If there is a war, it 
will be because Iran killed Americans, and I am tired of Iran 
killing Americans and us doing nothing about it. So I know, and 
I think what you are proposing, no matter how sincere you are, 
really puts a lot of people at risk.
    The Chairman.  Senator Paul?
    Senator Paul.  I would like to speak in favor of Senator 
Udall's amendment, and I think we sort of misstate what the 
purpose of this is. The purpose is to restate who has the 
authority to declare war, and that it is Congress' authority. I 
mean, the signal is no signal to Iran or Iraq other than we are 
going to obey our Constitution.
    Often there are lamentations around here about how too much 
power has gravitated to the presidency, et cetera, and yet here 
is a chance to do it. This is a vote where you can say this is 
Congress' power. This is not the President's power. I would 
vote this way whether it is a Republican or a Democrat 
president. It does not concern me which party this is. This is 
about us really gathering back the power that was given to us.
    I do not think it sends any kind of statement of weakness. 
When we have been attacked and presidents have come to ask for 
votes, it has been nearly unanimous. When we were attacked 
after 9/11, the vote was nearly unanimous. When we were 
attacked at Pearl Harbor, nearly unanimous. But when it has 
been messy, like Iraq, or whether or not somebody in the 
administration might think that an attack on a Shiite militia 
or a Shiite militia attack on Americans in Iran would somehow 
justify an attack on the--on the mainland of Iran, whether or 
not that is a proportional response or whether or not that is 
something that we are actually going to accede to. I think this 
is a terrible tragedy for those who will say to the President, 
yes, do whatever you want, commit us to war whenever you like, 
and we are not going to have Congress vote on it.
    So this is an important vote, and to put it on this bill 
because we want this bill to pass. People do not want it on the 
bill because they want the bill to pass. Why do we not pass it 
with something good that would actually restrict the 
President's power? So I am 110 percent in favor of this and 
compliment to the senator for putting it forward.
    The Chairman.  Thank you. Senator Rubio?
    Senator Rubio.  Yeah, I think it is fair to say that this 
amendment may have been offered anyway a month ago if this bill 
was here, but it certainly is timely given the events 
surrounding Iran in the last couple weeks. The first thing I 
would say if this is geared towards that, I think the 
administration has been clear that what has led to what we saw 
beginning on the 3rd of May with the deployment of assets to 
the region were entirely driven by a consistent stream of 
information that indicated the potential, the high potential, 
for imminent attacks against U.S. personnel in the region. And 
I ask you to think about the reverse, if they had not done that 
repositioning and, God forbid, an attack had occurred, the 
first thing everyone would be asking is why did we not have 
enough people there to defend not just military personnel, but 
civilians in the region. So I think if it had one-tenth of 
chance of being true, they had to do what they are doing.
    If you look at the language of this, it actually reflects 
what we have heard repeatedly from the President and others 
that we are not going to start a conflict, but we most 
certainly would respond to an imminent threat, as it says in 
subparagraph 1 under the exceptions, that it would seek 
hostilities by the U.S. in order to repel a sudden attack or to 
rescue and remove U.S. citizens and personnel.
    The problem with this is not the technical aspects of it 
because if, in fact, there was being contemplated some sort of 
proactive offensive operation, then I think that is most 
certainly a debate given the history in the region that we 
would want to have. But this is a very delicate situation. It 
is--it is ripe for miscalculation in ways that I am not sure 
everybody has fully grasped.
    There is a string of thought, which I think is credible, 
that the Iranians are under a tremendous amount of pressure. 
They need to reset the calculus before they can get to any sort 
of negotiation. And there are some that believe that they could 
get away with a limited conflict with the United States, that 
if they survive without being attacked they could use that as a 
victory. And because they are using surrogates and proxies, 
they would be able to gather international sympathies, and 
potentially even domestic. And they are counting on these sorts 
of divisions as well.
    So I am truly concerned that someone making a decision 
somewhere else in the world is only going to read the first 
part of this and not the second, and if even they did, not 
understand it, and somehow conclude that we in the Congress of 
the United States, we have ordered the President to not respond 
to any attack, even though that is not what the language says. 
We do not control how it is reported or perceived.
    And I would just caution at this very delicate moment about 
introducing any sort of potential for that sort of 
miscalculation that could lead to armed conflict.
    The Chairman.  Senator Rubio, I could not concur with you 
more on the miscalculation thing. This meeting would be 
entirely different today if on Sunday night the Iranians had 
hit our embassy with a rocket that they launched towards it in 
Baghdad. We would be having a very different conversation here. 
And this is--as we heard in other settings, that miscalculation 
is a real danger here, and I think the administration has been 
doing the right thing. But in any event, Senator Cruz.
    Senator Cruz.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me say I 
recognize the good faith and intentions of Senator Udall and 
Senator Paul on this, and I am sympathetic to and in agreement 
with Congress reasserting its authority to declare war. I think 
there is a critical responsibility under the Constitution that 
has been given to Congress that Congress has been too ready and 
willing to give away.
    That being said, the Constitution also gives the President 
as commander-in-chief inherent authority over the military, 
and, in particular, to defend the men and women of the 
military. And as it comes to Iran, we are seeing escalating 
threats, threats both in the intel stream and threats being 
acted upon. And I believe the commander-in-chief not only has 
the authority, but has a responsibility to defend the men and 
women and the servicemen and women who are--who are deployed 
against an attack and to potentially respond.
    And so, yes, authorization by Congress is needed for 
extended military conflict, and should we find ourselves in a 
circumstance where extended military conflict is called for, 
then I believe this debate would be in order. But I am going to 
vote no on this--on this resolution today or this amendment 
today because I do not think we can take away the commander-in-
chief's authority to defend our servicemen and women. And I 
agree with Senator Graham that it sends a terrible message to 
the Ayatollah that if he attacks servicemen and women in 
theater, that the President's hands are tied to do anything 
about it. I think that message invites aggressions that nobody 
on this committee wants to see.
    Senator Murphy.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Further debate?
    Senator Murphy.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Yeah, Senator Murphy?
    Senator Murphy.  Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let us 
be clear about what this amendment says and what it does not 
say. I do not think it is helpful to mischaracterize what this 
amendment allows for. This amendment explicitly in a very short 
2 to 3 pages does not tie the President's hands to protect 
troops against imminent attack. It does not stop him from 
launching a strike in retaliation when an attack has happened. 
It does not take away his Article II powers that are inherent 
under the Constitution. It does not stop him from repositioning 
assets in the region.
    In fact, all it does, in my mind, is restate what the law 
of the land is today and what the Constitution says, which is 
that you cannot take preemptive military action without 
authorization from this Congress. And the reason we think this 
is important is because time and time again this administration 
has not committed to us that they would come to this body for 
authorization, and we do worry that there are existing 
authorizations of military force that they might try to use as 
cover for either a preemptive strike or an extended military 
action.
    And let us also be clear what the Constitution sets as 
Congress' prerogative. It actually--contrary to what Senator 
Cruz said, I do not think it actually does allow for the 
President to take a short duration military action without the 
authorization of Congress. Yes, he likely has under Article II 
the ability to immediately respond to an attack or defend 
troops, but if you are not responding or trying to prevent an 
attack against the United States troops, then you do not even 
have the authorization under the Constitution to engage in a 
short-term military endeavor without the authorization of this 
Congress.
    And so I do not think this is weakness at all. I think this 
is showing strength. I think this is saying to the American 
people that if we are going to enter into war with another 
country, we want to do it together. It was not a sign of 
weakness when after Pearl Harbor the United States Congress 
authorized us to defend our interests. This is a way to make 
sure the country stays together in the event that we have to do 
something beyond preventing an attack or immediately responding 
to an attack.
    And so I, frankly, think that this--I wish this was more of 
a no-brainer to just stand up for what I think is our existing 
constitutional prerogative, and I will gladly support the 
amendment.
    The Chairman.  Thank you, Senator Murphy. Senator Johnson?
    Senator Johnson.  What this amendment does is it creates 
confusion because on its face it says ``no military 
operations,'' and then you have to go ``except.'' And so if you 
create confusion in the mind of your enemy, you do create the 
potential for miscalculation. So, again, the debate in terms of 
the War Powers Act and the President's power versus 
congressional power will continue. This thing creates confusion 
and could result in miscalculation. What we want is to make 
sure there is no miscalculation, that Iran recognizes 100 
percent that if they attack us, they will be attacked far worse 
than whatever they did to us. And I think that is exactly what 
we want Iran to think. And I do not want to create any 
confusion whatsoever, which is why I will be voting no.
    The Chairman.  Senator Cardin?
    Senator Cardin.  I am conflicted because I think the 
underlying bill is very important, and I would like to get the 
bill to the finish line. But I think Senator Murphy is 
absolutely right. Do not mischaracterize the amendment. The 
amendment is very consistent with the War Powers Act. It is the 
same language that is used there, and it is very clear about 
preserving the President's Article II powers and the power of 
the Congress.
    I have seen administrations contemplate the use of force, 
and in every case there has been strong consultation with 
Congress since I have been in the Congress of the United 
States. We have had meaningful discussions with the decision 
makers in the executive branch of government in consultation 
with Congress. We have had authorizations that have been sent 
to Congress that we did not approve, that the administration 
sought congressional approval. We have authorizations that were 
approved by Congress.
    This administration is different. It is not consulting with 
us. The first opportunity we heard about Iran was this week in 
a closed session. There was no effort to keep even the 
leadership of this committee advised was what was going on in 
Iran. That is just wrong.
    VOICE. I agree with that.
    Senator Cardin.  So I just think it is important that we 
express ourselves. I am going to support the Udall amendment.
    Senator Paul.  Mr. Chairman, just a very brief comment. 
Many people still regret their vote on the Iraq War 12, 15 
years later.
    Senator Menendez.  I do not.
    Senator Paul.  This could possibly be the only vote you 
cast on the Iran war if an Iran war develops. And so the thing 
is is you will cast your vote and it may well be remembered as 
the vote on the Iran war, mainly because the administration 
will come back, and they have indicated they will never declare 
that they will not try to use the 2001 AUMF declaring that the 
Revolutionary Guard, all of them as terrorism, the attempt to 
tie Iran to al-Qaeda.
    All of this is an attempt to justify anything that is done 
under the 2001 AUMF, so this could be the only vote you ever 
take on the Iran war, even if it developed into a huge 
conflagration.
    Senator Merkley.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Yeah, Senator Merkley?
    Senator Merkley.  There is a lot of confusion, and it is 
confusion that stems from the lack of consultation by the 
administration with this committee, and also their responses to 
our questions in which they refused to clarify whether they 
feel they have the power beyond the War Powers Act to conduct a 
war in violation of what I believe the Constitution says, which 
was a very deliberate, clear, strong, investment in the 
Congress of the United States the power to--the Congress of the 
United States to declare war.
    There has been a lot of fuzziness about this with our 
troops all over many places doing different types of missions. 
Right now we are in a situation of high tension with Iran where 
there is a huge opportunity for mistakes for lack of 
clarification. So we need to clarify that we stand with the 
Constitution of the United States, and we stand with the War 
Powers Act as previously passed, as restated here. This gives 
clarity to the administration that we believe they cannot 
conduct a major war without coming to Congress outside of the 
War Powers Act for authorization. It is the right thing for us 
to do, and I would like to be added as a co-sponsor to the 
amendment.
    Senator Udall.  I would move to add him as a co-sponsor.
    The Chairman.  Without objection, he will be added. Senator 
Romney is next.
    Senator Romney.  I agree with so many comments here, I 
cannot list how many that I fully agree with. I do, however, go 
back to--all the way back to law school and remember discussing 
the war powers of the President and what a murky issue it was 
even then. It continues to be an extraordinarily complex and 
murky issue. Every president I have seen has tried to expand 
their power, and Congress has time and again tried to restrict 
the President's power. I would be almost certain that if this 
reached the President's desk and he believed it was restricting 
his power, he would veto it. And so the likelihood of this act 
actually becoming law is greatly diminished, if not taken to 
zero in part because presidents very jealously guard their 
power.
    This issue, I hope, would be at some point taken up in a 
very comprehensive, fulsome way as opposed to just being an 
amendment tacked on to something else we want to have done. And 
we would not, if you will, put a poison pill on this piece of 
legislation such that it is not going to get --not going to get 
signed by the President.
    The Chairman.  Senator Romney, those are wise remarks. This 
is a poison pill. It will never make it to the President's desk 
if we put on there. But, look, this is--you know, in the decade 
plus I have been here, I cannot tell you how many of these 
conversations I have sat through arguing what is the 
President's power. There are 100 lawyers on each side, and they 
make really good arguments and it never gets resolved. It has 
been going on for a long, long time. And this is not the 
vehicle to do it. We need to get this bill to the President's 
desk. Senator Graham?
    Senator Graham.  Let us have a hearing about what the law 
actually is. I do not know how many military engagements we 
have been involved in as Americans. I do know how many times we 
have declared war. Very few. So those who believe that the 
commander-in-chief cannot enter into a military conflict 
without congressional authorization, I think that is just not 
the history of the country.
    The War Powers Act came about in the Vietnam War. I think 
it is a true intrusion into the power of the commander-in-chief 
to defend the country. The power we have is the power of the 
purse. If we do not like what we are doing in Iraq, cut off 
money. I think our troops are in Iraq legally, and if you 
disagree with me, now is your time to speak. I think our troops 
are there consistent with protecting the Nation, consistent 
with the authorization to use military force. Any time you 
deploy people forward, you owe it to them to let every enemy 
know that if you attack them, we are you going to attack you. 
That is the inherent right to defend themselves.
    So I agree with Senator Romney. Let us send a signal to 
Assad that we all agree with, and I think we all agree that 
this bill is a really good signal to send to Assad. Have a 
discussion among ourselves because I do not agree with anything 
most of you have said about the way the law actually works. But 
that is not the point. The point is can we send a signal to 
Assad without sending a mixed signal to Iran at a time when 
things are really beginning to heat up or cool down, depending 
on what we do. I prefer they cool down. I think this will do a 
lot.
    Senator Young.  So, Mr. Chairman, I think what I just heard 
was a really constructive recommendation, and I do not want to 
mischaracterize it. But I do think that we need to get more 
clarity about the existing authorities to use military force 
that are on the books. We still--I entered the United States 
Navy in 1991. We still have on the books from the first Gulf 
War an authorization for the use of military force.
    We need to lay all these things out to determine exactly 
the scope, the parameters of these various AUMFs. I will be 
supporting this unless I hear a public commitment to have that 
sort of hearing moving forward. I think it is so important that 
we discuss our war-making powers as a committee. I do fear that 
this will be a poison pill. I fear that it could send a mixed 
message, but I also fear that this will be the last time this 
committee discusses this if we do not bring this to a head, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Senator Booker.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  First of all, in response, if the committee 
wants to have that hearing, we will certainly have that 
hearing. The first thing we ought to do is have all the 
transcripts typed up from the other hearings and debates that 
we have had because, I am telling you, there are thousands of 
pages out there. And I am not--I am not denigrating what you 
are saying.
    Senator Young.  I was not here.
    The Chairman.  Yeah, I am not denigrating what you are 
saying, but we can--we can do that. We can certainly do that. 
Senator Booker.
    Senator Young.  Okay, great. Thank you.
    Senator Booker.  I just want to be added as a co-sponsor.
    The Chairman.  You have been added as a co-sponsor.
    Senator Young.  So I will opposing because the chairman 
indicated he will be doing that.
    The Chairman.  We will do.
    Senator Rubio.  I would just say a couple things. I think a 
president who, frankly, does not even want a couple thousand 
people in Syria to believe that administration clearly wants to 
even be there is all of a sudden comparing some massive long-
term military engagement of choice. But that said, let me make 
a couple of points. This would not stop anything either. To be 
frank, if, in fact, we ever have a chief executive who wants a 
war badly--if a President comes to us and says there was an 
imminent threat, I had to attack, by the time--I do not know 
where you are going to appeal that decision or that--but you 
know where that is going to go. You are not going to win that 
argument.
    But here is the second point that I would make. I know what 
this provision says. We read what it says. I understand it. 
That is not--my biggest concern is not what it says, it is how 
this is going to be reported and ultimately perceived. This is 
not going to be reported as they told the President he could 
not start a war, but of course he can respond. It is going to 
be perceived as the Senate adopted it and telling Trump do not 
use military force, and it is not going to include the other 
stuff.
    And I am not comfortable. I do not want to run the risk 
that that will be misinterpreted in Tehran and that they will 
somehow do something based on a misreading of the legal 
constructs of this. I do not think the Ayatollah speaks 
English, much less understands what this is. And I do not trust 
that it is going to be reported in the way that the law 
actually works. And I am really concerned that a 
mischaracterization or misunderstanding of what we are voting 
on here today can trigger them to take an action that could 
lead to the very thing that it sounds to me like everyone here 
is saying they want to avoid.
    The Chairman.  Thank you. Senator Udall, did you wish to 
make a motion to adopt the--your first--your amendment, Udall 
1?
    Senator Udall.  Motion to--yes.
    The Chairman.  Would you--okay. The motion has been made to 
adopt Udall 1, which is an amendment to the Syria Caesar Bill 
regarding spending funds in Iran. And is there a second to 
that?
    Senator Merkley has seconded that. The clerk will call the 
roll.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Rubio.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Johnson.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Gardner?
    The Chairman.  No by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Romney?
    Senator Romney.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Graham?
    Senator Graham.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Isakson?
    The Chairman.  No by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Barrasso?
    The Chairman.  No by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Portman?
    The Chairman.  No by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul.  Yes.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Young?
    Senator Young.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Cruz?
    Senator Cruz.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Menendez?
    Senator Menendez.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin.  Yes.
    The Clerk.  Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Menendez.  Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Udall?
    Senator Udall.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Menendez.  Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Markey?
    Senator 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 yeas are 9; the noes are 13.
    The Chairman.  The amendment has failed. Are there further 
amendments to the Caesar bill?
    Senator Paul.  Yes.
    The Chairman.  Senator Paul?
    Senator Paul.  All right. What I am going to put forward, 
and I think it is similar debate, and then I will not ask for a 
vote because I think it will be similar to what we just did, 
but it brings up a similar point. And this is Amendment Number 
7 that basically reads that ``Congress finds that there is not 
specific authorization by Congress for the occupation by the 
United States of territory in Syria or for the use of force by 
the United States against Syria.''
    And it is sort of the same debate. It was brought up by a 
senator earlier that no one has been opposing things and 
saying, you know, authorization--you know, different 
authorizations for U.S. forces in Syria. Yeah, some of us have. 
Some of us have said consistently that 2001 has nothing to do 
with Syria or Libya or Iraq today or Afghanistan today, 
frankly, and there are those of us who are making that argument 
strongly. I still make that argument strongly even in Syria. If 
you wanted to go battle ISIS, we should have voted on it.
    And there are many people who actually believe that we are 
stronger as a Nation when we actually are unified and when we 
actually do vote on going to war instead of just being always 
at war everywhere all the time, and we actually think it 
through, devote our resources, consider that our young men and 
women's lives are actually worth enough for us to vote on going 
on war. We just go to war everywhere all the time based on 
2001. It is complete and utter nonsense, and we allow it to 
happen only because we acquiesce to the executive.
    But I will withdraw that amendment. Simply I wanted to make 
a statement on it. I think it will have the same results we on 
the other one. I will let somebody go or I had another 
amendment.
    The Chairman.  You are withdrawing 7.
    Senator Paul.  Number 7, yes.
    The Chairman.  Anybody else have an amendment to the bill?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  There being none.
    Senator Paul.  I have another amendment then.
    The Chairman.  Senator Paul, you have another one?
    Senator Paul.  I have Amendments 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, and to 
save time I would ask unanimous consent that they can be 
combined into one. And we have some minor edits that we gave to 
the chair that just was a reference to law of war manual, and 
we had the wrong page numbers. And that is the only--there is 
no substantive difference if we put them all together, and they 
do not----
    The Chairman.  If there is no objection, we will take them 
all together.
    Senator Paul.  Okay. Basically, as we look at the Caesar 
bill, there is a--you know, a couple of questions about the 
bill overall. And the question is--I think there is a big 
question, and even Senator Corker said this at one of our 
hearings last year, do sanctions work. I know it sounds like a 
silly question because we all assume they do, but he asked if 
they work and he asked if they were working to some of our 
State Department folks that came in. And the answer by Senator 
Corker and by the State Department was framed that they have 
not been working.
    And so when we look in the history--the history of the last 
several decades, there is arguably only one time that I think 
sanctions might have worked, and some people argue to the 
contrary there. But I would be willing to accept that when the 
whole world is sort of united against Iran, that Iran is coming 
to the table, that the Iran agreement probably was aided by 
sanctions.
    There is something to be said, though, for the opposite, 
and I would make the argument that tearing up the Iran 
agreement did not make it more likely for them to--you know, 
you tear up a nuclear agreement and now we are going to say, 
yeah, but now we want you to agree to a nuclear agreement and a 
ballistic missile agreement, and we are not going to do 
anything to Saudi Arabia in the process. I think it is not a 
fool's errand. It is just naivete at its utmost to believe we 
are going to present 12 things to Iran and tomorrow they are 
going to bend a knee and all of a sudden sign this.
    I think as we have ratcheted down sanctions, I think a lot 
of us are hearing as we go to these briefings that there may be 
more involvement, or they are more likely to accept a small war 
at this point rather than being willing to come to a 
negotiating table. We made the negotiating table--I think as 
Senator Murphy mentioned the other day, you know, we have made 
the negotiating table so distant and so full of conditions that 
they are not even going to bother coming to it. And so what do 
they have to do? Nations have to save face and leaders have to 
save face, so what are they thinking about? They are thinking 
about, well, maybe we have a skirmish to show our people that 
we will stand up to the U.S. So I think it is having the 
opposite effect.
    I think a big part of our sanctions squeezing is that it is 
having a dramatic effect right now, and having the opposite 
effect of we want is actually ratcheting down their export of 
oil. We have these exemptions. So we had sanctions, and we are 
covering them in sanctions, but we allowed, I guess, South 
Korea, China, India, and a few other countries to get some 
exports from Iran. As we have ratcheted that down, I think Iran 
is going to be bonding more and more, and we are going to see 
more belligerence, not less, and so that is the question. Do 
sanctions work?
    I think this is a good question with regard to Syria. No 
matter the heartache of what has happened, no matter the 
heartache of the hundreds of thousands of people who fled, the 
tens of thousands who have died in this war, the war is largely 
over. Sanctions are not going to reverse the result. Assad won.
    The other thing that we have to, I think, understand, if 
are going to put sanctions on the Assad people and the Iranians 
and the Russians, great. I think horrific war crimes happened 
on that side, and I am more than willing to acknowledge it. If 
you think sanctions will work, that is great. But when you 
ignore the other side, when you ignore al-Nusra, al-Qaeda--I 
will give you a list of the names that we are basically 
ignoring--it seems as if we are sending the wrong message, that 
atrocities are--we are against war crimes on one side, but not 
on the other.
    So basically these five amendments that we have put 
together speak to what the U.S. Department of Defense has 
written, something called the Law of War Manual. The rules 
contained within this manual are based on long-established 
international human rights laws and norms which have sought to 
maintain a level of dignity, human dignity in war, and prevent 
unnecessary suffering. It is not only the standard our troops 
are expected to maintain and adhere to while engaged in combat, 
but these also form the core of how the international community 
determines what is and whether or not there is a war crime.
    So if we are serious about punishing people who have 
committed war crimes, why do we not we put something from our 
Law of War Manual in there that does not indicate who the party 
is, and we actually have a vote and say if you have committed a 
war crime, according to our Law of War Manual that is produced 
by the Department of Defense, that you would actually sanction 
those people? We don't even--we do not name them, but I will 
give you a couple of examples in a minute.
    So my amendments would sanction those who violate the laws 
of war. These sections have been specifically picked out 
because they pertain to the conduct of belligerents towards 
civilians, much in line with the sanctions of the rest of this 
bill. The bill as it stands, however, only sanctions bad actors 
on one side. My intent is not to single out specific 
individuals, groups, or nations, but to rather hold all parties 
in this conflict who have wantonly maimed and killed civilians 
to account. I'll give you a couple of examples from our side, 
from the rebel side, the anti-government side.
    The Moderate Free Syrian Army, the Sultan Murad Division, 
engaged in the indiscriminate shelling of the town of Sheikh 
Maqsood. Between February and April of 2016, this shelling was 
reported to have killed at least 83 civilians, including 30 
children, and injured more than 700 civilians. These are the 
so-called Syrian moderates that we were supporting. In June of 
2018, the United Nations accused anti-government forces of 
committing crimes during the siege of Ghouta. Caliphas militant 
groups--once again, believe it or not, our allies, such as 
Jaysh al-Islam, Ahrar al Sham, and Hayat Tahrir al Sham, were 
implicated in the indiscriminate shelling of Damascus from 
Ghouta to simply spread terror. It should be noted at these 
times, the groups have featured strong ties with al-Qaeda that 
are--actually include leadership roles for members of al-Qaeda.
    Today's groups are the most dominant faction in the Idlib 
Province, and these--this group has become the final iteration 
of al-Qaeda in Syria. I would think if we were going to have 
sanctions on Assad's barrel bombing, let us have sanctions on 
al-Nusra as well. Are we not supposedly fighting against al-
Nusra? Is that not supposedly who attacked us or some sort of 
morphing of al-Qaeda from 2001?
    In October 2015, the Syrian Democratic Forces were 
reportedly deliberating razing villages and forcing the 
displacement of inhabitants under the threat of violence. 
Researchers visited 14 towns and villages in Al-Hasakah and Al-
Raqqah in July and August 2015 to investigate the forced 
displacement of residents and demolition of homes.
    The Chairman.  Senator Paul, can we put in that record? You 
are reading. Can we put that in the record because we are going 
to lose members here. I know this is important----
    Senator Paul.  We do not have that much more, but I think 
that if we are going to have a bill that you guys have tried 
forever, you want to put sanctions on people, we need to 
understand who we are not going to put sanctions on, you are 
going to vote against this amendment. I just have a few more to 
recite.
    In 2012, a video showed members of the Free Syrian Army 
forcing a 12-year-old child being forced to decapitate a Syrian 
army officer. Two more examples of rebels on our side 
committing atrocities. On 30 June 2015, Jaysh al-Islam, who 
then Secretary of State John Kerry referred to as a sub-group 
of al-Nusra and funded also by our ostensible allies in the 
Gulf, published on its website a 20-minute video that showed 
fighters executing 18 alleged rival militants by shotgun. The 
last example. In November 2015, Jaysh al-Islam, militants again 
posted videos, this time of captives being locked in cages, and 
then some 100 of these cages being spread out through eastern 
Ghouta as human shields against the Syrian Government air 
raids.
    So I think there have--you know, in any war there are 
atrocities on both sides. We have picked a side in this war, 
but we have also allied with some very unsavory characters. 
Most of the groups that I have named do not believe in Israel's 
right to exist. Many of them have publicly stated that. One of 
the groups has said--that we gave anti-tank weapons to said 
that when they were done attacking ISIS or done attacking the 
Government, that they would be headed for Golan Heights next to 
attack Israel.
    These are people who believe in a radical form of Islam. 
These are people that Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE are 
ostensible allies and indiscriminately armed in this thing, and 
I think from the very beginning, this thing has been a huge 
disaster. And had we not been involved in this, had we sort of 
decided that we were not going to tip the balance in favor of 
the rebels, it would have been sad. It is sad today, but it is 
even sadder because hundreds of thousands of people were 
displaced. It hardly even lasted a week.
    The Chairman.  Senator Paul, the chair will accept a motion 
to adopt Paul Amendments 2 through 6.
    Senator Paul.  All right. I make that motion.
    The Chairman.  Is there a second to that motion?
    The motion has been made and seconded.
    Senator Menendez.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Senator?
    Senator Menendez.  I am not going to take as long as 
Senator Paul, and I appreciate knowing that we can have a 
limited discussion. So we have a handful of peaceful diplomacy 
tools. The use of our aid and trade to induce a country to act 
according to a certain, international opinion, to the extent 
that a country or a ruler is susceptible to international 
opinion. Most of them are not. They are tyrants, and the denial 
of aid or trade or access to our financial systems, which is 
our sanctions, that is our universe of peaceful diplomacy 
tools.
    And so either we accept rogue regimes like Assad and say we 
can do nothing about it, or we find the use of a peaceful 
diplomacy tool, particularly for crimes against humanity, which 
is what this is all about, so barrel bombing and a whole host 
of other things, including chemical weapons. So I think it is 
rather clear cut, and I urge opposition to the Paul amendments.
    The Chairman.  Further debate?
    Senator Paul.  Mr. Chairman, I will make one very brief 
point.
    The Chairman.  Yeah, very brief, Senator Paul. We have 
been--the chair has----
    Senator Paul.  The brief--the brief point is this, that 
nobody is asking you not to sanction those on the Assad side. I 
am simply saying that we should sanction anyone who has 
committed war crimes by our own definition of the Department of 
Defense. What I have added to this bill would not detract in 
any way. It simply adds more sanctions. You think sanctions are 
effective? Let us go ahead and sanction the people who have 
committed atrocities on our side as well.
    The Chairman.  The motion has been made and seconded to 
adopt Paul 2 through 6 amendments. The clerk will call the 
roll.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Rubio.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Johnson.  Yes.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Gardner?
    The Chairman.  No by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Romney?
    Senator Romney.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Graham?
    Senator Graham.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Isakson?
    The Chairman.  No by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Barrasso?
    The Chairman.  No by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Portman?
    The Chairman.  No by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul.  Yes.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Young?
    The Chairman.  No by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Cruz?
    Senator Cruz.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Menendez?
    Senator Menendez.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Menendez.  No by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Udall?
    Senator Udall.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Menendez.  No by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Markey?
    Senator Menendez.  No by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Booker?
    Senator Menendez.  There is no proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  No. The clerk will report.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 5; the noes are 16.
    The Chairman.  The motion has failed. Are there any other 
motions to the Caesar bill? Any other motion to adopt 
amendments to the Caesar bill?
    Senator Cruz.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Senator Cruz?
    Senator Cruz.  Mr. Chairman, I had an amendment that I had 
filed on this that directed the administration to make a 
determination whether the Central Bank of Iran qualifies for 
sanctions under the terms of the Caesar bill. The amendment was 
designed not to be a new sanction, but rather an application of 
the express terms of the bill. I also believe the amendment is 
good policy. The Central Bank of Iran is at the center of 
Iran's global finance network and is critical to Iran's efforts 
in Syria. I also think adopting this as a matter of statute is 
an important element in a layered and redundant sanction 
regime. There are already provisions of executive orders doing 
this, but I think a layered sanctions regime is the most 
effective and the most appropriate for Iran and for the Central 
Bank of Iran.
    The chairman asked that I hold back on this out of concerns 
that this amendment would jeopardize passage of the Caesar Act 
all together, but the chairman also indicated to me that he 
supported the underlying policy and would support moving it 
forward on another vehicle. And so with that understanding, I 
am willing to withdraw the amendment at this time and look 
forward to moving it forward on another vehicle.
    The Chairman.  Thank you, Senator Cruz. Your understanding 
is absolutely correct and I appreciate that, and I appreciate 
you working on this. Further amendments to the Caesar bill?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  It has been moved.
    Second. The question is on the bill. The clerk will call 
the roll.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Rubio.  Yes.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Johnson.  Yes.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Gardner?
    The Chairman.  Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Romney?
    Senator Romney.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Graham?
    Senator Graham.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Isakson?
    The Chairman.  Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Barrasso?
    The Chairman.  Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Portman?
    The Chairman.  Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Young?
    The Chairman.  Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Cruz?
    Senator Cruz.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Menendez?
    Senator Menendez.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Menendez.  No by proxy. Correction for the record. 
Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Udall?
    Senator Udall.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Menendez.  Aye by proxy.
    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 Menendez.  Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Aye. The clerk will report.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 20; the noes are 2.
    The Chairman.  H.R. 31 has passed the committee. Now we 
will have consideration of Senate 1025, the Venezuela matter. 
And I am glad we were able to negotiate a manager's amendment, 
which incorporates elements of the first-degree amendments 
filed by Senators Cardin, Cruz, Kaine, Murphy, and Paul. I will 
be supporting the manager's amendment.
    Is there a motion to approve the manager's amendment?
    Moved and seconded. Senator Menendez?
    Senator Menendez.  Mr. Chairman, I have already made my 
comments. I only want to welcome Venezuela's interim 
president's ambassador, Juan Guaido's ambassador, Carlos 
Vecchio, who has been with us and has supported the 
legislation.
    The Chairman.  Thank you so much. We all join in welcoming 
Carlos. Is there further discussion of the bill?
    Senator Paul.  One quick comment, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman.  We need to vote on the manager's amendment 
first.
    Senator Paul.  Okay.
    The Chairman.  There has been a motion--there has been a 
motion and second on the manager's amendment before we get to 
final passage.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye?
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed, nay?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The manager's amendment has been adopted.
    Is there further discussion on the bill?
    Senator Paul.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Senator Paul.
    Senator Paul.  We have had the discussion on whether or not 
we believe sanctions work, and I think there is some question 
that it does not really seem to have permeated. But there is 
some real question of whether or not sanctions work, and I 
would like to read into the record one quick passage from Doug 
Bandow at Cato, who says, ``Venezuela, however, is a tragedy, 
not a serious security risk. Sanctions are effective only in 
making the already poor worse off. Those in power do best 
avoiding the worst effects. Trying to save a nation by 
destroying its economy and society is a dubious venture 
anywhere. In Venezuela, it appears to be ineffective as well.'' 
I will oppose the bill.
    The Chairman.  Thank you, Senator. Is there further debate 
on S. 1025? Senator Merkley?
    Senator Merkley.  Mr. Chairman, I offer Merkley Amendment 
Number 1. This is parallel, in a way, to the conversation we 
had on Senator Udall's amendment. However, my amendment 
pertains to Venezuela, so it is the topic of this particular 
bill. It makes very clear that the President has power to act 
under the War Powers Act, but it says that if President acts 
beyond that, he needs to come for congressional authorization. 
And that is very consistent with our vision of the 
Constitution. It is what the Constitution says.
    And so there have been some questions asked of me. I will 
try to quickly answer them. Maybe it will shorten the debate. 
The one question is why now. Well, because we are in a very 
tense setting with Venezuela where a series of plans are being 
considered by the administration. And this will send a clear 
message that if you are going to go to war there, you need to 
come to Congress. Is the right moment now? And the second 
question was, does this compromise of the War Powers Act? It 
does not. We explicitly say so.
    The underlying bill says that nothing in the underlying 
bill authorizes action. My amendment is different. It says not 
only does the underlying bill not authorize action, but no 
previous authorizations of action anywhere around the world 
authorize action in Venezuela. So it says to the administration 
do not cite to us 2001 or 2002 or some previous edition that 
has never been reversed from 30 years ago. If you want to go to 
war in Venezuela, come to Congress and make the case.
    The Chairman.  Further debate on Merkley 1?
    Senator Paul.  Mr. Chairman----
    The Chairman.  Senator Menendez.
    Senator Menendez.  Very briefly because I do not want us to 
lose our quorum. I am deeply concerned, as the Senate knows. I 
have made it very clear that while I am doing everything I can 
to strongly support robust efforts to help the Venezuelan 
people, I do not believe in a military option. We have included 
a binding statement of U.S. policy in support of a peaceful and 
negotiated solution to the Venezuelan crisis in this 
legislation. We include support for a diplomatic solution 
across the bill.
    In the manager's amendment that we just adopted, we once 
again, in the spirit of Senator Merkley's effort, state 
``Nothing in this bill shall be construed as an authorization 
for the use of military force.'' I think these measures make 
Congress' intent clear, and that we strike a need for Congress 
to express itself, but also to pass the bill into law. So in 
that context, I will be voting against it.
    The Chairman.  I want to associate myself with those 
remarks and underscore the fact that the language regarding no 
authorization is included here is acceptable to the White 
House, although they did not like it, but they were willing to 
accept that this can become law. With that, I will be opposing 
the amendment. Senator Paul?
    Senator Paul.  I would just like to ask unanimous consent 
to be listed as a co-sponsor.
    The Chairman.  You will be. Is there further--is there 
further debate on Merkley 1? Have you made a motion to adopt 
Merkley 1?
    Senator Cruz.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Senator Cruz? Just a second. Let me get a 
second. Is there a second to Merkley?
    It has been moved and seconded. Senator Cruz.
    Senator Cruz.  Mr. Chairman, I am sympathetic to what 
Senator Merkley is trying to do here, and I certainly do not 
support armed conflict in Venezuela. I think we should use both 
carrots and sticks to push for the Maduro regime, that it is 
illegitimate, to leave power, but I think affirmative use of 
military force would be a mistake. This language, however, does 
not include any qualifiers concerning the defense of U.S. 
lives.
    So if Maduro were, for example, to directly threaten the 
lives or safety of U.S. citizens, my views on military force 
would change. I think we should be completely prepared, and 
Maduro should understand, if he threatens the lives of U.S. 
citizens, military retaliation would be on the table.
    Senator Merkley.  Mr. Chairman, just a point of 
clarification. That is in the War Powers Act, and that is why I 
explicitly restated it here in the--in the amendment itself to 
your point.
    Senator Cruz.  I guess for me to support it, it would need 
to be clearer, but I am sympathetic to what you are trying to 
accomplish.
    The Chairman.  Further debate on Merkley 1?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  There being none----
    Senator Menendez.  I move--you have a motion.
    The Chairman.  Will you accept a voice vote on this?
    Senator Merkley.  I would prefer to have a recorded vote.
    The Chairman.  Okay. Recorded vote. The clerk will call the 
roll.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Rubio.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Johnson.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Gardner?
    The Chairman.  No by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Romney?
    Senator Romney.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Graham?
    Senator Graham.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Isakson?
    The Chairman.  No by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Barrasso?
    The Chairman.  No by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Portman?
    The Chairman.  No by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Young?
    Senator Young.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Cruz?
    Senator Cruz.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Menendez?
    Senator Menendez.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin.  Yes.
    The Clerk.  Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Menendez.  Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons.  Yes.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Udall?
    Senator Udall.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Menendez.  Aye by proxy.
    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 Menendez.  Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  No. The clerk will report.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 10; the noes are 12.
    The Chairman.  The amendment has failed.
    Are there further proposed amendments to the Venezuela 
bill?
    Senator Young.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Senator Young?
    Senator Young.  Could I make a motion to be recorded as 
present and voting affirmatively for the Caesar bill? I walked 
in towards the tail end of the vote. So it would not change my 
vote.
    The Chairman.  How do--how do we have you voting?
    Senator Young.  As a proxy.
    The Chairman.  Oh, you want to be recorded as voting live?
    Senator Young.  Yes.
    The Chairman.  I heard him ``yes.''
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman.  All right. Is there further debate on the 
Venezuela bill?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  There being none, is there a motion to adopt 
Senate Bill 1025?
    There has been a motion made and second that S. 1025 be 
adopted.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye?
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed, nay?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it. S. 1025 has been adopted 
by the committee.
    I have received a request from Senator Isakson to be added 
as a co-sponsor to Senate Bill 1340, as amended. Without 
objection, he will be so added.
    That concludes 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, thank you, everyone. The 
committee is adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 3:12 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]


                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                         TUESDAY, JUNE 25, 2019

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

                Summary of Action Taken by the Committee

                              LEGISLATION

  S. 727, Global Fragility Act of 2019, with an amendment, agreed to by 
        roll call vote (18-4), Shaheen added as cosponsor

          Ayes: Risch, Rubio (proxy), Gardner (proxy), Romney, Graham, 
        Isakson (proxy), Portman (proxy), Young, Menendez, Cardin, 
        Shaheen, Coons, Udall, Murphy (proxy), Kaine, Markey, Merkley, 
        and Booker (proxy)

          Nays: Johnson (proxy), Barrasso (proxy), Paul, and Cruz

     S. 727 Managers Amendment, agreed to by voice vote

  S. 1102, Eastern Mediterranean Security and Energy Partnership Act of 
        2019, with an amendment, agreed to by voice vote (Merkley and 
        Markey recorded as no), Cruz added as a cosponsor

     S. 1102 Substitute Amendment, agreed to by voice vote (Merkley 
        and Markey recorded as no)

  S. 1309, Combating Global Corruption Act of 2019, with an amendment, 
        agreed to by voice vote

     S. 1309 Substitute Amendment, agreed to by voice vote

  S. Res. 34, A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the 
        Governments of Burma and Bangladesh ensure the safe, dignified, 
        voluntary, and sustainable return of Rohingya refugees who have 
        been displaced by the campaign of ethnic cleansing conducted by 
        the Burmese military and to immediately release unjustly 
        imprisoned journalists, Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo, with 
        amendments, agreed to by voice vote

     S. Res. 34 Title Amendment, agreed to by voice vote

     S. Res. 34 Preamble Amendment, agreed to by voice vote

     S. Res. 34 Revised Resolving Clause Amendment, agreed to by voice 
        vote

  S. Res. 198, A resolution condemning Brunei's dramatic human rights 
        backsliding, with amendments, agreed to by voice vote

     S. Res. 198 Preamble Amendment, agreed to by voice vote

     S. Res. 198 Resolving Clause Amendment, agreed to by voice vote

  S. Res. 206, A resolution marking the 70th anniversary of the four 
        Geneva Conventions of 1949, expressing concern about 
        significant violations of international humanitarian law on 
        contemporary battlefields, and encouraging United States 
        leadership in ensuring greater respect for international 
        humanitarian law in current conflicts, particularly with its 
        security partners, with amendments, agreed to by voice vote

     S. Res. 206 Revised Title Amendment, agreed to by voice vote

     S. Res. 206 Preamble Amendment, agreed to by voice vote

     S. Res. 206 Resolving Clause Amendment, agreed to by voice vote

  S. Con Res. 10, A concurrent resolution recognizing that Chinese 
        telecommunications companies such as Huawei and ZTE pose 
        serious threats to the national security of the United States 
        and its allies, with amendments, agreed to by voice vote

     S. Con. Res. 10 Preamble Amendment, agreed to by voice vote

     S. Con. Res. 10 Resolving Clause Amendment, agreed to by voice 
        vote

  S.1945, SAFE Act, agreed to by voice vote (Risch, Romney, and 
        Barrasso recorded as no) Lee and Merkley to be added as 
        cosponsors

                                TREATIES

  The Protocol Amending the Convention between the United States of 
        America and the Kingdom of Spain for the Avoidance of Double 
        Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to 
        Taxes on Income and its Protocol, signed at Madrid on February 
        22, 1990, Treaty and Resolution of Advice and Consent, agreed 
        to by voice vote

     Spain Resolution, agreed to by voice vote

       Spain Resolution--Paul Amendment, 1st Degree-1, not 
            agreed to by roll call (5-17)

          Ayes: Graham (proxy), Paul, Cruz, Menendez, Udall

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

  Protocol Amending the Convention between the United States of America 
        and the Swiss Confederation for the Avoidance of Double 
        Taxation with Respect to Taxes on Income, signed at Washington 
        on October 2, 1996, signed on September 23, 2009, at 
        Washington, as corrected by an exchange of notes effected 
        November 16, 2010 and a related agreement effected by an 
        exchange of notes on September 23, 2009, Treaty and Resolution 
        of Advice and Consent, agreed to by voice vote

     Switzerland Resolution, agreed to by voice vote

  The Protocol Amending the Convention between the Government of the 
        United States of America and the Government of Japan for the 
        Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal 
        Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income and a related agreement 
        entered into by an exchange of notes (together the ``proposed 
        Protocol''), both signed on January 24, 2013, at Washington, 
        together with correcting notes exchanged March 9 and March 29, 
        2013, Treaty and Resolution of Advice and Consent, agreed to by 
        voice vote

     Japan Resolution, agreed to by voice vote

  Protocol Amending the Convention between the Government of the United 
        States of America and the Government of the Grand Duchy of 
        Luxembourg for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the 
        Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income 
        and Capital, signed on May 20, 2009, at Luxembourg (the 
        ``proposed Protocol'') and a related agreement effected by the 
        exchange of notes also signed on May 20, 2009, Treaty and 
        Resolution of Advice and Consent agreed to by voice vote

     Luxembourg Resolution, agreed to by voice vote

                              NOMINATIONS

  Mr. Eliot Pedrosa, of Florida, to be United States Executive Director 
        of the Inter-American Development Bank for a term of three 
        years, agreed to by voice vote

                           Meeting Transcript

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:20 p.m., in 
Room S-116, The Capitol, Hon. James Risch, chairman of the 
committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Risch [presiding], Rubio, Johnson, 
Gardner, Romney, Graham, Isakson, Barrasso, Portman, Paul, 
Young, Cruz, Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Udall, Murphy, 
Kaine, Markey, and Merkley.

           OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. RISCH,
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO

    The Chairman.  The business meeting of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee will come to order.
    On the agenda today are four treaties, eight pieces of 
legislation, and one nominee. The four treaties we are 
considering are tax protocols for Spain, Switzerland, Japan, 
and Luxembourg. Tax treaties are a critical part of the U.S. 
tax landscape. They prevent double taxation for U.S. taxpayers. 
They help eliminate tax uncertainty. They are important 
instruments in fighting tax fraud. In addition, they strengthen 
the ability of U.S. businesses to explore new opportunities.
    These protocols and resolutions of advice and consent to 
ratification are not new. Each of them has already been 
approved by this committee at least once. The committee 
favorably reported the Switzerland and Luxembourg protocols in 
the 112th, 113th, and 114th Congresses. The Spain protocol was 
reported favorably in the 113th and 114th Congresses. The 
committee reported the Japan protocol favorably in the 114th.
    Questions have been raised regarding taxpayer protections. 
As this committee has previously heard from the Joint Committee 
on Taxation and from senior Treasury officials, there are 
extensive protections provided for U.S. taxpayer information 
under the longstanding practice of exchange of information with 
the treaty partner. I urge my colleagues to oppose any 
amendments that may be offered to the protocols or resolutions 
of ratification today. Any new reservation adopted today will 
kill these treaties. Such reservations would overturn decades 
of tax practice and procedures. They would call into question 
our existing 1957 tax treaties. They would require 
renegotiation with our foreign partners who have been waiting 8 
years for the Senate to act. It is time to move these treaties 
forward to the full Senate for a vote where I expect they will 
receive broad bipartisan support.
    Also on today's agenda is Senate 727, the Global Fragility 
Act. This bill requires a comprehensive strategy to address the 
drivers of conflict and extremism in fragile states, and it 
calls for the administration to identify clear goals and 
objectives under that strategy. I want to thank Senators Coons 
and Graham for working with us to negotiate a manager's 
amendment which incorporates language from the House companion 
bill and input from the administration.
    We will also consider Senate 1102, the Eastern 
Mediterranean Security and Energy Partnership Act. This bill 
lifts the longstanding and ineffective arms embargo on the 
Republic of Cyprus, authorizes international military education 
and training for Cyprus and Greece, and funds foreign military 
financing for Greece. It also prohibits the transfer of F35s to 
Turkey if it does not refuse the delivery of the S-400 air 
defense systems from Russia. I would like to thank Senator 
Menendez for working with us on this important legislation.
    Also on the agenda is S. 1309, the Combatting Global 
Corruption Act. The substitute amendment before us today 
reflects the text of Title VII of the Fiscal Year 2018 State 
Department Authorities Act that this committee reported 
favorably in September 2017. I want to thank Senator Cardin for 
introducing this bill and highlighting the problem of public 
corruption which erodes public trust, robs essential services, 
keeps citizens trapped in poverty, and contributes to economic 
and political instability.
    We will also mark up S. 1945, the SAFE Act, which would 
amend the Arms Export Control Act and narrow the emergency 
declaration authority in it. I understand the motivations, but 
I will be opposing this bill.
    And we will consider the following resolutions: S. Res. 34, 
the Resolution Expressing the Sense of the Senate that the 
Governments of Burma and Bangladesh Should Ensure the Safe and 
Dignified Return of the Rohingya Refugees; Senate Res. 198, a 
Resolution Condemning Brunei's Dramatic Human Rights 
Backsliding; Senate Res. 206, a Resolution Marking the 70th 
Anniversary of the Geneva Conventions; and Senate Concurrent 
Resolution 10, a Concurrent Resolution Recognizing that Chinese 
Telecommunication Companies, Such as Huawei and ZTE, Pose 
Serious Threats to U.S. National Security. Thank you to all the 
sponsors and co-sponsors of these important resolutions, and I 
want to thank everybody for being here--almost everybody. I 
hope you will stick with us to keep a quorum as we proceed 
forward.
    And with that, Senator Menendez?

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

    Senator Menendez.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased 
that we have a full legislative agenda before us which 
represents the hard work of many members of the committee. I am 
pleased that in connection with last week's unanimous consent 
agreement and vote on the armed sales resolution to disapprove 
where you and I were able to work out an agreement to mark up 
the SAFE Act today, which I thank you for, and a Yemen markup 
following the July 4th recess. I support passage of all the 
items on the agenda, but I will speak briefly on only a few of 
them.
    I am pleased that we are taking up S. 1102, the Eastern 
Mediterranean Security and Energy Partnership Act. I am 
thankful to Senators Rubio, Coons--bless you--and the other co-
sponsors. My recent CODEL to Nicosia and Athens reinforced for 
me the strategic importance of the Eastern Mediterranean region 
where the United States has significant national security 
interests. Our security bond with Israel is unbreakable, our 
defense relationship with Greece is perhaps the best it has 
ever been, and our security relationship with Cyprus is 
growing. With so much other uncertainty, particularly with 
respect to Turkey, now is the time to reaffirm and strengthen 
our presence and relationships, and this bill seeks to build on 
this positive momentum.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you again for working with me to bring 
forward the SAFE Act, a critical and timely piece of 
legislation. I want to thank all of the co-sponsors: Senator 
Graham, Senator Paul who also had one of the original ideas in 
this regard, Senator Merkley, Senator Leahy. I am also pleased 
that Senator Lee has also decided to join us in this effort and 
ask for unanimous consent that he be added to the bill as 
reported out by this committee.
    The Chairman.  It will be so ordered.
    Senator Menendez.  The Arms Export Control Act recognizes 
that in cases of a military action, the President may need to 
proceed faster on sales than the 15 or 30 days required for 
congressional review. Until recently, this provision has only 
been used 4 times in 40 years. On May 24th, the Secretary of 
State invoked these authorities for 22 separate sales to Saudi 
Arabia and the UAE based on a purported emergency threat from 
Iran. But there is no way these sales could be justified by a 
need to respond to an emergency threat from Iran. Rather, the 
State Department tells us they were for ``sustaining the global 
supply chain,'' for preventing ``loss of sale to peer 
competitors,'' for ``interoperability,'' and for maintaining 
U.S. ``credibility as an arms sales supplier.'' Clearly those 
are not emergencies.
    This bipartisan bill directly addresses these abuses by 
restricting these emergency authorities to only our closest 
security treaty allies and security partner countries. These 
changes do not affect the 22 sales which we dealt with by the 
resolutions of disapproval last week, but it will hopefully 
prevent us from being faced with future abuses of this nature 
regardless of whether a Republican or a Democrat is occupying 
the White House. I urge all of my colleagues to support this 
bill.
    I am pleased that we are taking up the Combatting Global 
Corruption Act, which remains a serious threat to democracy, 
stability, and security around the globe, and I want to thank 
Senator Cardin for his continuing efforts in this regard. I 
support this important legislation and encourage my colleagues 
to do the same. On the Global Fragility Act, I would like to 
commend Senators Coons, Graham, and other co-sponsors for an 
excellent bill. The United States has to use all of its tools 
in a strategic and a sustained effort to address fragile 
states. This bill, which requires the State Department and 
USAID and DOD to collaborate on a 10-year strategy, is an 
important step in addressing the deeper drivers of fragility 
and stability.
    I support passage of all of the resolutions on the agenda. 
I appreciate the work of Senators Merkley, Durbin, Booker, and 
Gardner on those items. I am pleased to again support the four 
protocols and many of the tax conventions between the United 
States and Spain, Switzerland, Japan, and Luxembourg. I have 
supported these treaties across multiple Congresses. For some 
of these treaties, this will be the fourth time. I am a strong 
believer in the benefits these treaties provide our country. 
They play a critical role in relieving U.S. citizens and 
companies from double taxation, encouraging foreign investment, 
and enforcing U.S. tax laws on those who seek to evade it.
    I conveyed directly to Secretary Mnuchin the Treasury 
Department's initial interaction on these treaties without the 
full committee was completely inadequate and resulted in a 
delay in taking up these four protocols. I am pleased that 
Treasury responded quickly to my concerns, including providing 
a written commitment that the chair and ranking member would be 
consulted on any changes to the model tax treaty prior to 
negotiations based on a new model. I am pleased to support 
these four protocols. I look forward to working with the 
chairman to find a way to move the other treaties pending 
before the committee. I do intend to support Senator Paul in 
his effort.
    And with that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the 
indulgence.
    The Chairman.  Thank you, Senator Menendez. We will first 
consider the nomination on the agenda, Mr. Eliot Pedrosa, to be 
U.S. executive director of the Inter-American Development Bank. 
Is there discussion?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  If not, is there a motion to favorably 
report the nomination?
    Senator Menendez.  So moved.
    Senator Rubio.  Second.
    The Chairman.  It has been moved and seconded that the 
nomination be favorably reported.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed, nay.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it, and the nomination is 
agreed to and will be reported as such.
    We will now turn to the four tax treaties. We will start 
with the tax treaties with Spain. Are there any amendments to 
the proposed tax treaty with Spain?
    Senator Paul.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Senator Paul.
    Senator Paul.  I have been following the tax treaties for 
some years now and trying to improve them. I, like Senator 
Menendez, do support these treaties. I think they have a great 
deal of benefit for our country to try to prevent double 
taxation. I have tried to improve them over time and worked 
with two administrations on this, and have proposals today to 
the reservations. It has been characterized in this meeting 
already that I am somehow trying to poison these or destroy the 
treaties, and nothing could be further from the truth. It sort 
of goes to my motives, and I guess only I know my motives, but 
I am not trying to destroy the treaties.
    If we amend the reservations, if you vote for my 
reservation today, it does not affect the other countries. It 
only affects the United States, so it is not a poison pill in 
any way. It only is directed towards the United States. It does 
not specifically do anything other than change the standard, 
the standard at which you should look at someone's information. 
Reservations, and I have talked to both the Government of 
Switzerland and the Government of Spain. Neither one of them 
have put up any objections to these reservations. These do not 
do anything to Spain or Switzerland.
    What typically happens, and we have not done a lot of 
treaties around here, is that if we amend the reservations, it 
goes out there, and it just remains. They do not renegotiate 
the treaty at all. So when people say, oh, this would--this is 
so terrible and this is not the time nor the place, and the 
treaties will be destroyed, it is just not true. The treaties 
will not be renegotiated. If they object in the first year, 
that can be a problem and it may have to be addressed at some 
point. Why would they object to restrictions we are placing on 
our own government? It is a standard on our government. It does 
not apply to Spain or Japan or any of these countries.
    The current treaties have a standard that says that the 
Government can do to Americans overseas or ask another 
government to do to Americans, that they can look for any 
information that may be relevant to the treaty. Well, we all 
look at different standards. There is probable cause. There is 
suspicion. It may be relevant as sort of the lowest-possible 
standard and ``may be relevant to the treaty'' means maybe 
relevant to a treaty that says, hey, we should exchange 
information. It is sort of like having no standard at all 
saying, well, you can have anything you want, but it has to be 
relevant to the treaty. The treaty says we should exchange tax 
information with the other side, so it really is not a 
standard.
    So what we have added is basically one sentence to the 
reservations that says, ``The United States shall only request, 
accept, or share deposit account information if there is a 
reasonable basis for believing that such a person may not have 
complied with the tax laws.'' All that means is they have to 
say Mr. Smith we do not think is paying our taxes, and you can 
get all the information you want. I would think that is what we 
would want.
    I think what we do not want is for Americans overseas to be 
treated at a lower standard than Americans are here. If someone 
wants to look at your bank account here, they have to at least 
accuse you of a crime, and then once accused of a crime, you 
have a chance to hire an attorney and try to quash the IRS 
subpoena. Overseas, if this is signed under the current 
standard, there will be no ability to try to quash the subpoena 
because we will basically have authorized it.
    There are 8 million Americans who live overseas. I have 
talked with the Democrat Americans overseas and the Republicans 
overseas. There are two big groups that represent these people. 
They are very concerned about their banking privileges 
overseas. They are concerned that as we continue to add rules, 
that banks do not want to even have their money, and it has 
become more and more difficult for them. And we are not talking 
about billions of dollars. We are talking about somebody trying 
to open an account in Spain or Switzerland with $2,000.
    Now, people who are not paying their taxes, by all means we 
should get the information on it. All you got to do is name 
them. Ours does not prevent any of that. What it prevents is 
this idea that we are just going to troll through Americans 
overseas with no standard. The standard that we want to put in 
here is that there has to be some suspicion. You got to name 
them, name the account. You got to somehow have some kind of 
accusation instead of maybe relevant, which we think is not a 
standard.
    This will not sink the tax treaties. It is not my intention 
to sink the tax treaties. But I have worked on this issue for 8 
years now because I care passionately about protecting the 
privacy of individuals, and that Americans overseas should not 
have a lower standard of protection than Americans here. This 
does not do anything to bind the other countries. It is a 
reservation. It is not in the body of the treaty. And I have 
talked to at least two of the four governments who have shown 
no indication that they will not accept the reservations. The 
reservations are binding on us, and they become accepted as 
part of the treaty if no one objects after a year.
    So there will be no renegotiation of the treaty. There will 
be no killing of the treaties. What will happen is if we pass 
this is that you will have done at least a small thing, and it 
actually may be very small. When I talked to Treasury about it, 
they did not object to it so much. They were kind of saying, 
oh, well, we think we already have it. Well, if we think we 
already have it, why not add a few words that make the standard 
a little bit better and a little bit more secure for Americans 
who live overseas?
    And so I would just ask that people not be persuaded by the 
traditional argument around here is that, oh, if we change 
anything, it is too late to change anything, we should have 
done it before, it will never work, and nothing will pass. It 
is just not true. These treaties will pass easily with this on 
it. There is no evidence that any foreign country has said they 
will not accept the changes that bind only us. And I would 
respectfully ask for a yes vote and a recorded vote on my 
reservation amendment.
    The Chairman.  Thank you, Senator. I am going to oppose 
both the proposed amendment to the protocol and the resolution. 
There is no meaningful legal distinction between the amendments 
to the protocols and the amendments adding reservations to the 
resolution of advice and consent. They both have the same 
effect to change the substance of the obligations under the 
treaty for both the U.S. and the treaty partner. No U.S. 
administration will accept such a huge and damaging change to 
decades of longstanding tax policy, nor will our treaty 
partners accept such a change, and it would severely compromise 
their own ability to enforce their own tax laws. It would 
effectively kill all of these treaties, any of these that are 
added to it.
    Now, more importantly, and I do not want to offend anyone 
with this, but this same issue was raised in 2014 by Senator 
Paul in an undated letter to the then chairman of this 
committee. Senator Paul made the same arguments. In a response 
on June 17th, 2014, the then chairman of this committee made as 
well-reasoned, well-researched, well-documented response to 
that, much more than I could here. It was obviously done with 
the help of experts who understand this backwards and forwards. 
I am going to include both of these particular letters in the 
record because I think they are so clear in rebutting the 
arguments that my good friend, Senator Paul, has made.


    [The information referred to is located at the end of this 
transcript.]


    The Chairman.  With that, is there further debate?
    Senator Paul.  May I make a response?
    The Chairman.  Please.
    Senator Paul.  At the time we did consider that there were 
no reservations submitted, so there was not the alternative. So 
really I think it is a new debate, and some people have said, 
well, we already voted on this once. I voted for it once. It 
will be inconsistent if I do not this time. No, I think you 
still can vote for the tax treaties with reservations. Last 
time they were not offered up as a choice. This time they are 
offered.
    There is no evidence that any country has said they will 
not accept this. In fact, I have communication with two of the 
countries that say they do not have a problem with it. I have 
also been talking to Treasury in this administration and the 
previous administration. There has been no statement by 
Treasury saying they will not accept this. If these 
reservations are added, the treaties will be passed, and no one 
will say another word, and we will forget this debate ever 
happened.
    My hope is that it will have small impact in protecting 
American privacy, but in no way will it stop the tax treaties 
from going on. There is no evidence that Treasury will reject 
this, the administration will reject it, or any country.
    Senator Johnson.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Senator Johnson.
    Senator Johnson.  I have a question. It is my understanding 
in U.S. tax law, you know, U.S. citizens, that the standard is 
a relevant--if the request for information is relevant to 
engender the inquiry, and that is what is in these tax 
treaties. So, in effect, if you increase that standard to a 
reasonable suspicion, I guess, does that almost create a 
possibility for tax savings overseas? I mean, you are actually 
increasing the standard for tax authorities to get information 
over what it is in the U.S.
    Senator Paul.  No, we actually think we are creating the 
same standard that we have in the U.S., a reasonable suspicion, 
which is the standard that we think is in here in the United 
States. In addition, in the United States you have the ability 
to go to court and object to it. If this tax treaty passes as 
is, you do not have that ability as an American living overseas 
to try to quash a subpoena. So I think this actually brings it 
back to the same standard that we have here in the United 
States.
    Senator Romney.  Mr. Chairman, just a question. Is this----
    The Chairman.  Senator Romney, Senator Cardin----
    Senator Romney.  Oh, I am sorry.
    The Chairman [continuing]. Senator Cardin was next.
    Senator Romney.  I am sorry. I am sorry.
    The Chairman.  So we are going to go right down the line 
here, then Senator Cruz, then you.
    Senator Romney.  Okay.
    The Chairman.  Senator Shaheen, we will get you, too.
    Senator Cardin.  Well, first, I oppose the Paul amendment. 
These are protocols and amendments to exist in treaties. I 
thought Senator Menendez raised a very good point about 
Treasury looking at changing the model tax treaty provisions. 
There were three other treaties that I thought we would have on 
today's business agenda. They were new treaties as I 
understand, but the administration had reservations in them 
concerning base erosion, which I find interesting because that 
question I asked during the markup of the tax bill in the 
Senate Finance Committee as to whether we had a treaty problem, 
and was informed by Joint Tax that we did not.
    Now we have the administration looking at a reservation in 
regards to those treaties. And, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest 
that the proper forum for this is to have Treasury here to talk 
about the treaties on tax for our input so that we can 
understand why the next three that we may be considering have 
reservations in it when we were told in the Finance Committee 
it was not necessary--that it was not inconsistent with our 
treaties.
    In regards to the Paul amendment, I am afraid there could 
be unintended consequences of this amendment. This is something 
that should be talked about and understood. These treaties are 
in existence today, so we really are amending them. And this is 
not, I think, the right way to go about doing it, so I am going 
to oppose the Paul amendment.
    The Chairman.  Senator Cruz.
    Senator Cruz.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support these 
underlying tax treaties. I think they are good and beneficial 
agreements. But I also commend Senator Paul for raising this 
issue. When he sent a letter earlier, I was one of the co-
signers of that letter. And I do think it is part of the 
responsibility of all of us to be vigilant in protecting civil 
liberties of Americans as well, and I think what Senator Paul 
has proposed is a reasonable proposal. I do not think it is 
overreaching. I do not think it is aggressive to require simply 
a standard of a reasonable basis to believe that a U.S. citizen 
has committed a crime. It is not a very exacting standard.
    Senator Paul is also correct that the Senate routinely 
ratifies treaties with reservations. And so the last couple of 
days, I have been subjected to fairly furious lobbying on this 
issue. I suspect I am not the only member of this committee 
that has. And that lobbying has all suggested a chicken little 
situation that if we do any reservation, the treaties will come 
crashing to the ground, and it is all over. I do not find that 
persuasive. I do not believe this reservation is a poison pill. 
We can ratify these treaties and simply say we are going to 
require some reasonable basis before the Federal government 
gets information on U.S. citizens and their financial records.
    I am also not terribly persuaded by the arguments of 
Treasury that, gosh, they would much rather have the broader 
standard. I have worked in law enforcement a long time. Law 
enforcement always wants more information about American 
citizens, and they always argue it would be better to get as 
much information as possible in all circumstances. I do not 
think this is an onerous requirement to have some basic 
evidence of wrongdoing.
    It is interesting. One of the defenses Treasury uses is, 
well, there is separately a prohibition on fishing expeditions, 
so you do not have to worry about this. Well, if the standard 
is any information that is relevant to the tax laws, that is 
almost on its face a fishing expedition because every one of 
our bank records would, by definition, meet that standard. So I 
intend to vote for Senator Paul's amendment, and, in fact, I 
would ask unanimous consent that I be added as a co-sponsor to 
Senator Paul's amendment.
    The Chairman.  You will be, if there is no objection. I am 
going to go back and forth. Senator Shaheen.
    Senator Shaheen.  I just wondered if there is legal counsel 
on either the majority--on both the majority and minority staff 
who can speak to whether this would invalidate the treaties as 
they understand it.
    The Chairman.  Is there a volunteer?
    [Laughter.]
    Majority Staff Counsel. Yes, if the reservation changes, 
the obligation under--in the treaty itself with respect to the 
other party, that would have to be accepted by the other party. 
Is that the question?
    Senator Shaheen.  That is----
    The Chairman.  That is way too simple.
    Senator Shaheen.  Can I just ask is there agreement from 
the minority staff counsel that that is the case as well?
    Minority Staff Counsel. Yes, that is correct.
    Senator Shaheen.  Thank you.
    Senator Paul.  I would say there is not universal agreement 
on the point, though, because the thing is----
    Senator Shaheen.  I just wanted to get the----
    Senator Paul.  I know, but I would like to respond to it. 
The thing is I think there is a dispute here, and the dispute 
is whether the treaties have to be renegotiated. I think that 
is absolutely false, they do not have to be. Reservations are 
for the country, and what happens to a treaty is if no one 
objects under the law of treaties, after 1 year it gets 
absorbed into the--into the protocol of it. But there has to be 
an objection by the other country. There will not have--there 
will not have to be another vote.
    Senator Cruz.  What both are saying are consistent. I mean, 
the countries can acquiesce to this is what I think Rand was 
saying.
    Senator Shaheen.  No, I understood what he said. I do not 
need an interpretation. Thank you.
    The Chairman.  Senator Romney.
    Senator Cruz.  I apologize for sharing my interpretation.
    Senator Romney.  Yeah. And, Ted, just to underscore what 
you just said, they can acquiesce to the change or they can 
object to the change.
    Senator Paul.  Sure.
    Senator Romney.  So making a change opens the door for 
the--for another country to object and take it in a different 
direction. So I think you are right----
    Senator Paul.  Sure.
    Senator Romney [continuing]. That what you are hearing is 
we make a change, and it could be--it could be rejected by 
other countries. Let me just ask a question which is, is this a 
problem? Have we received concerns from taxpayers, from 
citizens, that this is being abused?
    Senator Paul.  Well, it has not changed yet. We are 
changing the standard.
    Senator Romney.  No, but--no, but I mean as it currently 
exists, as the law currently exists and as the treaty currently 
exists, has this been abused by us or by other governments, and 
are we getting complaints of this nature?
    Senator Paul.  Well, there are complaints from both 
Republicans overseas and Democrats overseas about the new 
standard, but we do not currently exist with the standards. 
They would not be complaining because we have a different 
standard. The treaty with Switzerland currently says you have 
to be alleged to have had fraud before they can get you 
information in Switzerland. So there has to be--that is sort of 
more like a reasonable basis. There has to be an allegation.
    And so under Switzerland, no one is complaining about this 
particular standard because it is not this standard yet. We are 
going to be lowering it from an accusation of fraud to maybe 
relevant to the Tax Code.
    The Chairman.  Senator Portman was next.
    Senator Portman.  Let me just say there was a huge scandal 
in Switzerland on this same issue in the mid-2000s with UBS, 
which we all remember, precisely because the vast majority of 
U.S. accounts in Switzerland were not providing information to 
U.S. tax authorities. In fact, the number was 19,000 accounts 
out of 20,000 U.S. clients who had accounts there. So that is 
one reason we are doing this tax treaty, and, you know, how 
quickly we forget. So I strongly support getting these things 
done. Team, it has been 9 years, I think, while these have been 
pending. We have not done any other tax treaties. These make 
sense. It does stop double taxation, and for those of you 
concerned about that issue, which I hope we all are, we need 
this in place.
    Second, it does provide information. And I respect Senator 
Paul's opinion on this, but I will tell you here is the 
standard in U.S. law. It is not reasonable basis. It is 
relevance. The relevant language incorporates the same standard 
used in Section 7602 of the Code, which deals with the 
authority to examine books and witnesses in an examination of a 
domestic taxpayer return. So that is what we use. I mean, that 
is our standard here. It is not reasonable basis.
    So, look, I would imagine this is going to come up again on 
the floor, and I am happy to take a look at it more closely, 
but let us not let this committee get bottled up on this issue. 
I mean, we have reported these things out numerous times. On 
the Democratic side, you guys are voting for these, too, and I 
just hate to see us either stop this now because we cannot 
agree or send something to the floor that these other countries 
may object to because they might.
    And in terms of Treasury's view, talk to them. I mean, Ted, 
you mentioned that. They are adamantly against this change. 
They are not neutral. They think it is a bad idea because they 
are concerned about, again, what other countries may do in 
response to this, and they want to have access to this 
information. You are right, Ted, they like it because if it is 
relevant, they want to get it to avoid another UBS scandal. So 
I hope we can vote these things out. We can maybe have this 
discussion on the floor after we have had more time to look at 
these issues that Senator Pau has raised today. But I do think 
that it is incumbent upon this committee to move these forward 
the way we have done so in the past.
    The Chairman.  Thank you, Senator. Senator Paul, do you 
have a motion concerning the protocol or the resolution?
    Senator Paul.  Yes, and one other item that is involved in 
the amendment that we have not brought up, and that is it would 
make them retroactive to the date they were presented. In each 
of the 50 States there are companies that already because of 
the delay in this have had tax bills. So there is an advantage 
to companies in each of your States to making these 
retroactive, and they would be retroactive to the time of the 
presentation of the treaty after we had already accepted it and 
they had accepted it. And there is a great deal of benefit to 
companies in all 50 States to making these retroactive.
    With regard to Senator Portman's discussion of relevance, 
there is a difference between having a relevance standard and 
having a standard that means relevance to something that may be 
in the Tax Code. So I do not think we are talking about--we can 
talk about apples and oranges as to relevant standards, but I 
think a standard of reasonable suspicion of actually being 
accused of something is not an unreasonable standard.
    The Chairman.  Do you have a motion, Senator?
    Senator Paul.  Yes, I would like a recorded vote on the 
amendment, the reservation that we have submitted for Spain.
    The Chairman.  I have got two in front of me. I have got 
the protocol and the resolution. I need a motion is what I 
need.
    Senator Paul.  Yeah, this is a motion. I do not have the 
numbers on them. So this would be a motion to accept the one 
that is entitled ``Resolution of Advice and Consent to 
Ratification of the Protocol to the Tax Convention with 
Spain.''
    The Chairman.  That would be the resolution, and you move 
to adopt your proposal in that regard.
    Senator Paul.  Yes.
    The Chairman.  Is there a second?
    Voice. Second.
    The Chairman.  It has been moved and seconded that the 
amendment--Senator Paul's first degree to the resolution be 
adopted. The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Rubio.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Johnson.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Gardner?
    Senator Gardner. No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Romney?
    Senator Romney.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Graham?
    The Chairman.  Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Isakson?
    Senator Isakson.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Portman?
    Senator Portman.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Young?
    Senator Young.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Cruz?
    Senator Cruz.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Menendez?
    Senator Menendez.  Aye.
    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.  Aye.
    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 Menendez.  No by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 5, the nays are 17.
    The Chairman.  The motion has failed. We will now move to 
the motion to order the treaty favorably reported with the 
resolution of advice and consent to ratification. Is there a 
motion?
    Senator Menendez.  So moved.
    Voice. Second.
    The Chairman.  It has been moved and seconded that the 
treaty be reported favorably with--for the advice and consent 
of the Senate in the affirmative. Did you want a roll call vote 
on this?
    Senator Paul.  I think we can do a voice.
    The Chairman.  All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed, nay.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it, and the motion has passed.
    We will now move to the tax treaty on Switzerland. Senator 
Paul, did you want to make a motion on that one?
    Senator Paul.  I think it is the same discussion, so I 
think we will leave it at that.
    The Chairman.  Okay. Is there a motion to adopt the treaty 
and favorably report the resolution of advice and consent?
    Senator Menendez.  So move.
    Voice. Second.
    The Chairman.  It has been moved and seconded that the 
Switzerland treaty be sent to the floor with the advice and 
consent favorably from the Senate.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed, nay.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it. The treaty will be 
reported favorably.
    We now have the treaty with Japan. Is there a motion to 
report the treaty favorably to the floor?
    Senator Menendez.  So move.
    Voice. Second.
    The Chairman.  Moved and seconded that it favorably be 
reported.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed, nay.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it. The treaty will be 
reported.
    The last one is Luxembourg. Is there a motion to adopt the 
Luxembourg treaty and send it to the floor for affirmative 
advice and consent?
    Senator Menendez.  So moved.
    Voices. Second.
    The Chairman.  It has been moved and seconded that the 
Luxembourg treaty be moved affirmatively to the floor for the 
advice and consent of the Senate.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed, nay.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it, and that treaty will also 
be reported.
    We now have four resolutions that the chair would like to 
consider en bloc, and that would be Senate Resolutions 34, 198, 
206, and Senate Concurrent Resolution Number 10. We have 
discussed all of these in my opening statement, in the ranking 
member's statement. Is there further debate on any of these 
resolutions?
    Senator Menendez.  If not, so move.
    The Chairman.  Is there a second?
    Voices. Second.
    The Chairman.  It has been moved and seconded that the four 
resolutions be reported favorably to the floor.
    Is there any--I am sorry. All of those have been--as 
amended. They were--they were modified by the amendments that 
were added. All right. Senate Res. 34 is amended by the title, 
preamble, and revised resolving clause amendment. Senate Res. 
198 is amended by the preamble and resolving clause amendments. 
Senate Res. 206 is amended by the revised title, preamble, and 
resolving clause amendments. Senate Concurrent Resolution 10 is 
amended by the preamble and resolving clause amendments. All of 
those have been worked on by both minority and majority staffs 
to get where we are with those, so.
    Senator Merkley.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Yes?
    Senator Merkley.  May I please comment?
    The Chairman.  Please.
    Senator Merkley.  A huge amount of work from many members 
on those various amendments that go into Resolution Number 34, 
and appreciation to our bipartisan co-sponsors, Senator Young 
and Senator Cruz and Senator Ruben. Outside this committee, 
Collins and Tillis, Cardin, Kaine, Markey, Coons. Thank you. 
This highlighting of the genocide in Burma is so important for 
our Nation that we stand up for human rights around the world 
and speak to it. And I appreciate so much the chairman 
including it in this markup.
    The Chairman.  Thank you, Senator. All four of these are 
really important. It is unfortunate we are moving as quickly as 
we are, but our time in the Senate is short. But we have had 
hearings on these and really underscored the importance of all 
these. Everyone is to be commended on the work done. Senator 
Cruz will be next and then Senator Markey.
    Senator Cruz.  Just a brief observation. We are getting 
ready to vote on S. Res. 198, which Senator Cardin and I 
introduced together. I think it is--it appears it is about to 
be adopted unanimously. I think that is a very good thing for 
this committee and, I hope, the whole Senate, to loudly condemn 
Brunei's human rights abuses. In particular their recent 
imposition of laws imposing capital punishment on homosexuality 
are grotesque human rights violations, and I think it is 
important that the Senate speak unequivocally in that regard.
    The Chairman.  Thank you, Senator Cruz. Senator Markey was 
next and then Senator Gardner.
    Senator Markey.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank 
Senator Merkley for all the good work on this resolution and 
the acceptance of the language which I proposed, which, one, 
really calls on Facebook to curtail the use of that technology 
in order to foment hatred in that country against the Rohingya. 
It is a huge tool that is being used in an extremely dangerous 
way. And also encouraging the U.S. to amp its diplomatic role 
in that country and for the United States to urge the U.N. to 
do so as well. This is an ongoing crisis, and we are at the 
center of it to a very large extent. And I thank Senator 
Merkley for his great leadership.
    The Chairman.  Thank you, Senator Markey. Well said. 
Senator Gardner.
    Senator Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Senate 
Concurrent Resolution comes out of the breakfast meeting we had 
with Secretary Pompeo here a month or two ago to make sure that 
we are sending a message around the globe that our concerns 
with Huawei and the security risks they pose is not just a 
partisan issue or a Senate issue. It is indeed bipartisan, 
bicameral, and will last long beyond any one administration. So 
this is our message that this is important for us to focus on. 
Security issues do not get away with the end of a Congress.
    The Chairman.  There being no further debate, the chair 
would recognize the motion to adopt all four.
    Senator Menendez.  So move.
    The Chairman.  It has been moved and seconded that the four 
resolutions be adopted.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed, nay.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it, and they all will be 
reported favorably to the floor.
    We will now consider Senate Bill 1309, Combatting Global 
Corruption Act. Are there any members who would like to comment 
on this bill?
    Senator Cardin.  Mr. Chairman, let me just thank you very 
much for your cooperation on this. I thank Senator Young for 
his help putting this bill together. This bill was passed by 
this committee in the last Congress with the amendments that 
are being suggested. It does spell out that we will be using 
anti-corruption measures in our bilateral relations with other 
countries so that they can improve their record against 
corruption. And I thank the committee for their support.
    The Chairman.  Thank you, Senator. There being no further 
debate, the chair would entertain a motion to adopt the--we 
have got to do two votes on this one. The substitute 
amendment----
    Senator Menendez.  So move.
    Voice. Second.
    The Chairman.  It has been moved and seconded that the 
substitute amendment be adopted.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed, nay.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it. With that, Senate Bill 
1309, as amended, the chair would accept a motion to adopt.
    Senator Menendez.  So move.
    Voice. Second.
    The Chairman.  Moved and seconded that Senate Bill 1309 be 
adopted.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed, nay.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it. 1309 has been adopted. It 
will be referred to the Senate floor favorably.
    We now have before us Senate Bill 727, the Fragility--
Global Fragility Act. The manager's amendment to this bill 
incorporates the first degree amendments filed by Senator 
Cardin. I will be supporting the manager's amendment. Are there 
further comments on the bill?
    Senator Coons.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Senator Coons.
    Senator Coons.  Mr. Chairman, if I might, I just want to 
thank you and Ranking Member Menendez for having this 
constructive and substantive meeting. I am grateful to Senator 
Graham for his real leadership on this and a dozen others. This 
has 16 bipartisan co-sponsors.
    In brief, the Global Fragility Act is the outcome of a long 
study that develops a new strategy for how to address fragility 
in places like the Sahel or the Northern Triangle. It 
authorities a multi-donor global fragility fund. It looks for a 
long-term sustainable investment in combatting fragility in 
places around the world that are at the verge of becoming 
failed states.
    I look forward to working with my colleagues to refine and 
improve the bill. I also just want to thank Senators Gardner 
and Markey for your work on the ZTE/Huawei resolution, and I 
want to thank Senator Graham in particular for being a real 
good partner on getting this bill moved to this point.
    The Chairman.  Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Graham.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Senator Graham.
    Senator Graham.  I want to thank--I want to thank me.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman.  Your mother. Do not forget your mothers.
    Senator Graham.  Yeah, the Academy. So this is a big deal 
to me because it requires DOD, State, and USAID to work 
together to try and get the private sector involved in other 
missions to create a new way of delivering aid to fragile 
states. I have learned that there is no military solution to 
the War on Terror. There is no military solution to facing a 
failed state. You pay now or you pay later. I would rather 
invest now than have to go in later. Those are your choices 
when it comes to the Sahel. Thank you all.
    Senator Shaheen.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Thank you, Senator. Senator Shaheen.
    Senator Shaheen.  Can I be added as a co-sponsor, please?
    The Chairman.  No objection, Senator Shaheen will be added.
    Senator Cruz.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Senator Cruz?
    Senator Cruz.  Mr. Chairman, I recognize that the sponsors 
of this bill are acting in good faith and trying to address 
real problems. That being said, I have significant concerns 
with this bill. In particular, the way, as I understand it is 
drafted, it effectively creates a $1.2 billion slush fund for 
the State Department to spend in problematic countries, and 
those problematic countries are not defined. It is countries 
that are fragile across the world. They can change at any given 
time.
    All of us at given points have lamented the power given to 
the executive and how this Congress has given away its 
authority to the executive. My Democratic friends right now are 
pulling their hair out at some of the decisions President Trump 
makes with that executive authority. In a different 
administration, my Republican friends may be pulling their hair 
out at some of the decisions made under that authority.
    There is a role for foreign aid, but I do not think it is 
wise to delegate that decision to the executive with no 
meaningful constraints. If there is a place of fragility that 
has a need for aid, I think the proper way to pursue it under 
the Constitution is have the executive come to Congress and ask 
for funds for a specific country, and then have Congress do our 
job, which is inquire how are those funds going to be spent, 
what are the conditions going to be. Are they going to be not 
spent in a way that furthers our enemies?
    We have seen far too often money go out to problematic 
countries and used and go directly to people who are enemies of 
America. And so this bill, I think, has good intentions, but I 
think it would--it would be a dangerous precedent, and so I 
intend to vote no on this bill.
    Senator Cardin.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Senator Cardin.
    Senator Cardin.  It may not alleviate your concerns, but in 
the amendment that was just adopted, an amendment that I had 
offered, that requires that before decisions are made as to 
fragile, which countries qualify, there has to be a sit-down 
meeting with this committee where we get input as to what they 
are thinking about, et cetera, before those decisions are made, 
and which the questions that you are raising would be asked. So 
there is an opportunity for us to have input before the 
implementation of any specific country.
    Senator Cruz.  And I would say briefly, if I could, in 
response to that, I recognize that, but we have all seen the 
power of default, that we have passed a bunch of laws that give 
the President the authority. We are seeing it on trade laws 
where the President acts on trade, and a bunch of us jump up 
and down and scream, but we do not have the ability to change 
it. Yes, they would have to sit down with us, but if we 
disagreed with their decision, we would have to get a 
filibuster--a majority able to overcome a filibuster to stop 
it. And in most circumstances, that is incredibly difficult. I 
would rather the default be Congress has to act rather than we 
have to act to stop whatever the executive tells us to do.
    Senator Cardin.  I prefaced my remarks. It may not satisfy 
you obviously.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman.  Forsooth. Senator Coons.
    Senator Coons.  I will just briefly, if I might, to my 
colleague. To characterize it as a slush fund misses the core 
point of the legislation, which is to require coordination 
across the Department of Defense, USAID, and the State 
Department, a coordinated strategy and consultation prior to 
there being identification to specific countries. I would be 
happy to review the text of the bill with you further to make 
sure that I am speaking to your concerns. I did not know if any 
of my co-sponsors wanted to speak to it as well.
    Senator Graham.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Senator Graham.
    Senator Graham.  To Senator Cruz, right. I mean, I am not 
trying to create a runaway train. I am trying to do something 
different because what we are doing is not working. So the 
people who came up with this proposal are Lee Hamilton and Tom 
King. They are the chairmen of the 9/11 Commission. They told 
us we spent trillions of dollars on kinetic activity. Mostly 
you really got the tee shirt if you are lucky.
    So we all believe prevention is better than intervention, 
but Sahel is going to fail just as sure as we are all sitting 
here. I do not know if this can stop it, slow it down, but I 
think we kind of need to have a coordinated plan, Senator Cruz, 
that does not exist today. These agencies are ships passing in 
the night. One guy is doing one thing. The next person is doing 
the next. We are telling them to come up with a coordinated 
plan, come back to us and tell us how it works. And I am glad 
to have more oversight, but I just--being chairman of the 
Foreign Ops 150 Account, our aid is missing the target. I am 
trying put it on the target in a soft power way is what I am 
trying to do.
    Senator Cruz.  Mr. Chairman, if I could briefly say 
something----
    The Chairman.  Senator Cruz.
    Senator Cruz [continuing]. And I do not think there is need 
to dwell on this excessively. But I will say if the bill simply 
did what Senator Graham said and required the administration to 
come up with a coordinated plan, I could support the bill. But 
it also authorizes $1.15 billion in expenditures, and it is 
that authorization that I think is ill advised.
    The Chairman.  Thank you. All good points. Senator, the 
only thing I disagree with you and Senator Cardin is that we 
have not adopted that one yet.
    Senator Graham.  Oh.
    The Chairman.  So I would--I would entertain a motion to 
adopt the manager's amendment.
    Voice. So moved.
    Voice. Second.
    The Chairman.  Moved and seconded that the manager's 
amendment be adopted. Is voice vote okay, Senator?
    Voice. On this one, yes.
    The Chairman.  Okay. All those in favor, signify by saying 
aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed, nay.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it. The manager's amendment 
has been adopted.
    The chair would entertain a motion to approve Senate Bill 
727, as amended.
    Senator Menendez.  So move.
    Voice. Second.
    The Chairman.  Moved and seconded that Senate Bill 727, as 
amended, be adopted.
    A roll call vote has been requested. It is so ordered. The 
clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Rubio?
    The Chairman.  Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Johnson?
    The Chairman.  No by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Gardner?
    The Chairman.  Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Romney?
    Senator Romney.  Yes.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Graham?
    Senator Graham.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Isakson?
    The Chairman.  Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Barrasso?
    The Chairman.  No by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Portman?
    The Chairman.  Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Young?
    Senator Young.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Cruz?
    Senator Cruz.  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 Menendez.  Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Markey?
    Senator Markey.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Booker?
    Senator Menendez.  Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 18; the nays are 4.
    The Chairman.  The motion is passed. Senate Bill 727, as 
amended, will be referred to the floor of the Senate with an 
affirmative recommendation.
    The committee now has before it Senate Bill Number 1102, 
the Eastern Mediterranean Security and Energy Partnership Act. 
Senator Menendez.
    Senator Menendez.  Mr. Chairman, I have spoken to this 
before. I appreciate Senator Rubio and others in a bipartisan 
effort here, and I am happy to move it when it is appropriate.
    The Chairman.  Further debate?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  There being none, the first thing is the 
substitute--I am sorry.
    Senator Merkley.  You said further debate.
    The Chairman.  Yes.
    Senator Merkley.  Yes.
    The Chairman.  Senator Merkley.
    Senator Merkley.  Yeah, so I will be opposing this, and the 
reason I will--the reason why is it is adopting policy to 
promote LNG terminals around the world. Right now as we sit 
here in this room, every time you have taken a lungful of air, 
it has 33 percent more carbon than when I was born, and we are 
on a rapid upward trajectory. We cannot base the next 
generation of power around this world on natural gas or we are 
toast.
    There are some 2 trillion galaxies in the world with a 
billion-plus stars. We cannot even get to the next planet's 
star. We have to take care of this more than we have, and right 
now we are messing it up. And I cannot support a policy of 
saying let us enthusiastically assist and encourage LNG 
facilities for energy for the next generation.
    The Chairman.  Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Menendez.  Mr. Chairman, if I may, I appreciate my 
colleague's concern, and I take a backseat to no one in terms 
of my longstanding environmental record, including on the 
questions of global warming. The reality is is in this region, 
there are huge explorations that have found natural gas, and 
they are going to be ultimately pursued. The question is 
whether we harness that in a way that pursues the national 
interests and security of the United States, diversifies 
Europe's energy away from Russia as its gas station, or whether 
we leave it in a way that will not be harnessed, but still will 
be ultimately explored and pursued.
    So it is in dealing with that reality that the bill speaks 
to that. In my mind it is not that it is promoting it. It is 
harnessing that which already exists, so--but I do appreciate 
your comments.
    Senator Cruz.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Senator Cruz.
    Senator Cruz.  I would just note that Senator Merkley's 
concerns, while no doubt genuine, I think are being advanced in 
a way that would harm what he is trying to do. But if you are 
concerned about the environment, if you are concerned about the 
carbon emissions, by any measure, power generation from LNG 
pollutes dramatically and it is dramatically less carbon than 
it does energy generation from coal. And, in fact, in the 
United States, the shift from coal to LNG has resulted in the 
greatest reduction of carbon emissions in modern times. And so 
I think if one is concerned about cleaning up the environment, 
trying to stifle LNG is an ill-advised strategy that would only 
keep the environment dirtier rather than cleaner.
    Senator Merkley.  Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman.  Senator Merkley.
    Senator Merkley.  My colleague has a point if you are only 
looking at the point of combustion. But if you look at the 
entire LNG system, because of the leakage of methane in the 
system, it has an equivalent or greater impact on global 
warming. And this is true for LNG or for natural gas systems 
around the world. So looking at point of combustion, your point 
is well taken. As a system, it is not accurate.
    The Chairman.  Is there further debate?
    Senator Menendez.  Move the resolution. Move the----
    The Chairman.  Substitute amendment.
    Senator Menendez [continuing]. Substitute amendment.
    The Chairman.  Is there a second?
    Voice. Second.
    The Chairman.  Will a voice vote do or a recorded?
    All those in favor of adopting the substitute amendment, 
signify by saying aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed, nay.
    [A chorus of noes.]
    The Chairman.  Who wants to be recorded as no? Senator 
Merkley and Senator Markey will be recorded as no.
    The chair will now entertain a motion to adopt----
    Senator Cruz.  Mr. Chairman, very briefly, if I could ask 
unanimous consent to be added a co-sponsor to that last bill.
    The Chairman.  So no objection. Seeing none, Senator Cruz 
will be added as a co-sponsor.
    So now, a motion to approve Senate 1102, as amended.
    Senator Menendez.  So move.
    The Chairman.  It has been moved. Second? Is there a 
second?
    Voice. Second.
    The Chairman.  It has been moved and seconded that Senate 
1102, as amended, be adopted and be referred to the floor of 
the Senate with an affirmative recommendation.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed, nay.
    Senator Merkley.  Nay. This is on Bill----
    The Chairman.  The Senate bill----
    Senator Merkley.  Yeah.
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it. Does anybody want to be 
recorded as a no? Senator Merkley. Senator Markey, do you want 
to be recorded as a no on the bill? Sorry.
    Senator Markey.  I think I got a little bit distracted.
    The Chairman.  You have been recorded. The amendment was 
adopted. You were recorded as a no. We have now adopted the 
bill, as amended. Do you want to be recorded----
    Senator Markey.  No.
    The Chairman.  As a no. Senator Markey will be recorded as 
a no along with Senator Merkley.
    We now have before us Senate Bill 1945, the SAFE Act. 
Senator Menendez.
    Senator Menendez.  I spoke to this at the beginning. I just 
simply would say regardless of who sits in the White House, I 
think it is critical that the Senate and the Congress continue 
to have says on arms sales, and that the purpose of an 
emergency, which has only been used 4 times in 40 years, be 
preserved as an emergency, particularly with our closest NATO 
allies. And that is all this legislation does. It preserves the 
prerogatives of the Senate. It guarantees that an emergency is 
not used as a runaround at the end of the day, and ultimately 
still will allow arms sales when it is appropriate to do so. 
And I urge my colleagues to join us for the institution of 
prerogatives, as well as the policy.
    The Chairman.  Thank you. Is there further debate?
    Senator Young.  Yes. Can I make an observation? I have 
contacted--we have contacted majority staff, minority staff, 
outside experts, and others and asked a threshold question, at 
least a threshold question from me, which is give me an example 
of where a declaration of an emergency would be required in 
order to expedite not an arms sale because that involves 
pending a contract, but delivery of arms. Delivery of arms.
    That is not the kind of thing that happens in a day. We can 
reposition military assets. We can encourage our partners and 
allies to move into a region. But I am not sure there would 
ever be a situation, but I remain open to that information. We 
spent a lot of time--I asked the same question of the 
administration incidentally today. They could not come up with 
an example. So left with that, I will be supporting this. You 
are probably incentivized not to talk your way out of that. But 
I just----
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Young.  I cannot conceive of an example. If needed, 
a president can exercise his or her Article II authorities to 
aid a country in an emergency.
    The Chairman.  Further debate?
    Senator Merkley.  I praise the work on this. This is--this 
is excellent and appropriate. I would like to be added as a co-
sponsor.
    The Chairman.  If there is no objection----
    Senator Romney.  I want to ask a couple of questions, which 
is I think it is an unusual list of the series of countries 
where you can declare an emergency and the President cannot 
send troops or send our military, but can send weapons. And 
that list of countries does not include, for instance, Ukraine, 
Taiwan. If I were the Taiwanese and this became a law, I would 
say how come America is not willing to send us weaponry if we 
need weaponry, and why are we being treated differently than 
four countries.
    Japan, we can send--we can send aircraft to Japan to help 
Japan, but we cannot send help to Taiwan. And so I look at the 
list of countries, and I have difficulty with this bill because 
it limits it to a relatively small number of countries. And I 
do not--if the President can do what this bill--if the 
President does not need this bill to do what needs to be done, 
then why are we voting on it if he does not need----
    Senator Young.  I did not introduce it.
    Senator Romney.  Yeah, right----
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Romney.  I am just making the point, which is if 
the emergency power is not needed, then I am not sure why we 
are restricting the emergency power. I would say I would like--
if there is going to be emergency power provided to the 
President, I would want to include a longer list of countries 
than the ones that are listed.
    Senator Cruz.  Mr. Chairman? Would the sponsor of this bill 
be open to amendment to add Taiwan?
    Senator Menendez.  Well, I am happy to answer. First of 
all, I co-chair the Taiwan Caucus, so I love the Taiwanese and 
I think it is all important. But the question here is not to 
create a right, but it is actually to constrain the use of 
emergency as an end around Congress to ultimately make a 
weapons sale. We can sell to the Taiwanese today. We can sell 
to anybody who we choose to when it goes through the regular 
process of the committee and elsewhere.
    The question is when does the President get the right to 
have an emergency to ultimately allow a sale, and that is a 
very limited universe, which is why the universe that you say 
is basically NATO partners and critical entities to the United 
States that are established. And so that is why it is not a 
long list because the regular sales process will accommodate 
anybody who this or any other administration wants to sell to.
    Senator Romney.  May I just respond, which is--which is it 
seems to be unusual to say that there are certain countries 
where emergency may be needed, but there are others that are 
not.
    Senator Young.  May I--may I respond?
    Senator Romney.  And this affects presidents for a long, 
long, long time, and I don't know how we can decide today which 
are the countries that need a different provision relative to 
others that we may have great interest in.
    Senator Young.  May I respond----
    The Chairman.  Senator Young.
    Senator Young [continuing]. Because he is talking about a 
situation in which an emergency may be needed. I can conceive 
of none. Please help me. Offer me an example in history in 
which an emergency power was needed in order to make an arms 
sale, an end run around our foreign military sale prerogatives 
as a committee. I can conceive of none. The floor is open. 
Please.
    Voice. Lend Lease.
    Senator Graham.  Yeah, Lend Lease. Yeah, that is what it 
was all about. So, let us get to the heart of the matter in 
case anybody----
    Senator Young.  Wait, wait, wait. We could not be persuaded 
as a Congress to go with Lend Lease?
    Senator Graham.  Yeah, that is right.
    Senator Shaheen.  Correct.
    Senator Young.  We could not be persuaded?
    Senator Graham.  Yeah, there you go.
    Senator Shaheen.  That is correct.
    Senator Young.  We could be persuaded. We need the 
executive branch to come to us to make the argument. Otherwise, 
the only powerful person in this room is Lindsey Graham as 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee----
    Senator Graham.  So that is okay.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Graham [continuing]. As opposed to the authorizing 
committee.
    Senator Romney.  Senator, then you are saying this 
emergency power should not be given to anybody.
    Senator Young.  Yeah, that is right.
    Senator Romney.  Well, but that is very different than 
what----
    Senator Young.  But I do not want the perfect to be the 
enemy of the good, so let us constrain.
    Senator Romney.  This is--this is listing a group of 
countries that says, hey, these guys are people who we are 
willing to make emergency acts for, and these over here we are 
not. If I am Ukraine or I am Taiwan or maybe there is a longer 
list than that--there are a lot of countries around the world 
that are going to say that is interesting. I am not quite sure 
how the U.S. works and so forth, but the President has power 
here, but he does not have power to protect us.
    Senator Young.  Yeah, sure. I understand your rationale.
    The Chairman.  Senator Graham.
    Senator Graham.  Listen, Senator Romney, I get it, but let 
us just be honest why we are doing this. The President wanted 
to give arms to Saudi Arabia and most of us did not because the 
fact is the leader of Saudi Arabia did something so outrageous, 
it was even hard for me to ignore it. It was really over the 
top.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Graham.  Clearly not in line with appreciating the 
relationship. So what we are trying to do is say these are the 
folks that we have confidence in. We probably should have put 
Taiwan or maybe you should not put anybody. But the reason we 
are doing this bill is because the administration wanted to 
give Saudi Arabia weapons after the Khashoggi murder, and we 
did not. That is the only reason we are doing this. They put 
the UAE, they put other countries in the sales, the transfer 
list. I want to be on record that the reason I am voting for 
this is to send a signal to this administration and other 
administrations that we exist around here.
    Senator Menendez.  I would just note that NATO Plus 5 is 
what is the law today, so all--we are basically restating the 
law, but eliminating everybody else as an emergency, and there 
is a reason that NATO Plus 5 was established. So I do not know 
if there is any other debate, Mr. Chairman, but I would ask to 
move the----
    The Chairman.  Motion to approve Senate Bill 1945 is your 
motion?
    Senator Menendez.  Yes.
    The Chairman.  Is there a second?
    Voice. Second.
    The Chairman.  The motion has been made and seconded. Is 
there--voice vote sufficient for everyone or do you want a roll 
call?
    Senator Menendez.  A voice vote is sufficient.
    The Chairman.  All those in favor of Senate Bill 1945, say 
aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed, nay.
    [A chorus of nays.]
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman.  Nay. The ayes have it. Senator Romney, 
Senator Barrasso, and myself are recorded as nay.
    That completes the committee's business. I ask unanimous 
consent that staff be authorized to make technical and 
conforming changes.
    It is so ordered.
    Senator Barrasso also will be recorded as no.
    Without objection, the committee will be adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 3:28 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

 Correspondence Between Senator Robert Menendez and Senator Rand Paul 
      Regarding Senator Paul's Proposed Amendments to Tax Treaties

                              ----------                              

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                        THURSDAY, JULY 25, 2019

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

                Summary of Action Taken by the Committee


                              LEGISLATION

  S. 398, Saudi Arabia Accountability and Yemen Act of 2019, agreed to 
        by roll call vote (13-9)

          Ayes: Graham (proxy), Paul, Young (proxy), Menendez, Cardin 
        (proxy), Shaheen, Coons, Udall, Murphy, Kaine, Markey, Merkley, 
        and Booker (proxy)

          Nays: Risch, Rubio, Johnson, Gardner, Romney, Isakson 
        (proxy), Barrasso, Portman (proxy), and Cruz

  S. 2066, Saudi Arabia Diplomatic Review Act of 2019, withdrawn did 
        not vote on final passage

     Menendez 1st Degree #82, as modified by the Menendez 2nd Degree 
        to #82, agreed to by roll call vote (12-10)

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

          Nays: Risch, Rubio, Johnson, Gardner, Romney, Isakson 
        (proxy), Barrasso, Portman (proxy), Young, and Cruz

  S. 1441, Protecting Europe's Energy Security Act of 2019, with an 
        amendment held over

                                 TREATY

  Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 on the Accession of the 
        Republic of North Macedonia, agreed to by voice vote (Paul 
        recorded as no)

     Paul Amendment #1, not agreed to by roll call vote (1-21)

          Ayes: Paul

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

                              NOMINATIONS

  Ms. Pamela Bates, of Virginia, to be Representative of the United 
        States of America to the Organization for Economic Cooperation 
        and Development, with the rank of Ambassador, agreed to by 
        voice vote

  Mr. Jonathan R. Cohen, 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 Arab Republic of Egypt, agreed to by voice vote

  The Honorable Kelly Craft, of Kentucky, to be the Representative of 
        the United States of America to the United Nations, with the 
        rank and status of Ambassador Extraordinary and 
        Plenipotentiary, and the Representative of the United States of 
        America in the Security Council of the United Nations and the 
        Representative of the United States of America to the Sessions 
        of the General Assembly of the United Nations during her tenure 
        of service as Representative of the United States of America to 
        the United Nations, agreed to by roll call vote (15-7)

          Ayes: Risch, Rubio, Johnson (proxy), Gardner, Romney, Graham, 
        Isakson (proxy), Barrasso, Portman (proxy), Paul, Young, Cruz, 
        Shaheen, Coons, and Murphy

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

  The Honorable Philip S. Goldberg, of the District of Columbia, a 
        Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Career 
        Ambassador, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary 
        of the United States of America to the Republic of Colombia, 
        agreed to by voice vote

  Mr. Christopher Landau, of Maryland, to be Ambassador Extraordinary 
        and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the 
        United Mexican States, agreed to by voice vote

  Ms. Jennifer D. Nordquist, of Virginia, to be United States Executive 
        Director of the International Bank for Reconstruction and 
        Development for a term of two years, agreed to by voice vote

  The Honorable Richard B. Norland, of Iowa, 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 Libya, agreed to by voice vote

  Mr. John Rakolta, Jr., of Michigan, to be Ambassador Extraordinary 
        and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the 
        United Arab Emirates, agreed to by roll call vote (15-7)

          Ayes: Risch, Rubio, Johnson (proxy), Gardner, Romney, Graham, 
        Isakson (proxy), Barrasso, Portman, Paul, Young, Cruz, Shaheen, 
        Coons, and Murphy

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

  Ms. Michelle A. Bekkering, of the District of Columbia, to be an 
        Assistant Administrator of the United States Agency for 
        International Development (Economic Policy, Economic Growth, 
        Education, and Environment), agreed to by voice vote

  Mr. Richard K. Bell, of Pennsylvania, 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 Cote d'Ivoire, agreed to by voice 
        vote

  Ms. Jessica E. Lapenn, of New York, a Career Member of the Senior 
        Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be 
        Representative of the United States of America to the African 
        Union, with the rank and status of Ambassador Extraordinary and 
        Plenipotentiary, agreed to by voice vote

  The Honorable Mary Beth Leonard, 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 Federal Republic of Nigeria, agreed to 
        by voice vote

  Ms. Lana J. Marks, of Florida, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and 
        Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic 
        of South Africa, agreed to by voice vote (Udall and Markey 
        recorded as no)

                               FSO LISTS

  Jennifer M. Adams, et al., dated April 10, 2019 (PN 605), agreed to 
        by voice vote

  William S. Martin, dated April 10, 2019 (PN 608), agreed to by voice 
        vote

  Christine Byrne, et al., dated April 10, 2019 (PN 609), agreed to by 
        voice vote

  James J. Higgiston, et al., dated May 21, 2019 (PN 785), agreed to by 
        voice vote

  Uchenna Nnayelugo Agu, et al., dated May 21, 2019 (PN 787), as 
        modified, agreed to by voice vote

  Jennifer Ann Amos, et al., dated May 21, 2019 (PN 788), as modified, 
        agreed to by voice vote

  Allison Margaret Bartels, et al., dated May 21, 2019 (PN 789), agreed 
        to by voice vote

  Vanessa L. Adams, et al., dated May 21, 2019 (PN 790), agreed to by 
        voice vote

  Sonja Joy Anderson, et al., dated May 21, 2019 (PN 791), agreed to by 
        voice vote

                           Meeting Transcript

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:41 a.m., in 
Room S-116, The Capitol, Hon. James Risch, chairman of the 
committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Risch [presiding], Rubio, Johnson, 
Gardner, Romney, Graham, Barrasso, Portman, Paul, Young, Cruz, 
Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Udall, Murphy, Kaine, Markey, 
and Merkley.

           OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. RISCH,
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO

    The Chairman.  The committee will come to order. I want to 
thank all of you for coming today. We have got a robust agenda 
with some legislation on it, one treaty, and a number of 
amendments. We are going to commit that we are going to 
consider today two major pieces of legislation, which have been 
in the works for months regarding the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. 
I appreciate the hard work of the many members of this 
committee who have contributed to this debate, and virtually 
everybody has contributed in one fashion or another.
    The U.S. and Saudi Arabia have had a history of shared 
strategic interests, but Saudi Arabia's recent conduct is cause 
for grave concern. Everyone agrees that the murder of Jamal 
Khashoggi was truly a horrendous crime that demands a response. 
Like other members of the committee, I meet with officials of 
virtually every other country, including that of Saudi Arabia, 
and I have told the Saudis that they are only one Khashoggi 
type event away from having to find a new partner. That has 
consequences obviously for both sides, both for us and for the 
Saudis, not the least of which is that the most likely partner 
would be one of our two major competitors, and that would cause 
considerable grief for us in the region. But nonetheless, 
things cannot go on the way they are.
    We have a couple of bills that have been produced, both 
with a lot of input from other people. And I understand the 
members' frustration with members of the royal family in Saudi 
Arabia, and I understand members' frustration with arms sales 
in the region, but if it is possible, we want to change Saudi 
behavior. We want to change their conduct, and I believe we 
ought to give them an opportunity to do that. And if that does 
not happen, obviously, as I said, there is going to be--we are 
both going to go in different directions.
    We can either send a messaging bill, and I view one of 
these as a messaging bill, to the President for a vetoing, or 
we can enact legislation that will drive and, more importantly, 
form foreign policy as indeed this committee is charged with 
doing and constitutionally we have the responsibility to do. 
For this reason, today I will be opposing many--I will be 
opposing most of the amendments that have been offered to 
SADRA. Myself and others have negotiated the SADRA bill with 
the White House, with the State Department, and with many 
members of this committee, indeed, I think all members of this 
committee.
    When we get to it, we will offer the bill and the first 
amendment--the first bill we are going to consider is Senator 
Menendez's bill, which has a different approach than the SADRA 
bill does. Obviously it sanctions members of the royal family 
and also goes after arms sales in the region, both of which 
will draw a certain veto from the President. I am going to 
offer my bill, the SADRA bill, mine and Senator Shaheen's bill, 
SADRA also. Senator Coons is a co-sponsor and so is Senator 
Barrasso. There are other co-sponsors which I will mention in a 
minute, too.
    We have a number of amendments to that bill. The first 
amendment that we are going to take up will be Senator 
Menendez's amendment, and he can speak to that when we get 
there, but it is similar to, if not identical to, the bill that 
we will have voted on before that. If his amendment passes, I 
will be withdrawing SADRA, and by that if--this is not sour 
grapes or anything else. It is just we all have--we are all 
busy people and we have other things to do. If his amendment 
passes, that will also draw a certain veto to the bill, and we 
accomplish the same thing by simply going to the floor and 
making speeches or holding press conferences or what have you.
    My objective truly is to have us have a say in foreign 
policy. I want this committee to have that, and if we can pass 
SADRA, I have reason to believe that it will become law, and we 
will actually participate in the formation of foreign policy, 
which we have all longed to do for a long time. I am going to 
ask my colleagues to support the SADRA legislation unamended 
and assert our voice and, more importantly, our authority as 
the Foreign Relations Committee as we move forward.
    The founding fathers really were very clear in a lot of 
areas when they divided the responsibilities and power between 
the first and second branch of government. They did not do this 
on foreign policy. They indeed gave us each a say in it, and 
that is what we are doing today is trying to effect our say in 
it. I know everyone on this committee is anxious to have our 
voices heard and reflect the formation of foreign policy, and 
this SADRA bill gives us the opportunity to do that.
    We are here today to engage in debate and consider the 
legislation and nominations before us. This bill, the SADRA 
bill, is not a partisan matter. It is a matter of grave 
importance to the people of America. My objective here is to 
have a substantive debate and to reach an agreement. And we 
will reach an agreement, and that is whether we want to 
participate in foreign policy or sit back and cede it to the 
second branch of government.
    However this comes out, I want to thank Senator Shaheen, 
Senator Rubio, Senator Coons, Senator Barrasso, Senator 
Gardner, Senator Isakson for co-sponsoring SADRA. I would also 
like to thank Senator Merkley for his work and his inspiration 
in the ESCAPE Act for which we have--which is the genesis for 
Title 3 of the SADRA bill. I also want to acknowledge Senator 
Young's work for attempting to end the war in Yemen. He was not 
the only one. There are others, but I think he has been the 
leader on that, and I would say that that is an inspiration for 
a significant part of this bill also.
    I also want to thank Senator Menendez and Graham for their 
construction of the Menendez-Graham bill, which takes an 
entirely different tact. I really think that that is going to 
be constructive as we deal with the Saudis. I suspect that bill 
is going to get a very significant vote, and I think that we 
will be able to use it as we--as we talk with the Saudis and 
urge them to change their conduct. It will not become law, but, 
nonetheless, I think that it will actually help move the needle 
as we urge them to change their conduct.
    Also on the agenda is Senate Bill 1441, the Protecting 
Europe's Energy Security Act of 2019. I want to thank Senators 
Cruz and Shaheen for working on the Cruz substitute amendment 
for this bill, which I will be supporting. This bipartisan 
measure would sanction companies that lay pipes for the Nord 
Stream 2 and TurkStream pipelines. It mirrors a similar bill 
which passed the House Foreign Affairs Committee by voice vote. 
These pipelines could result in further destabilization and 
grave injury to Ukraine and the enrichment of the Putin regime. 
They put at risk the security of NATO member states. This bill 
reflects a specific, targeted approach to push back against 
Russia. I believe it could have a path forward towards 
enactment if it stays narrow and targeted, and thus I will 
oppose all amendments besides the Cruz substitute.
    Finally, we will consider the Protocol to the North 
Atlantic Treaty of 1949 on the Accession of the Republic of 
North Macedonia. Welcoming North Macedonia into NATO will 
finish a long-overdue piece of business, cement the Prespa 
Agreement between Greece and North Macedonia, and strengthen 
Allied defenses against Russian malign influence in the 
Balkans.
    The nominations on the agenda today are incredibly 
important, none more than so than Kelly Craft to be U.S. 
ambassador to the United Nations. This position has been 
unfilled for 6 months. We need Ambassador Craft in place before 
the U.N. Assembly in September. We also have nominees on the 
agenda each for Libya, Mexico, the UAE, and the OECD. We need 
to get these noms to the floor as soon as possible. And with 
that, I will turn the floor over to Senator Menendez.

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

    Senator Menendez.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me start 
off by saying I am very pleased that we were able to come 
together and reach an agreement on a path forward for the 
legislation on the agenda today as well as a package of 
nominations. And I also want to thank all of the other senators 
on this committee on both sides who worked to get us to the 
agreement today and who spoke out on the importance of 
maintaining the tradition of bipartisanship on this committee.
    For many decades, this committee has stood alone in the 
Senate, a bipartisan haven in the midst of the tidal wave of 
partisanship. It is in this committee that senators from both 
parties have come together to craft critical pieces of 
legislation at times of great crisis in our country. We are the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee. We represent America's face 
to the world, and it is always better when we can speak with 
one voice about America's foreign policy. That is why I am 
pleased we were able to come together on an agreement today on 
legislation and nominations.
    Let me outline what that agreement is. We have agreed to 
place 13 nominees, including Kelly Craft, the nominee to be 
ambassador to the United Nations, on the agenda. I would note 
that while I do not support a number of these nominees, we have 
completed their vetting process, and I supported adding them to 
the agenda. However, for Mr. Zuckerman and Mr. Manchester, we 
still had outstanding requests related to allegations of sexual 
harassment and a hostile work environment. I am glad that the 
chairman agreed to withdraw them until the White House responds 
to my letter requesting that Diplomatic Security conduct 
additional vetting. If the White House responds to my letters 
requesting additional vetting, both of those nominees will be 
cleared for a business meeting in early September.
    I am also shocked that the White House has refused to 
provide the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with full and 
complete copies of the U.S. agreements with Mexico and 
Guatemala on migration. As was clear in our hearing yesterday 
where we had the State Department legal adviser that I was 
pursuing, the administration is refusing to even answer basic 
questions about these agreements, including whether they are 
binding under international law. I appreciate that the chairman 
has agreed to hold an open hearing on Mexico in September and 
that he will be joining my request for the full Mexico and 
Guatemala agreements and implementing arrangements. Once those 
steps are completed, in spite of my deep concerns about Mr. 
Bremberg's policy positions, which are out of line with most 
Americans' and many Republican views, I will also agree to put 
Mr. Bremberg on a business meeting.
    I also look forward to discussing with you, Mr. Chairman, 
in the weeks ahead a broader path forward on how we can get 
timely and full responses from the administration on basic 
informational purposes so that we can maintain the bipartisan 
tradition that our predecessors so wisely chose. I sincerely 
hope that this broader discussion is a fruitful one, not just 
for the smooth running of the committee and this 116th 
Congress, but for the benefit of future Congresses and all 
Americans to come.
    When the next war comes, when the next attack strikes 
America, the leaders of this committee will need to bring the 
two parties together, indeed, to bring the entire American 
people together, to respond to the crisis of their time. As 
senators we have a responsibility to nurture and strengthen the 
institutions that we are a part of. And our predecessors, 
Republicans and Democrats alike, left us a strong committee, 
one where Democrats and Republicans respect each other, where 
we work out our problems based on comity.
    But I just want to make one observation about comity. 
Comity is not the mere acquiescence or capitulation to the will 
of the majority, whoever that majority may be at any given 
point. That is not comity. Comity is the deliberate, 
consultative, negotiated process in which the majority and the 
minority come together to form a pathway over to consensus. We 
may not agree, as we will not today, on legislation, we may not 
agree as it relates to the nominees, but we agree to a pathway 
forward. And that pathway forward has to also observe the 
rights of the minority, the rights that I have observed when I 
was the chairman of this committee. And there needs to be 
preserved a tradition that has continued today, and we see it 
continue today. It needs to be preserved going forward, and I 
look forward to working with the chairman and all members of 
the committee to do so.
    I want to speak briefly concerning the legislation on the 
agenda. When we come to the Saudi bill, I will speak more 
extensively on it. But I would just say to the chairman, with 
all due respect, and I appreciate that he is trying to do 
something that sends a message, I think it is a rather weak 
message. And I would also say that I do not believe that that 
bill can become law because I do not believe it will pass the 
House of Representatives as presently written.
    Secondly, if we as senators and this committee start down a 
path in which the suggestion that a president, regardless of 
which president is sitting in the White House, will not sign 
something and that should be an automatic veto upon what we 
decide to do, that is a dangerous path. If that was the view, 
CAATSA would have never become law. When I and others joined 
together to write CAATSA, we were told the same thing, it will 
not become law, and then the Russians did what they did, and 
ultimately CAATSA became the law of land, a critical law at 
this point in time. I do not think we should be vetoing 
ourselves before we have an opportunity to pass legislation 
that we think is meaningful, and I will speak more directly 
about the choices as we move forward.
    I appreciate Senator Cruz and Shaheen's leadership on the 
Nord Stream bill. I am opposed to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline 
project. It poses significant risk to European energy security. 
If completed, this pipeline will create a permanent alternative 
export route to the Ukraine pipeline system. This means that 
Nord Stream 2 would further undermine Ukraine's economic 
security and potentially increase its vulnerability to further 
Russian military incursions. Putin has complete disregard for 
international rules. The Russian Federation has repeatedly used 
its energy resources as a lever of power. It would be foolish 
to think that Putin would not do so in the future and to give 
him another powerful lever to use it against the West. So I 
support that effort.
    I support--though a small country, North Macedonia has made 
notable contributions to international security missions. It 
has deployed more than 4,000 troops to Iraq in support of U.S. 
efforts. In 2018, North Macedonia boosted its contribution to 
Afghanistan by 20 percent. It has also supported missions in 
Kosovo after its support to the International Counter ISIS 
Coalition. It is home to a military training ground unlike any 
other in Europe, which will be a critical asset for all of 
NATO. These are all strong arguments in favor of its inclusion 
in the alliance. Admission of North Macedonia into NATO would 
mark another important step towards fully integrating the 
Balkans into international institutions that have helped to 
contribute to peace and stability over the years, and I urge my 
colleagues to support the protocol.
    Mr. Chairman, we have a number of nominations on the 
agenda. I support all of the nominations except for Craft and 
Rakolta, and I will speak about those two as well as some 
remarks I want to make prior to both. I am also pleased to see 
that we are moving nine Foreign Service Lists. It is absolutely 
critical that we move these expeditiously as the talented and 
dedicated men and women of the Foreign Service depend on it. 
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman.  Thank you. Let us start with the Craft 
nomination due to its importance. Is there a motion to----
    Senator Menendez.  Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak on 
the Craft nomination.
    The Chairman.  And actually there are two nominations. One 
is to the U.N. Security Council and the other is to represent 
the U.N. General Assembly. Is there a motion and a second?
    Voice. So move.
    The Chairman.  It has been moved and seconded. Is there 
debate? Senator Menendez.
    Senator Menendez.  Mr. Chairman, thank you. Let me start by 
saying I oppose Ambassador Craft's nomination. I do not believe 
that Ambassador Craft has the foreign policy or diplomatic 
experience for a position as important as the U.S. ambassador 
to the United Nations. In fact, prior to serving in Ottawa, she 
had no relevant foreign policy experience at all. Given her 
excessive time away from the post while in Canada, which I 
believe is a dereliction of duty, I also believe that she lacks 
the seriousness and professionalism needed to be our U.N. 
ambassador.
    As U.S. ambassador to Canada, Ambassador Craft had one job: 
to represent the United States in Canada. Instead she spent 56 
percent, of her time outside of Canada. Not within Canada 
traveling. Outside of Canada. Let me repeat that. During her 21 
months assigned to Ottawa, she spent an entire year out of 
Canada. Let that sink in. Now for my colleagues who want to 
rush to say she was engaged in USMCA negotiations, I want to 
underscore that State Department records show she spent only 40 
days of those 356 days on travel related to USMCA. Instead she 
spent 210 days in Kentucky or Oklahoma where she has homes. I 
repeat, she spent 7 of her 21 months at home in the United 
States. Last time I checked, not a single round of the USMCA 
negotiations took place in Kentucky or Oklahoma. Should she be 
confirmed as an ambassador to the United Nations, I would be 
concerned that when an international crisis arises, we will 
find her Kentucky instead of New York.
    Perhaps most importantly, however, I do not believe 
Ambassador Craft has the necessary experience to represent us 
at the United Nations. This is a place where countries send the 
most seasoned individuals they have to pursue their country's 
interests on a global stage. Unlike previous nominees to this 
post, she does not possess the foreign policy, diplomatic, or 
experience in government of prior United Nations ambassadors. 
Her only professional experience was running her own consulting 
firm. Never in our Nation's history have we nominated such an 
underqualified person to this critical post simply for being a 
donor.
    During her nomination hearing, Ambassador Craft displayed a 
lack of knowledge on basic foreign policy issues. When asked 
about the most pressing issues the U.N. faces, Mrs. Craft did 
not mention North Korea's aggression, or nuclear proliferation, 
or ongoing threats from Iran, the challenges of China's growing 
influence, or the situation in Libya. When asked about the two-
state solution, she could not articulate a viewpoint. I am 
convinced that Ambassador Craft has neither the experience nor 
the skill set to successfully challenge the world's most 
seasoned and often the most ruthless diplomats around the globe 
working on behalf of their countries at the United Nations.
    This nomination underscores the Trump administration's lack 
of respect for diplomacy, for our diplomats, and for the U.N. I 
will be voting against this nomination, and per committee 
rules, I will also be filing minority views on Ambassador Craft 
to be submitted to the clerk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman.  Thank you. Further debate?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  If there is no further debate, there is a 
motion to adopt----
    Senator Menendez.  I ask for a recorded vote.
    The Chairman.  The recorded vote has been requested. The 
clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Rubio.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Johnson?
    The Chairman.  Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Gardner?
    Senator Gardner.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Romney?
    Senator Romney.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Graham?
    Senator Graham.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Isakson?
    The Chairman.  Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Portman?
    The Chairman.  Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Young?
    Senator Young.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Cruz?
    Senator Cruz.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Menendez?
    Senator Menendez.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Udall?
    Senator Udall.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Markey?
    Senator Markey.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Booker?
    Senator Menendez.  No by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Aye. Report?
    The Clerk.  Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 15, and the noes are 
7.
    Senator Menendez.  Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry, and it is not because I will object, but I want to 
establish it for the future. I understand that our dear friend 
and colleague, Senator Isakson, is ill and is not in the 
Senate, and since this is a case of first impression, he is 
casting a proxy vote. Most of the time proxy votes are for 
members who are in another meeting, but within the Senate 
itself. So I assume that the rule will now forever be that any 
member, even if they are ill and not in the Senate, will be 
able to cast a vote by proxy. Is that a fair statement?
    The Chairman.  I think that is a fair statement. I mean, as 
a matter of comity, we have always allowed members to cast a 
proxy vote if they are not here.
    Senator Menendez.  A lot of them cast proxy votes when they 
are not here in the committee, but as I--if some of us have a 
Finance Committee markup going on right now or something else, 
Judiciary, that is when a proxy has taken place. But when they 
are not physically in the Senate, they have not been allowed. I 
am not challenging it. I just want to establish it as the rule 
for the future so when a future colleague on either side of the 
aisle is ill and is not present, that they will be allowed to 
file a proxy vote.
    The Chairman.  Senator Menendez, my ruling is going to be 
that they can cast a proxy vote, whatever the reasons for 
absence. I do not think either the chairman or the committee 
or, for that matter, the Senate ought to be in the business of 
litigating whether it is an excused absence, or a good absence, 
or what have you.
    Senator Menendez.  That is fine by me.
    The Chairman.  But we are going to allow----
    Senator Menendez.  I just want to make sure that there is 
not an objection in the future.
    The Chairman.  Thank you very much for establishing that. 
So did we announce the vote? What was the vote?
    Voice. Fifteen-7.
    Voice. So we are headed for Bermuda now.
    [Laughter.]
    The Clerk.  Fifteen-7 is the vote.
    The Chairman.  Leave your proxy. All right. The roll call 
is 15-7, and the motion has been adopted.
    What I would like to do now is to take the rest of those--
since we have got so much business to do this morning, I would 
like to do the rest of them by voice vote with people being 
able to record a no vote if they want to. Is that acceptable to 
you, Senator Menendez?
    Senator Menendez.  Mr. Chairman, I would only ask for a 
recorded vote on Mr. Rakolta. I am willing to accept all the 
others as a voice vote.
    The Chairman.  Well, let us----
    Senator Menendez.  And then I have some remarks I want to 
be included in the record on Marks. Mr. Chairman, South Africa 
is a strategic partner of the United States, particularly in 
the areas of health, security, and trade. It is in our interest 
to strengthen this relationship due to our countries' shared 
interests.
     The U.S. has not had an Ambassador in South Africa since 
the beginning of the Trump administration, and it is past time 
that we send one.
     I intend to vote for Ms. Marks, but I must note for the 
record, Mr. Chairman, that Ms. Marks has an extensive legal 
history, with a significant amount of litigation listed in her 
nomination materials, including a case filed by her sibling in 
South Africa Civil Court. My staff questioned Ms. Marks on her 
legal history, and were assured by Ms. Marks that the South 
Africa case is ``Dormant'' and will not be taken up again. If 
that is incorrect, and this lawsuit comes to life again, that 
will be a problem, both for her and the United States, if Ms. 
Marks is ultimately confirmed to serve as our ambassador.
     The only information we have on this matter is that which 
was provided by Ms. Marks, and from a review of media.
     I will support her nomination with the understanding that 
her answers to my staff were accurate. If I find otherwise, I 
will ask Ms. Marks to provide a written explanation, and if she 
is already serving in South Africa, the State Department will 
need to explain to us how they plan to manage this situation.
    The Chairman.  Okay. Well, let us start with Rakolta and 
take that one.
    Senator Rubio.  Mr. Chairman? And I do not object to the 
voice vote on all the other nominees. I do want to point to one 
thing. There are two Western Hemisphere nominees here, one for 
Colombia, one for Mexico. I am not going to hold that up or 
object to it. But I did want to point something out, and that 
is we have been working now for the better part of a month to 
schedule a hearing for the State Department on Western 
Hemisphere topics. We agreed to delay one a few weeks ago 
because they could not send us a witness. They were going to be 
traveling with the Secretary. And then again now we cannot get 
a--we cannot get a witness. We cannot get a State Department 
witness from the Western Hemisphere to appear before the 
subcommittee for reasons that no one will explain to us. They 
are just--they are never available. And it just cannot be that 
we sit here forever and can never hold hearings on the Western 
Hemisphere because they refuse to show up. So I am not going to 
hold up these nominees today because of that. These are 
important posts. But I got to tell you, they are testing at 
least my patience, so----
    The Chairman.  Thank you, Senator. I know a couple of 
people that would be interested in that message, and I will see 
that they do that. It is a valid consideration. So is there a 
motion on the----
    Senator Young.  Mr. Chairman, I just--I want to publicly go 
on record and indicate to Senator Rubio that if indeed you feel 
like you reach that point, we will stand in solidarity with you 
and do whatever it takes to get the State Department----
    The Chairman.  I think we all will.
    Senator Young.  I have had some previous challenges, so.
    The Chairman.  I think we all do. All right. So let us--you 
wanted a roll call vote or----
    Senator Menendez.  I would like to speak first on that.
    The Chairman.  Please.
    Senator Menendez.  Okay. And I share Senator Rubio's 
concern, not only the Western Hemisphere, but his challenges as 
the chairman of the subcommittee in getting administration 
witnesses is a challenge we collectively face when we are 
trying to get witnesses before the full committee from the 
State Department. So I am happy to join him in that.
    The Chairman.  Senator Menendez, before you speak on 
Rakolta, can we have a motion to send that to the floor, the 
past nomination?
    Voice. So moved.
    The Chairman.  It has been moved and seconded that Rakolta 
be sent to the floor. Senator Menendez.
    Senator Menendez.  Mr. Chairman, the United Arab Emirates 
continues to be an important partner of the United States in a 
part of the world where we need reliable, capable partners. The 
Emirates host the Al Dhafra Air Force Base and have made 
significant positive reforms. I do have some serious concerns 
with their foreign policies over the past few years, including 
their military involvement in Yemen and associated concerns 
over detainees as well as their ongoing support for various 
actors across Libya and Sudan, although I do applaud them for 
moving out of Yemen as they have stated that they will leave. 
That is part because of what this committee and individuals 
have done as well.
    I believe that we are best served with qualified, capable, 
and transparent ambassadors promoting American interests around 
the world. I also believe Mr. Rakolta is a successful, 
competent person who will represent and advocate for the United 
States. However, I have serious concerns about Mr. Rakolta's 
failure to be fully transparent to this committee. When asked 
in this committee's questionnaire, Mr. Rakolta initially failed 
to list more than 50 companies on whose boards he sits. Now, 
you might be able forget one or two, but you cannot forget 50 
of them.
    He also did not initially disclose that he served on the 
board of a nonprofit that was the subject of a Federal 
investigation. While serving on that board, in 1 year he 
approved $150,000 in payments to the organization's executive 
director, who was also a government employee that was already 
receiving $180,000 salary for doing the same work that the 
nonprofit reported to do. During and after Mr. Rakolta approved 
those payments, that same government official oversaw the 
development of the budget and bidding process for a $220 
million government contract, and then ultimately guided the 
selection of the winning bidder, his construction company. An 
independent audit later found that the contract award process 
appeared to have been designed to provide an unfair advantage 
to Mr. Rakolta's company.
    As we have discussed, so many of the challenges we are 
having with some of the nominees before this committee are 
related to the White House's apparent lack of thorough vetting, 
yet here we are. I appreciate that Mr. Rakolta cooperated in 
following up with our questions, but I believe we must be the 
ones to hold our nominees accountable. I will be voting against 
this nomination, and per committee rules, I will also be filing 
the minority view for Mr. Rakolta. I will be submitting to the 
clerk by Monday.
    The Chairman.  Thank you, Senator Menendez. Is there 
further debate?
    Senator Romney.  Mr. Chairman, yes.
    The Chairman.  Senator Romney.
    Senator Romney.  I think it is helpful to offer some 
background on the many companies upon which Mr. Rakolta serves 
as a board member. He is the chief executive officer and owner 
of one of the largest construction companies in the world that 
builds airports, hospitals, and factories all over the world. 
And any time they begin any project, they form an LLC or a 
similar entity for a particular project. And over his lifetime, 
he has literally been on hundreds of boards of entities. And 
when he was asked to write down the name of the entities where 
he served as a board member, my understanding is he put down 
all those where he is a board member of an entity that is 
currently operating, but did not think to put down some where 
the project has been long completed, the project is no longer 
underway.
    And so it would be quite impossible to have a memory to 
delve back into all those LLCs. He ultimately engaged in an 
effort to try and find all the LLCs where the entity had not 
been closed, but where he still is shown as a--as a board 
member. I would also note that he is a person of high integrity 
and great capability. I have a personal connection there in 
that he is--by law he is an extended family, if you will. He 
was the brother-in-law of my brother before the divorce.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman.  We are going to need a legal opinion on 
that.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Romney.  That is a truly attenuated relationship, 
but I have a great deal of personal respect for Mr. Rakolta and 
for the ethical conduct of his business practices, and the 
formation of many, many LLCs associated with the type of 
business that he participates in. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Menendez.  Mr. Chairman, a brief comment.
    The Chairman.  Yes, Senator.
    Senator Menendez.  Number one, I see that you are--I 
appreciate your warmth and that you can speak so highly of him 
notwithstanding the present relationship.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Menendez.  But I would just simply say that if we 
could on a tertiary look find the 50 companies, that I am sure 
he could have as well. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Shaheen.  Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Yes?
    Senator Shaheen.  Can I just get a clarification from 
Senator Romney as to whose divorce it was?
    [Laughter.]
    Voice. Not yours.
    Senator Shaheen.  I am just kidding.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Romney.  That would be complicated.
    Senator Rubio.  But no matter what, Mr. Chairman, anyone 
with those kind of relationships should never be allowed to 
vote by proxy.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman.  We will put that as a footnote, sir. Okay. 
The motion has been made to accept Mr. Rakolta. The clerk will 
call the roll.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Rubio.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Johnson?
    The Chairman.  Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Romney?
    Senator Romney.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Gardner?
    Senator Gardner.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Graham?
    Senator Graham.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Isakson?
    The Chairman.  Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Portman?
    Senator Portman.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Young?
    Senator Young.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Cruz?
    Senator Cruz.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Menendez?
    Senator Menendez.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Udall?
    Senator Udall.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Markey?
    Senator Markey.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Booker?
    Senator Menendez.  No by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 15; the nays are 7.
    The Chairman.  The motion has been adopted. Let us move 
to--what I would like to do now is consider the other 
nominations and the 650-plus service officers on the nine 
Foreign Service Lists. Is there--and we will allow anyone to 
register a no vote on any individual if that is okay.
    Voice. Motion to consider en bloc.
    The Chairman.  Okay. To adopt en bloc.
    Voice. And to adopt en bloc.
    The Chairman.  Is there a second?
    Voice. Second.
    The Chairman.  All right. It has been moved and seconded 
that we adopt en bloc. Is there debate?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  There being none, all those in favor, 
signify by saying aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed, nay.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it. Is there anyone who wants 
to be recorded as a no on any of these?
    Senator Menendez.  Mr. Chairman, I just want my remarks on 
Ms. Marks to be included as if I had made them.
    The Chairman.  They will be included. Senator Udall?
    Senator Udall. Mr. Chairman, I would record myself as a no 
on Marks.
    The Chairman.  Senator Udall will be recorded as a no on 
Marks. Any further additions, subtractions?
    Senator Markey.  Mr. Chairman, could I be recorded as no?
    The Chairman.  Yes, Senator Markey will be recorded as a no 
on Marks. All right. Having gotten that behind us, let us move 
to the North Macedonia Treaty, and I think this one has been 
talked about at great length. Is there debate on the treaty?
    Senator Menendez.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Senator Menendez.
    Senator Menendez.  I have to cast a vote in the Finance 
Committee and I will go cast it and come right back. Will you 
please hold the Saudi----
    The Chairman.  Yes, I will wait until you get here. I will 
do so.
    Senator Menendez.  Thank you.
    Voice. That is where I will be going as well.
    The Chairman.  Okay.
    Senator Paul.  I have an amendment. Do you want me to talk 
about that now or do you want to talk just----
    The Chairman.  Senator Paul, if you want to offer an 
amendment, now is the time.
    Senator Paul.  All right. As most of the members of the 
committee know, I have not been for expanding NATO. I do not 
think it adds to our national security. North Macedonia spends 
about $120 million a year on their defense, 8,000 soldiers. I 
see North Macedonia and these small countries' addition to NATO 
really more as being tripwires to war and less of an asset to 
our national security. To put North Macedonia's military 
spending in perspective, Bryce Harper has a contract for $330 
million from the Phillies, and North Macedonia spends $120 
million. That is about 1 percent. I think like most of the 
other people we add to it, they will never pay the 2 percent 
that we request.
    And the amendment that I have to offer is an amendment that 
would be put in as a reservation, and it is an amendment to 
point out really the problem I see in us picking up all of the 
money to pay for NATO. We pay about 70 percent of NATO's costs 
now. The President has railed against this often. And I think 
really we ought to pay proportional to our voting privileges, 
and if there is 28 people in NATO, we ought to pay 1/28th of 
the bill.
    And so that is what my amendment essentially would do is 
change our NATO fees to be proportional to our voting 
percentage in NATO. And I ask for a roll call vote.
    The Chairman.  Are you moving to adopt Paul 1st?
    Senator Paul.  I do not know what the number is. It is the 
one that makes----
    The Chairman.  We know which one it is.
    Senator Paul.  Okay.
    The Chairman.  And this requires everyone to pay the same 
amount to NATO.
    Senator Paul.  Everybody would pay the same amount to NATO.
    The Chairman.  Okay. Everybody understand it? Any further 
debate? Any questions?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  Will you accept a voice vote on this?
    Senator Paul.  I would like a roll call vote.
    The Chairman.  Okay. A roll call has been requested on Paul 
First Degree regarding payments. Senator Paul, you have not 
made a motion yet to adopt. Do you want----
    Senator Paul.  Motion to adopt.
    The Chairman.  There has been a motion to adopt. Is there a 
second?
    Senator Rubio.  For purposes of a vote, yes.
    The Chairman.  There has been a motion and a second to 
adopt the Paul First Degree. The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Rubio.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Johnson?
    The Chairman.  No by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Gardner?
    Senator Gardner.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Romney?
    Senator Romney.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Graham?
    Senator Graham.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Isakson?
    The Chairman.  No by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Portman?
    The Chairman.  No by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Young?
    The Chairman.  No by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Cruz?
    Senator Cruz.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Menendez?
    Voice. No by proxy.
    The Chairman.  No by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Cardin?
    Voice. No by proxy.
    The Chairman.  No by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Udall?
    Senator Udall.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Markey?
    Senator Markey.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Booker?
    Voice. No by proxy.
    The Chairman.  No by proxy. The clerk will report.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 1; the nays are 21.
    The Chairman.  The amendment has failed. Is there--I would 
like--Senator Menendez is not here, but I will offer Menendez 
First Degree, Number 3, and that is the sense of the Senate 
regarding NATO. Oh, okay. Well, that is fine. If he does not 
want it, then I will withdraw it. I will withdraw that.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman.  Anyone else? Now is the time.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  There being none, is there a motion to adopt 
the protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty?
    Senator Shaheen.  So move.
    Voice. Second.
    The Chairman.  It has been moved and seconded that the 
protocol be adopted.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    Opposed, nay?
    Senator Paul.  No. Mr. Chairman, can you just record me as 
a no?
    The Chairman.  Senator Paul will be recorded as voting no. 
The ayes have it and the protocol has been adopted, and the 
matter will be referred to the clerk.
    Let us move to the--Senator Cruz's bill, Senate 1441, 
Protecting Europe's Energy Security----
    Senator Paul.  Mr. Chairman, I have a point of inquiry.
    The Chairman.  The senator may inquire.
    Senator Paul.  We placed a formal request to hold this bill 
over before the start of the meeting. I am just inquiring as to 
why we would be bringing it up.
    The Chairman.  I am sorry. I did not realize there was a 
formal request to do that. Are you requesting that now, Senator 
Paul?
    Senator Paul.  Yes.
    The Chairman.  Okay. There has been a request that this be 
held until the next business meeting. Is that correct?
    Senator Paul.  Yes.
    The Chairman.  Okay. First of all, I do not want to set a 
precedent with this, but it is discretionary with the chairman. 
And there has been a tradition, I guess, in this committee 
where that was honored under usual circumstances. This is an 
unusual circumstance in that this is a matter of urgency. And, 
Senator Cruz, if you want to speak to that, you can.
    Having said that, I am still going to honor Senator Paul's 
request. However, we are not going to hold this until after 
the--after the September recess. Senator Menendez and I will 
negotiate for a time for a business meeting next week, and we 
will take it up next week and have a vote on that next week. 
Senator Cruz, are you all right with that?
    Senator Cruz.  Mr. Chairman, if we can follow through and 
get it done----
    The Chairman.  We will get it done.
    Senator Cruz.  As you noted, there is considerable urgency 
in terms of the timing of this because Russia is proceeding 
rapidly with building Nord Stream 2, and every day of delay 
benefits Russia at the expense of the United States.
    The Chairman.  I understand that. With that, I will hold 
this over, and Senator Menendez and I will in good faith get a 
hearing set for your bill next week.
    Senator Cruz.  Thank you.
    The Chairman.  A business meeting set. Okay. With that, we 
are down to just--yeah. With that we are down to two bills. One 
is Senator Menendez's bill, and the other is a number of ours 
bill. And Senator Menendez has asked us to wait, and that is a 
tough deal because everybody has got other commitments. He 
indicated to me he was just going to cast a vote and come back, 
so can we be patient for Senator Menendez?
    Senator Rubio.  Can we start debating?
    The Chairman.  You know, his is the first--I want to run 
his first. I think we will be able to move through. Lock the 
doors, Bertie.
    [Laughter.]
    Voice. [Off audio.]
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman.  Senator Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen.  Have we voted on the two Foreign Service 
Lists?
    The Chairman.  We did. You were recorded as an aye.
    Senator Shaheen.  Okay, I did not realize that. Yes, I did, 
but I did not realize that was for--wrapped into all of the 
other noms.
    The Chairman.  Well, we did--I thought I was pretty clear 
that we put all those together.
    Senator Shaheen.  That is fine. I just wanted to make 
sure----
    The Chairman.  Is there somebody on the 650 that you did 
not like?
    Senator Shaheen.  No. No. No.
    The Chairman.  Senator Murphy?
    Senator Murphy.  Mr. Chairman, I sort of know how this is 
going to play out, so I am happy to offer my remarks right now.
    The Chairman.  Well, if you know something----
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman  [continuing). Could you put that in a sealed 
envelope and----
    Senator Murphy.  Well, I guess--I guess there may be 
somebody who would want to offer general remarks on the 
legislation.
    The Chairman.  Yeah, okay. Well, let us go there.
    Senator Murphy.  Maybe this is the time to--maybe this is 
the time to do that.
    The Chairman.  This would be a wonderful time.
    Senator Murphy.  Okay.
    The Chairman.  We will all listen intently.
    Senator Murphy.  Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for 
bringing this process to the committee. I hope that we are 
going to report out the strongest bill possible. I would 
associate myself with the remarks of Senator Menendez. I do 
think we have an independent responsibility as the Article I 
branch to be able to come to our own determination as to what 
lies in the best interests of American national security.
    And in this case, I think there is bipartisan consensus 
that the administration's policy, both with respect to Yemen 
and Saudi Arabia, has lost its way. And I would rather that we 
come to an agreement, Republicans and Democrats, about what 
that new policy should be regardless of whether the executive 
is prepared to sign it or not, and I think we could do that. 
That would be messy I certainly understand, messier for members 
of the President's party.
    But I think the stakes are so important in Yemen where we 
have a humanitarian catastrophe like we have seen nowhere else 
in the world, and with our relationship with Saudi Arabia, that 
we should have taken that course. I understand that is not 
where we are today, but I still believe it is our better option 
to report out as strong a bill as possible so as to not give 
the impression that we are simply endorsing the 
administration's policy on Saudi Arabia, but to continue to 
send the message that both parties want a new direction, both 
in Yemen and in the bilateral relationship.
    The Saudis, importantly, have had a number of opportunities 
to right the ship. Senator Durbin and I met with the new 
ambassador yesterday, and she recognized that she is dealing 
with what she called an oil spill. And the problem is that the 
Saudis, instead of cleaning it up, have just poured more oil 
out over the course of the last few months. They have continued 
their campaign of repression, locking up women and journalists 
and political activists at a rate that we had not seen even 
before relationships here went sour. They still have not 
fulfilled their commitment to the United Nations. U.N. 
programs, food programs, health programs are shutting down as 
we speak inside Yemen because of the Saudis, and also the 
Emirates have not made good on their commitment.
    And so I am at the point where I believe only with a 
relationship by Congress are we going to be able to change 
their behavior, and I think the way to do that is to report out 
the strongest bill possible this morning. So I just wanted to 
offer that as the reason for why my vote will be to strengthen 
your bill, Mr. Chairman, and then to vote out Senator 
Menendez's bill. I am glad, though, that this committee has 
turned its full attention, not just to the relationship with 
Saudi Arabia, but also to the war in Yemen.
    I raised this issue first 4 years ago on the Senate floor 
when not very many people in this country knew what was 
happening in Yemen, and it does--and it is meaningful to me 
that members of both parties recognize that the U.S. has a lot 
to do with the world's worst humanitarian catastrophe, that al-
Qaeda and ISIS are getting stronger inside Yemen. And I am also 
grateful to the administration that I think just in recent days 
and weeks has recognized that there is a unique role to play 
for us for this country in trying to bring a political 
settlement. And I am hopeful that that will bear fruit in the 
coming days and weeks. So those are my general comments as to 
the way forward.
    The Chairman.  Senator Murphy, thank you. Thank you for 
those remarks, and there is very little of that that I disagree 
with. This relationship, as you have pointed out, is on the 
wrong trajectory, and if it does not correct, the relationship 
is not repairable. And they are going to find another partner, 
and we are going to have to live with that. My bill attempts to 
give them one last opportunity to course correct. I suspect 
that the more punitive bill, I suspect that there are 
sufficient votes on this committee that the bill is going to go 
out of here. I am hoping we can send both bills out. Like I 
said, there is very little I disagree with there. Senator Rubio 
was next and then, of course, Senator Coons.
    Senator Rubio.  Just for the--in the interest of time for 
the same general comments, I would acknowledge at the outset 
that our alliance with Saudi Arabia is among the most difficult 
and tenuous of those anywhere in the world. It is clear that we 
do not share common values on many issues with those who govern 
that nation. This is a country whose treatment of women is 
abhorrent. There is zero religious tolerance. There is a series 
of policies internally that are just not acceptable.
    Their practices as well. I mean, this is a crown prince who 
kidnapped the prime minister in Lebanon, which is an amazing 
thing to say. He kidnapped a head of government from another 
nation. Obviously we know of the murder of Mr. Khashoggi, which 
I have no doubt could never have been orchestrated without the 
knowledge and/or approval of the crown prince, not to mention 
it is a nation that has shown--a government that has shown 
tolerance and, even in many cases, I think, contributed to the 
spread of Sunni-based terror, whether it is through its 
incitement of textbooks or allowing the folks to operate. So we 
have a lot that makes this relationship very difficult.
    What complicates it, however, is the situation in the 
Middle East today as it stands is extraordinarily dangerous, 
the role the Saudis play in confronting not just a dangerous, 
but something that is really a tinderbox, which is what the 
activities are. I cannot emphasize enough how every single day 
we are at a--we are one or two actions away from a broader 
regional conflict that I do not think anyone has totally 
thought through in terms of its implications and what it could 
mean.
    And they do serve a role. As an example, the U.S. has 
increased its defensive posture in the region. We have 
additional military personnel stationed there now. They provide 
a valuable role in that regard. So this balance between human 
rights, of which I believe, without overstating it I hope, that 
my commitment to human rights is, I think, equal to that of 
anybody on this committee or, frankly, in Congress. And there 
are human rights issues that we have not been deeply involved 
in, but sometimes that has to be balanced by some pragmatic, 
real-world realities. That has always been true of foreign 
policy. It remains true in this era, and that is the balance we 
are trying to strike.
    And so I would just say the bills that are up before us 
today, particularly the one you have worked on which I am happy 
to co-sponsor, I think takes some pretty concrete steps forward 
dealing, in my view, pretty strongly with someone who with a 
nation, with a government that also happens to be a key 
linchpin of our regional strategy in the Middle East. But I 
think we have to always do so with the acknowledgment that we 
also have to measure some of it, at least in the short- to mid-
term, because of the realities of what we are living with in 
that region.
    And so I hope we all keep that in mind that is it is 
possible to condemn the things that the crown prince has done, 
his recklessness, which I actually think makes the region more 
dangerous, while at the same time not seeking to completely 
implode a strategic alliance, at least at the given moment, 
that is critical to our national security. It is a tough 
balance. Oftentimes with foreign policy, we do not get a choice 
between a really good option and a really bad one. We get a 
choice between multiple terrible options, and we are trying to 
pick which one is the least terrible. And I certainly think 
this comes to mind when viewing these two issues that we are 
about to confront.
    So I just wanted that to be on the record. That is going to 
be the chorus on some of my amendments and explanations, and I 
think we are just saving some time. So thank you for the 
opportunity.
    The Chairman.  Thank you, Senator Rubio. The list I have is 
Senator Coons, Senator Gardner, Senator Kaine, Senator Paul. I 
am going to start with Coons.
    Senator Coons.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, let me just 
express my appreciation that you and the ranking member have 
worked a way for us to move forward while respecting the 
decades-long comity. We have moved through a number of 
important ambassadors, and we need to continue supporting and 
processing qualified ambassadors. Yet we are standing for the 
fact that this committee needs and expects witnesses for 
hearings, background information on nominees regardless of who 
the President is or the party in control.
    There were many, many amendments filed for today. I wanted 
to briefly speak to one.
    The Chairman.  Two hundred and fifty, give or take.
    Senator Coons.  Two hundred and fifty, give or take. Having 
talked to a number of members, I recognize that the structure 
and the language of this particular--it is Coons First Degree 
Number 1--that many members may not have appreciated the way in 
which I think. This particular amendment, which I got directly 
from Congressman Malinowski in the House, strikes a good 
balance. It is just a tick tougher in terms of accountability, 
reporting, and under what conditions the President can waive 
sanctions against those responsible for the murder of 
Khashoggi, than the Risch bill which I have co-sponsored.
    And I think many of us are looking for that point that is 
the strongest possible imposition of requirements of reporting 
and sanctions that has a shot of passing the Senate and 
conceivably being signed. Whether it takes passing it by a 
veto-proof majority or whether it takes further engagement, 
this is in the NDAA. In the House it got 400 votes. I think it 
strikes the right balance. But, Mr. Chairman, I understand you 
are willing to make a commitment if I did not advance this for 
a vote today. Is that correct?
    The Chairman.  I am.
    Senator Coons.  And what is that?
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman.  Well, what is your understanding?
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman.  You are going to introduce it as a 
standalone, and we are going to have a vote on it. Is that your 
understanding?
    Senator Coons.  That is my understanding because that then 
allows members the chance out of the 250 amendments filed today 
to take a moment and read it----
    The Chairman.  Fair.
    Senator Coons  [continuing]. And process it, and think it 
through because I think today we have a fairly stark choice 
between legislation that goes full bore after accountability 
for the murder of Khashoggi and the role of the Saudis and a 
number of other things we are troubled about, and a bill that 
is carefully crafted to be enactable. And we may not achieve 
enactment of--passage of an enactable bill today.
    The Chairman.  I think you have got that----
    Senator Coons.  And so I will leave this on the table, if I 
might.
    The Chairman.  And I will make that commitment.
    Senator Romney.  Mr. Chairman, could you repeat the deal 
was?
    The Chairman.  This is a side deal.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Coons.  No one is getting divorced here. It is on a 
need-to-know basis.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman.  Yeah, it has nothing to do with the divorce. 
It has got nothing to do----
    Senator Romney.  Proxies?
    The Chairman.  Senator, what we have agreed to is that he 
is going to introduce the bill as a standalone bill, and we are 
going to have a vote on it in this committee.
    Senator Romney.  Excellent.
    The Chairman.  Fair enough?
    Senator Romney.  Excellent.
    The Chairman.  Let us see. Next I had Senator Gardner.
    Senator Gardner.  Mr. Chairman, is this open mic time, or 
are we sticking to Saudi Arabia?
    The Chairman.  Yeah, let us----
    Senator Gardner.  If it is open mic, I will talk about 
another important matter I think the committee ought to pick 
up, and that is in light of the action that Kim Jong-un has 
taken again out in North Korea yesterday with the two 
additional missiles firing, and his obvious failure in 
negotiations to live up to the promises he made originally in 
Singapore.
    So I would hope that we could move the LEED Act. We moved 
it last Congress. The Secretary of State supports the LEED Act. 
It is Senator Markey's and I legislation that we have teed up, 
and hopefully that is something that this committee could move 
forward, tee it up, and get it out because of the continued 
intransigence of North Korea.
    The Chairman.  We will discuss that further. I think there 
is some information we need. Thank you, Senator. Senator Kaine.
    Senator Kaine.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 
doing the work to bring this to a head. I will support the 
strong--the strongest versions of the bills before, and I just 
wanted to say why quickly. One of the things I admire about 
members of the committee and I have noticed over the years is 
committee members are really tough for their own people. So if 
you have got a--if you have got a pastor who is imprisoned 
somewhere, Mr. Chair, you have been very, very active for that. 
And I think of Rob Portman on behalf of the Warmbier family, 
Otto Warmbier.
    Jamal Khashoggi was a legal resident of Virginia. Aziza al-
Yousef, one of the primary leaders of the women's rights 
movement in Saudi Arabia, has been repeatedly imprisoned, was a 
legal resident of Virginia for a long time studying at Virginia 
Commonwealth University. Aziza al-Yousef's son, Zalil Habir, 
who has been in prison for supporting women's rights, is a 
legal resident of Virginia. And these are people who are 
entitled to the home State senator going to bat for them. The 
horrible way they have been treated, even if they were from 
another State, I think I would be for the tough version of the 
bill. But they are Virginians, and I want to go bat for them, 
and so that is why I am going to support the stronger version.
    I will say one other thing. I think it is always important 
for the committee leadership to try to work with the White 
House to find items of common accord, but I will sort of second 
the statement of Senator Menendez. There are some points 
where--that the White House might beat on something. That does 
not trouble me. I remember introducing the Iran Nuclear Review 
Act in February 2015, and President Obama both had me to the 
Oval Office and got me on the phone the day of introduction and 
said you are my friend, do not introduce this, and I guarantee 
you I will veto it. And I said you got to do what you got to 
do, but I got to do what I got to do.
    And, you know, and what happened was that it obtained such 
strong support in the body that they could not veto it. They 
could not, and they had back down. And so sometimes a veto 
threat is a threat. Sometimes we got to do what we can do and 
send a strong message, and presidents can learn from that. But 
I think this is one where we got to do what we got to do. Thank 
you.
    The Chairman.  Thank you, Senator Kaine. I appreciate those 
remarks. Senator Paul.
    Senator Paul.  I am going to support the Menendez 
amendment. I think the very least we can do is suspend arms 
sales to Saudi Arabia until we see a change in behavior. In 
fact, I think our arms sales to everybody ought to be 
conditional on behavior. I do think there is a fatal flaw in 
the wording, though, that will make this amendment not really 
work that well.
    The point is that there is a waiver in there where the 
President can resume arms sales if there is any evidence that 
Iran is supporting the Houthis. Well, there is evidence every 
week of that. I mean, there is a U.N. report to the Security 
Council within the last 6 months that says intervention is 
illegally providing fuel to the Houthis. I mean, there is 
evidence almost every day of that. So if you write in there 
that we have to stop arms unless Iran is helping the Houthis, 
well, we are really not stopping arms, and so I think it will 
not work. And my only recommendation is that if we get a veto, 
if you will look at the language, I think we can do better on 
making the waiver less loose.
    We always complain--we do stuff, and then we complain when 
the President does not listen to us and he takes advantage of a 
waiver, but the problem is we gave him the waiver. So anyway, 
that is just a thought, but I will support the amendment.
    The Chairman.  Thank you, Senator Paul. Senator Menendez.
    Senator Menendez.  Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to 
thank you. We had a markup on prescription drug pricing in the 
Finance Committee, so it was a particularly important vote that 
we were dealing with. So I appreciate the courtesy of allowing 
members to speak. Procedurally, is there any one of the two 
bills presently up before us or are we speaking in general.
    The Chairman.  We were waiting for you.
    Senator Menendez.  Okay.
    The Chairman.  It was open mic. Some of it was on this 
subject and some of it was not, but we will now take up Senate 
Bill 398, your bill, so.
    Senator Menendez.  If I may.
    The Chairman.  You may.
    Senator Menendez.  Mr. Chairman, for the past few years, we 
have watched new Saudi leadership come to power. Many of us 
were hopeful that new leadership would bring welcome change and 
reform to the Kingdom. The United States and Saudi Arabia have 
a complicated, but ultimately important, strategic partnership. 
And I think most of us would like to course correct this 
partnership in order to feel confident that we are effectively 
promoting our interests and our values.
    So I have called on my colleagues to do--over the past year 
or so to look at some of the actions the Kingdom has taken. The 
imposition of a blockade on Qatar has done nothing to promote 
our interests in our security. In fact, we can all agree that 
Iran has benefitted the most, and I am concerned about the 
negative implications for regional security and military 
integration. The Saudi leader effectively kidnapping a Lebanese 
prime minster has done nothing to diminish the influence of 
Hezbollah in Lebanon. In fact, Hezbollah now has more political 
support.
    I could spend a whole meeting talking about Saudi Arabia's 
atrocious human rights record, but let me just focus on its 
disastrous campaign in Yemen, which has left 15 million people 
on the brink of starvation, displaced 3 million, left tens of 
thousands dead. The Houthis, who bear a responsibility as well 
for these horrifying numbers, have only been emboldened 
throughout this conflict, and Iran's influence in Yemen has 
only grown. And then finally, in October of this year, the 
Saudi government and the U.N. special rapporteur just came out 
with her report. I met with her, I think it was yesterday. It 
became very clear that this is a state-sponsored murder. A 
state-sponsored murder, ordered the brutal murder of American 
resident and journalist, Jamal Khashoggi, in the Saudi 
consulate in Istanbul.
    This administration and we need to respond. The 
administration cannot or will not seriously evaluate our 
partnership with this country and then align with the gentle 
embrace of autocrats in rejection of democratic values and 
human rights. The President seems incapable of condemning the 
crown prince for his actions. So when the President will not, 
Congress must.
    And I am proud to have worked across the aisle with 
Senators Young, Reed, Graham, Shaheen, Collins, and Murphy on 
crafting a bill that does not throw away our partnership with 
Saudi Arabia, but also sends a strong signal that our partners 
cannot act with impunity. The bill carefully calibrates the 
sentiment that I just expressed while continuing to support 
Saudi Arabia's legitimate security concerns. The bill limits 
the sales of the kinds of weapons the Kingdom has used to 
slaughter civilians in Yemen. We believe we should, however, 
continue to support Saudi Arabia's legitimate defense and 
needs.
    While we have stopped now, we affirm that we should no 
longer refuel Saudi coalition aircraft for operations in Yemen, 
clearly correlated with the rise in civilian casualties. And we 
have to do what we can do all we can to support the U.N.-led 
political process in Yemen and impose exacting costs on those 
who are working against it and who are blocking humanitarian 
access and providing material support to the Houthis. And 
finally, this bill reaffirms that the administration must 
follow the letter of the Global Magnitsky Law and must take a 
firm stance for these human rights when it comes to Saudi 
Arabia.
    So I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and in the 
interest of time, I know the chairman will be calling up his 
bill. Here is our problem. If at the end of the day the only 
thing that goes to the floor is something less than the type of 
consequence in which you will not have MBS high-fiving Putin at 
the next summit, then we need to have a bill that has serious 
consequences. I think that the chairman has tried to create a 
piece of legislation that is an expression and I appreciate 
that, but when the White House--when it has supposedly been 
negotiated with the White House, it tells you everything about 
what the bill does or does not do. It is the same White House 
that has refused to condemn the crown prince for his role in 
the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, the same White House that in the 
face of the mounting civilian deaths and humanitarian disaster 
in Yemen saw fit to try to subvert congressional authorities 
and push more weapons to the Kingdom and into this deadly 
conflict, the same White House that has been silent about Saudi 
Arabia's gross human rights abuses.
    So while I appreciate the chairman's bill recognizes that 
there is some reckless behavior, as the bill suggests, if at 
the end of the day the crown prince can walk away and say to 
himself, you know what, all I got was at best--at the very 
best, classified a slap on the wrist, because the bill largely 
gives the President permission to do all the things he can 
already do. All the things he can already do. And that is why I 
will be offering the bipartisan legislation that I understand 
the chairman wants to vote on first as an addition--the 
substitute, but as an addition to the chairman's mark. And in 
the interest of time, I will consolidate----
    The Chairman.  Thank you, Senator. Is there further debate?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  Would you like to make a motion to adopt, 
Senator?
    Senator Menendez.  I so move.
    The Chairman.  Is there a second?
    Senator Kaine.  Second.
    The Chairman.  The motion has been made and seconded that 
the committee adopt Senate Bill 398. Do you want a roll call?
    Senator Menendez.  Roll call.
    The Chairman.  A roll call vote has been requested. The 
clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Rubio.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Johnson.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Gardner?
    Senator Gardner.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Romney?
    Senator Romney.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Graham?
    The Chairman.  Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Isakson?
    The Chairman.  No by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Portman?
    The Chairman.  No by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Young?
    The Chairman.  Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Cruz?
    Senator Cruz.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Menendez?
    Senator Menendez.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Menendez.  Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Udall?
    Senator Udall.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Markey?
    Senator Markey.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Booker?
    Senator Menendez.  Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 13 and the nays are 
9.
    The Chairman.  The motion has been adopted. Senate Bill 398 
will be sent to the floor.
    I have before the committee Senate Bill 2066, the Saudi 
Arabia Diplomatic Review Act, SADRA. There is no sense dragging 
this out. The first amendment I am going to consider after our 
agreement with Senator Menendez is Senator Menendez's First 
Degree Amendment Number 82, as modified by the second degree 
filed to it, which reflects the content of Senate Bill 398.
    And so, look, we have had a long discussion about this. 
Everybody knows what is in here. Again, like I said, if this is 
added, it is no longer my bill. I will be withdrawing my bill 
and the meeting will be over. No hard feelings to anyone. It is 
not sour grapes, but it is--I am interested in spending time on 
something we can actually do, and there is certainly a lot of 
discussion that can be had on the floor. So with that, Senator 
Menendez, did you----
    Senator Menendez.  I have spoken to it. I will move the 
amendment.
    The Chairman.  Okay. The amendment has been offered, 
Menendez First Degree Number 82. Has anybody got any comments 
or questions?
    Senator Young.  I do.
    The Chairman.  Yes, Senator Young.
    Senator Young.  Mr. Chairman, I just do not want my vote to 
be misconstrued. I have already spoken with the ranking member 
about offering this piece of legislation, which he and I worked 
together on, and I would--I would much prefer it to the 
chairman's, though I do appreciate the chairman's handiwork in 
trying to produce something that the President will actually 
sign into law. I think that is important work. But my intention 
is to vote no on this because I do not believe it would sink 
your efforts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman.  Thank you, Senator. Is there further debate? 
Further comments?
    Senator Menendez.  So move.
    The Chairman.  The motion has been made and it has been 
seconded. The clerk will call the roll on Menendez First Degree 
82.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Rubio.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Johnson.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Gardner?
    Senator Gardner.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Romney?
    Senator Romney.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Graham?
    The Chairman.  Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Isakson?
    The Chairman.  No by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Portman?
    The Chairman.  No by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Young?
    Senator Young.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Cruz?
    Senator Cruz.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Menendez?
    Senator Menendez.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Menendez.  Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Menendez.  Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Udall?
    Senator Udall.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Menendez.  Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Markey?
    Senator Markey.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Booker
    Senator Menendez.  Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 12; the nays are 10.
    The Chairman.  The motion has passed, and with that I am 
going to withdraw the bill. Thank you, everyone, for your, I 
think, good faith participation in this. And the committee is 
adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 11:49 a.m., the meeting was adjourned.]


                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, JULY 31, 2019

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

                Summary of Action Taken by the Committee

                              LEGISLATION

  S. 1441, Protecting Europe's Energy Security Act of 2019, with a 
        substitute amendment, agreed to by roll call vote (20-2)

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

          Nays: Paul, and Udall (proxy)

     S. 1441 Revised Substitute Amendment, agreed to by voice vote

                           Meeting Transcript

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m., in 
Room S-116, The Capitol, Hon. James Risch, chairman of the 
committee, presiding.
    Present: Risch [presiding], Johnson, Gardner, Romney, 
Barrasso, Portman, Paul, Young, Cruz, Menendez, Cardin, 
Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, Kaine, and Merkley.

           OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. RISCH,
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO

    The Chairman.  This meeting of the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee will come to order.
    I want to thank everyone for being here today as we 
consider Senate Bill 1441, the Protecting Europe's Energy 
Security Act of 2019, which was held over from the business 
meeting we held last week. This bipartisan bill would sanction 
companies operating the vessels that lay pipes for Nord Stream 
2 and the TurkStream pipeline. These pipelines could result in 
further destabilization of Ukraine and enrichment of the Putin 
regime, and they put at risk the security of NATO member-
states.
    I would again like to thanks Senators Cruz and Shaheen for 
their work on the revised Cruz substitute amendment to this 
bill, which I will be supporting. This bill is a specific, 
targeted, and timely way to counter Russian malign influence, 
and I urge all my colleagues to support it. I will now turn it 
over to Senator Menendez.

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

    Senator Menendez.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 
Senator Cruz's and Shaheen's leadership on this issue. I have 
significant concerns that Russia has used energy as a weapon, 
not just as an economic opportunity. And I am concerned that 
creating a permanent alternative export to the Ukrainian 
pipeline system will further undermine Ukraine's economic 
security and potentially increase its vulnerability to 
additional Russian military incursions.
    As we consider this bill, let us be reminded of the Russian 
Federation's 2014 illegal occupation of Crimea, and the 
invasion of Eastern Ukraine. The death toll in the Donbass in 
Eastern Ukraine is reported to be over 13,000, a quarter of 
them civilians, with as many as 30,000 wounded. And I think the 
international community must stand firm against opening more 
doors and creating new opportunities for further Kremlin 
aggression in Ukraine leading to the loss of life.
    The Russian Federation has repeatedly used its energy 
resources as a lever of power, and I believe Nord Stream 2 is 
no exception. Not only will it considerably strengthen the 
Kremlin's stranglehold on Europe, but it allows Moscow to 
further undermine Ukraine's sovereignty and stability. I am 
going to vote for the bill. Having said that, I do have 
concerns about the transatlantic alliance, particularly with 
Germany, and we need to be engaged robustly with Germany in 
terms of our mutual interests, as Germany has been the singular 
most significant voice in strengthening our sanctions against 
Russia. And while we may have disagreement on this issue, I 
think it is important for us to be engaged with Germany in a 
way that makes it clear that this disagreement does not 
interfere with other things that we usually agree upon and have 
mutual interests with.
    And with that, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
my full statement be included in the record.
    The Chairman.  It will be.

    [The information referred to follows:]


          Remarks Submitted by Ranking Member Robert Menendez

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    As I stated last week, this is a good bill, and I appreciate 
Senator Cruz's leadership on this issue.
    I am opposed to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project, which poses a 
significant risk to European energy security. Nord Stream 2, if 
completed, would create a permanent alternative export route to the 
Ukrainian pipeline system, further undermining Ukraine's economic 
security and potentially increasing its vulnerability to additional 
Russian military incursions.
    As we consider this bill, let us be reminded of the Russian 
Federation's 2014 illegal occupation of Crimea and invasion of eastern 
Ukraine. The death toll in Donbas in eastern Ukraine is reported to be 
over 13,000--a quarter of them civilians--and as many as 30,000 
wounded. The international community must stand firm against opening 
more doors and creating new opportunities for further Kremlin 
aggression in Ukraine, leading to loss of life.
    The Russian Federation has repeatedly used its energy resources as 
a lever of power, and Nord Stream 2 is no exception--it is primarily a 
political project for Putin. Not only does it considerably strengthen 
the Kremlin's stranglehold on Europe and allows Moscow to further 
undermine Ukraine's sovereignty and stability.
    In addition, proceeding with Nord Stream 2 risks weakening the 
credibility of both the EU's sanctions regime against, and overall 
policy toward, Russia. Because this bill could will help significantly 
delay-if not stop-the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project, it has my 
support, and I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support it as well.
    Mr. Chairman, while I commend Senator Cruz's leadership on the 
specific issue of Nord Stream 2, I will renew my call for the committee 
to meet its responsibilities when it comes to countering the threat 
posed by the Kremlin. In the 116th Congress, we have not yet addressed 
in a meaningful way Russian attacks on our democracy, or on its malign 
activities around the world.
    There are several Russia-related bills pending in committee, and I 
urge that we develop a strong, clear and bipartisan path forward to 
send a clear message of resolve to the Kremlin.
    To that end, I intend today to call up Menendez Amendment #1, which 
is the full text of the Defending America's Security from Kremlin 
Aggression bill that Senator Graham and I introduced earlier this 
session, and I will have more to say on that later.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


    The Chairman.  And, Senator, I want to concur with those 
remarks. Particularly, like you, I am concerned about the 
relationship with Germany. Like you, I have met with the people 
from Germany, and they likewise are concerned about the 
relationship. I think they are in agreement with us that this 
single matter, even though it is of major concern to us, is not 
going to be one that tips over the relationship. But 
nonetheless, everyone needs to work together because it is an 
important relationship obviously in our relationship with the--
with Ukraine.
    So with that, we have now before the committee Senate Bill 
1441. Are there other committee members who wish to be heard? 
Senator Cruz, it is your bill.
    Senator Cruz.  Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And let 
me start by thanking the chairman and ranking member for 
working so closely with me and Senator Shaheen on moving this 
bill forward. I think this bill is exceptionally important as a 
matter of national security. Virtually every one of us around 
this table agree that if Nord Stream 2 is built, if it is 
completed, that that is a bad development for America and a bad 
development for the world.
    Nord Stream 2 being completed would weaken Ukraine, 
depriving them of billions of dollars of needed revenue 
annually. It would simultaneously make Ukraine far more 
vulnerable to further military incursions from Russia, much 
like Russia took Crimea. With this pipeline being completed, 
Ukraine's ability to press back against Russian aggression 
would be seriously compromised, but Nord Stream 2 would also 
seriously harm Europe. It would make Europe very directly 
dependent on Russian gas. As the ranking member observed, 
Russia has a bad history of using energy as a weapon and 
threatening to or, in fact, cutting off gas, particularly 
during a cold winter when it needed to exert pressure on other 
countries. And putting Europe in a position to face economic 
blackmail from Russia is bad policy and foolishness.
    Finally, it would be bad for America. Nord Stream 2 would 
generate billions of dollars of revenue for Russia at the 
expense of Europe and at the expense of the United States. 
Absent Nord Stream 2, Europe is going to have energy needs. I 
would far rather they buy their energy from the United States 
or from anywhere else rather than directly from Russia, putting 
billions in Russia's war coffers.
    I am reminded of the phrase that our former colleague and 
friend, John McCain, used colorfully to describe Russia, where 
he described Russia as a gas station with a country attached. 
Putin gets his revenue for military adventurism and hostility 
directly from Petro, billions flowing into the country. This 
bill is designed to stop the pipeline from being disruptive. I 
recognize on the question of sanctions and when to employ 
sanctions there are and should be debates about if and when 
sanctions are an effective tool. Sometimes they are. Sometimes 
they are not. I will say on this bill, Senator Shaheen and I 
worked very carefully to construct a bill that is so narrow as 
to be precisely surgical.
    There are five companies in the world that have the 
technology to lay the pipeline for Nord Stream 2 deep enough 
under the sea to get it done. The Russians lack the tech. They 
cannot do it on their own. There are only five companies in the 
world that can do it. They have contracted with two of them, an 
Italian company and a Swiss company. If we pass this 
legislation, that Italian and Swiss company would face the 
threat of sanctions if they continue building the pipeline, and 
the only rational thing for them to do is pull out of the 
project. And at that point, Russia has no means to complete the 
project.
    So it is narrow, it is focused, it is surgical, and it is 
designed to produce the result that is good for Europe, that is 
good for America, and that is bad for Russia. And so I 
appreciate the strong bipartisan support we have seen in this 
committee, and I encourage members to support the bill.
    The Chairman.  Further debate? Senator Shaheen, you are 
also a sponsor of the bill, then Senator Paul.
    Senator Shaheen.  Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I 
appreciate your support for the bill and Senator Menendez's 
support, and the close relationship that Senator Cruz and I 
have had in making some changes to the bill in a way that I 
think make it an even better piece of legislation.
    And I understand the concerns that you all have expressed 
about the impact--potential impact on our relationship with 
Germany, but the reality is that the majority of Europeans who 
understand this project also have raised concerns about it. And 
those people include former German minister of defense and 
future head of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen. 
She has warned, and I quote, of ``the danger of over dependence 
on Russian energy'' and openly calls the pipeline a project 
that is not close to her heart.
    We have heard in our office directly from other countries 
in Eastern and Central Europe, and the Baltics, and many of the 
Nordic states, and of course especially Ukraine, who understand 
that this pipeline is just an attempt to avoid the pain 
Ukrainian--it is an effort to increase reliance on Russia among 
Europe. And I would argue that this does nothing to strengthen 
the transatlantic alliance, the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. In 
fact, it actually decreases the support for the alliance.
    Energy diversification and diminishing dependence on 
Russian energy are vital to Europe. As Ted said so well, they 
are vital to the United States' interests. And this is a very 
narrowly-tailored piece of legislation that targets those ships 
that have the ability to lay this kind of pipeline. And so we 
think that marking up this legislation is important to 
defending American security from Kremlin aggression, and hope 
that the majority of this committee will support it.
    The Chairman.  Thank you, Senator Shaheen. There is 
outright hostility by some of Germany's European and NATO 
siblings in this regard. I think that should be pointed out, 
that this is--this is not uniformly supported by the Europeans. 
Indeed, if they had a vote on it, it would go down just from--
anecdotally from the stories I have heard from the various 
countries that I have met with. There is not a lot of love for 
this project. Senator Paul.
    Senator Paul.  The same people, if they are asked to vote 
on dividing up Germany so all of their countries would be 
bigger and more powerful than Germany, they would probably also 
vote for that as well. Most of you have heard of the Reagan 
saying about people who believe that government can cure all. 
It is said if it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate 
it. If it stops moving, subsidize it. I think an addendum might 
be if you do not like which way it is moving, sanction it.
    Many in Congress see the United States as the indispensable 
arbiter of all that is good and proper in the world. It is a 
jingoism and an arrogance that believes America knows best and 
the rest of the world best listen or else. This bill takes 
hubris to a new low. This bill ostensibly is to punish Russia, 
but in reality punishes international companies that do a 
significant bit of business in the U.S.
    Really if we talk about the transatlantic alliance, do you 
think it is going to strengthen the transatlantic alliance by 
sanctioning people who are our European allies? The bill should 
really be entitled a bill to sanction our allies. Many of these 
allies have supported us in sanctions against Russia. For their 
support, we reward them by sanctioning their industries. If 
these sanctions succeed in punishing European companies, 
keeping them away from pipeline work, they will simply be 
replaced with Russian businesses. What kind of success will 
that be?
    If this bill were to succeed in stopping Nord Stream 2, 
which is unlikely, one unintended effect would be to push 
Russia closer to China. In fact, Russia is nearing completion 
of a pipeline to China, so if they do not send it to Europe, 
they are going to send it to China. In addition, we need to 
think of all the sanctions we are heaping on everybody around 
the world as we show that we know what is best for everyone. So 
we are preventing Iran from selling oil to China. What is that 
going to do? It is aiding Russia now in setting up a source to 
sell their natural gas to China. So one sanction compounds 
another, and they all make no sense. I mean, really are we 
going to do it because we sell LNG from a certain state? Are we 
like, oh, we are going to help this state by forbidding other 
countries from selling something that we sell here? I mean, 
that is about the opposite of free marketing economics I have 
ever heard.
    As I understand it, the bill, though, is aimed at stopping 
the pipeline. It is important to know the thing has been going 
on for years. This is not stopping any pipeline. Eighty percent 
of the pipeline has already been laid. This is not stopping it. 
It is true there are a limited amount of companies that can lay 
the deep sea pipeline, but there is also argument that a lot of 
the deep sea pipeline has been laid. You try to cut off the 
financing, there are also arguments that Russia will finance 
the remaining portion. It will be built. There is no way that 
an 80 percent built pipeline--you know, this might have been a 
discussion 10 years ago. This is a pipeline that is almost 
done. You are not going to stop it. All you are going to do is 
piss off our European allies.
    Assuming these sanctions are even put into place before the 
pipeline is completed, there is already a long line of 
investors ready to step up to finish this. Ultimately Russian 
gas will get to market. Whether Europe continues to buy 80 
percent of their gas is unknown. What is known is that someone 
will buy it, so we are not really stopping the pipeline, and we 
are not doing anything that necessarily hurts Russia. Then what 
are we simply doing?
    For one, we are poised to sanction a bunch of traditional 
allies. We have apparently come to the belief that sanctioning 
companies in Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, and 
Austria is somehow going to be an effective way to counter 
Russia, that sanctioning NATO allies is a good way to counter 
Russia. These countries have, in many cases, already spoken out 
on the possibility of being subjected to sanctions by our 
government. There is a real concern that their efforts to help 
us as strategic allies in this region--most of them have been 
allies in sanctions we have put on in the past--that this will 
be--work against our own interests in having them work with us.
    They have also made it clear that there is plenty of room 
for American LNG. There is a projected 68-billion-cubic-meter-
per-year shortage of gas in Europe. There is plenty of play. 
Germany has shown an opening to LNG. I was just over there a 
month ago. They are very willing and open to allowing LNG 
facilities there. There is enough room for Russian gas and 
there is enough room for American LNG. But even if there were 
not, are we really going to sanction people because--we are 
going to sanction people because we sell something and try to 
be dominant in a market, and we are just going to sanction 
other countries for these reasons?
    They are already constructing--they have begun to address 
this by constructing multiple LNG terminals at ports in Western 
Europe. If this is how we treat our friends, then at what value 
is it to be our friend? And let us not leave out the Swiss, the 
world's most famously neutral country. If we are going to 
sanction our friends, you had better believe we are going to 
sanction neutral parties, too. The biggest company that lays 
the pipe is out of Switzerland. We are going to sanction a 
Swiss company. This bill tries to make them divest as well or 
else face sanction.
    There are also concerns with how broad the sanctions under 
this bill would be once implemented. From the bill, and I 
quote, ``Underwriting services or insurance or reinsurance for 
a vessel'' could mean a lot of things. That could not only mean 
a company, but the investors in that company. Are we going to 
leave to chance to let the administration decide this at a 
later date, not to mention that many of these companies are 
international companies with tens of thousands of American 
employees. Are we really positive we are not going to be 
sanctioning Americans with this bill?
    Here are some examples of some of the companies we are 
talking about. Allseas, a U.S. headquarters--has its U.S. 
headquarters ironically in Houston, has built over 4,000 miles 
of pipeline in the Gulf of Mexico. This is who we are going to 
sanction, who do work in our country all the time, including a 
recent 450-mile pipeline enabling U.S. commerce in Mexico. 
Their director wrote to me, ``The implementation of this bill 
could hamper the future developments of major oil and gas 
projects and oil export terminals in the Gulf of Mexico. 
Allseas believes''--this is the company--''believes that Nord 
Stream 2 pipeline is inevitable even if they are forbidden.'' 
They the think the pipeline, there is no way it is not going to 
be completed.
    But realize what you are doing to them. This is a company 
that is a world citizen, a good citizen, that obeys the law. 
You may be able to stop them, but do you realize what you are 
going to do to them? They have billions of dollars of profit 
that will be lost. They have contracts. To breach their 
contract, you will force them to pay millions, if not billions, 
of dollars in fees. This is what we are up to now. As a 
country, we are going to get in the middle of a contractual 
negotiation, something that is 80 percent built, and we are 
going to fine international companies that do business in our 
country, make them breach their contract?
    Shell Oil will also be sanctioned. They employ more than 
17,000 employees in the U.S., ironically, many of them in 
Texas--Port Arthur, Deer Park, Houston, 11 other locations in 
the U.S. Last year they paid the U.S. government $6.3 billion 
in taxes. We are going to sanction Shell? BASF will also be 
sanctioned. They have their headquarters in Florham Park, New 
Jersey. They employ, like, 20,000 people in North America. I 
remember them because as a kid they are big in Freeport, Texas. 
They have a couple thousand people. It is a few miles away from 
where I grew up. BASF is a big name. Sure they are a German 
company, but we have international companies that are all over 
our country. They have other locations in Union, New Jersey, 
Beaumont, Texas, Port Arthur, Houston, Pasadena, Texas, 40 
other locations across 23 States.
    The CEO of Wintershall, the CEO of Uniper, and the CEO of 
OMV--these are companies involved with building the pipeline--
this is, I quote from an article in National Interest: ``Nord 
Stream 2 simply provides another option for consumers and 
increases competition. Competition between suppliers helps keep 
prices down, which is what a healthy market for a fungible 
product dictates.''
    I think the thing is we mistake something that really Adam 
Smith talked about in Wealth of Nations. In Wealth of Nations, 
he talks about how exchanges are mutual arrangements where both 
sides benefit. So if I am in Europe and I give $1 billion to 
Russia and they give me oil, I do not give them $1 billion 
unless I value their oil more than the $1 billion. They do not 
give me their oil unless they value the $1 billion more. It is 
a win-win situation. It is a transaction where both are 
interdependent and both perceive a victory or they would not 
trade. One wants the oil, one wants the money, and they all 
want whatever they are going to get more than the other.
    And so the thing is to look at this and say, oh, they are 
going to be completely dependent on Russia. Well, Russia will 
be completely dependent on their money, and there are all kinds 
of other places that are going to sold. This is not going to 
work, but really for the people who say they are for our 
transatlantic partners, you are doing the opposite here. ENGIE 
is a French energy company who has its U.S. corporate 
headquarters, ironically again, in Houston, Texas and employs 
some 7,000 Americans at 62 locations across U.S. They paid $4 
billion in U.S. taxes. You are going to sanction them, too. 
Since 2015, they have invested $3 billion in the United States.
    Here is a letter from ENGIE, this corporation. ``Because of 
the political escalation U.S. sanctions would create, we fear 
that the likely damage of this legislation would extend beyond 
this particular project.'' The meaning is that you are sending 
a signal to people that really when they sign billion-dollar 
contracts anywhere in the world, they may be overruled by a 
political body in the U.S. And do we have the power? We have 
this enormous power. What do we think this enormous power is 
ultimately going to do to the rest of the world as we continue 
this? They are going to work as hard and as diligently, and 
they are working all the time. Russia and China are meeting on 
a day-to-day basis trying to get out from under the ability of 
the dollar to starve them. We have this ability, but we are 
pushing everybody else in the world that we sanction together 
in opposition and out of the--out of the dollar eventually.
    Finally, it should be noted that the president and the CEO 
of the American Petroleum Institute, which represents 620 
corporate members from across industry, wrote a letter on July 
30th opposing this legislation. They echoed the sentiment that 
Nord Stream 2 was nearly completed and that the sanctions will 
not work. They also said that it would establish a precedent 
that could significantly harm American industries operating 
abroad. What happens is we will be at a competitive 
disadvantage. Why have Americans involved at all?
    Could damage to the U.S.-EU transatlantic relationship also 
occur? Yes, because they are not likely to help achieve U.S. 
foreign policy objectives if we are sanctioning them. Our 
unilateral--these sanctions are unilateral instead of 
multilateral, which shows basically it is our way or the 
highway. And it is really--the only sanctions that have ever 
worked probably have been ones that have sort of everybody 
coming together, such as we had originally with Iran. 
Furthermore, in order to protect American interests--this is 
from--also from the American Petroleum Institute-- ``In order 
to protect American interests, the measures in these bills 
would greatly benefit from additional review by relevant 
congressional committees, subject matter experts, and American 
industry stakeholders before they advance further in the 
legislative process.'' Should we not have wanted to hear from 
some of the businesses that are going to be sanctioned, some of 
the businesses that do business in our country, some of the 
businesses that are not involved that are international 
businesses, but that now will have to fear that their contracts 
will be abrogated by the U.S. Congress?
    So to summarize, there is a great deal of consternation 
with this proposal among our European allies. It makes no sense 
to go after people that are helping us apply pressure on Russia 
in many other areas. We do not know what exactly these 
sanctions will look like because much of the power is left to 
the administration. We do not know what the economic impact 
will be on American jobs in places like the Gulf of Mexico. We 
should be having more discussions, maybe more hearings, to 
explore whether this model of sanctioning our friends will 
bring any actual benefit. Until then we should not be pushing 
this bill another inch towards the finish line.
    Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit seven letters of 
opposition to the record, including quotes from several members 
of the EU, different countries and their governments, and from 
four independent companies, including the American Petroleum 
Institute, the German ambassador to the U.S., and one from the 
National Foreign Trade Council, in opposition to this bill. And 
I urge a no vote.


    [The information referred to above is located at the end of 
this transcript.]


    The Chairman.  It will be included in the record. Senator 
Coons is next.
    Senator Coons.  Thank you, Chairman Risch, Ranking Member 
Menendez. I respect the wide range of concerns and views that 
have been raised, and recognize the legitimacy of concerns 
about the U.S.-Germany relationship and continuing to 
strengthen the transatlantic alliance. But I also have 
confidence that Senator Shaheen, Senator Cruz, Senator Johnson, 
and others, and as well, of course, the chairman and ranking 
member have looked closely at the ways in which these sanctions 
are carefully and tightly targeted in a way designed to send a 
strong message of opposition to Russia's use of energy as a 
tool.
    I, like many of us, have been to Ukraine, remain gravely 
concerned about Russia's ongoing aggression against Ukraine, 
and the ways in which Russia finances its aggression through 
the use of its sole remaining major export of any interest, 
which is energy. I do think the senator from Kentucky raises 
legitimate concerns about the scope and reach of our sanctions 
and how and when we apply them. And those concerns have also 
been raised to me by a number of advocates.
    Having reviewed closely how this was crafted, I look 
forward to supporting it and think it is tightly targeted on an 
important goal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman.  Senator Barrasso.
    Senator Barrasso.  Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And 
to follow up with what Senator Coons said, I am grateful for 
the work that Senator Cruz has done, Senator Shaheen. A number 
of us were on that trip. Senator Murphy was there, Johnson. 
Eight of us were in Ukraine the day that the Russian--they 
actually got us out of town on a Saturday night, and that 
Sunday morning the Russian helicopters landed at the gas plant 
in Crimea, and that is how Crimea was seized. We were actually 
scheduled that Saturday to fly to Donetsk from Kiev, and they 
would not let us go because of the insurgence in Russia and the 
number of freedom fighters who were actually killed that night 
in Donetsk. So we are very familiar with all of this, and I am 
happy to be a co-sponsor. I think we are doing absolutely the 
right thing.
    We know that Russia uses energy as a weapon. All has been 
said. I think we actually need to go further. I would like to 
go further, not today, but in the future. I have introduced 
legislation called the ESCAPE Act. It stands for Energy 
Security Cooperation With Our Allied Partners in Europe. So I 
think we need to go further in terms of dealing with Russian 
aggression, and I am urging the committee to take that next 
step.
    And I think it was that meeting when we were there, all of 
eight of us, where Senator McCain issued his very famous line. 
He said, ``Russia is a mafia-run gas station masquerading as a 
country.'' And I think as long as we continue with that vision 
in our mind and the words of Senator McCain, we will be on the 
right path. So, thanks, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman.  Your quote was close enough.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman.  History has a way of getting through these 
things. Senator Murphy, you are next.
    Senator Murphy.  Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thanks 
to the sponsors of the legislation. I support it. I share some 
of the concerns about the consequences for our relationships in 
Europe, but we are spending $4 billion a year today on a 
European reassurance initiative that will be made much more 
effective if we have a comprehensive policy to confront Russian 
aggression and not simply through military reassurance efforts.
    I would just say I think the message we are sending today 
could actually be stronger if we adopt both a carrot and stick 
approach. This is certainly a stick, sending a message. There 
will be consequences to companies that participate in a project 
that accrues to the detriment of U.S. national security 
interests. But I and Senator Johnson, Senator Gardner, Senator 
Rubio, and others have legislation that would set up a new 
financing mechanism at no cost to the American taxpayers to 
help countries on Russia's periphery become energy independent. 
And to me, this is a potentially incredibly effective one to 
launch, both leveling very targeted, very thoughtful sanctions 
against those who participate in this project, while also 
extending a hand of assistance to countries that want to make 
themselves independent of Russia's energy bribery and 
extortion, but may need some help from American financing 
mechanisms to do that.
    And so the chairman and I have talked about this piece of 
legislation, passed the House, pending before this committee, 
supported by the administration. I believe if we pass that 
quickly on the heels of this piece of legislation, it may--it 
may soothe some of the potential rough feelings in Europe who 
want us to be partners with them in a way that we may not 
always be today. That is a way to do it. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    The Chairman.  Thank you, Senator Murphy. I am so inclined 
as you know. Senator Kaine.
    Senator Kaine.  Senator Risch, just a question for the 
chair. I have an amendment that I would like to call up, but it 
may be--it may be we adopt the substitute amendment and then 
folks call amendments.
    The Chairman.  Right.
    Senator Kaine.  And it is sort of along the line that 
Senator Murphy said. It is one that I think would enhance this 
bill, and I would be willing to not--to table the amendment 
today if I could get a commitment that this bipartisan bill I 
have, which would establish that no President would--could 
withdraw from NATO without either Senate ratification since it 
is a Senate treaty or a vote of Congress. I think that would 
send a very strong message to our European allies that we are 
in support of them.
    I think it is appropriate as an amendment to this because 
it deals with the security of Europe, but I would be very happy 
to delay it if I could get a commitment that it could be marked 
up in this committee. It has 12 sponsors, six Democrats, six 
Republicans, and it is in the same lane as this bill.
    The Chairman.  Yeah.
    Senator Kaine.  So I do not know what your preference is in 
terms of when I would call it up.
    The Chairman.  Let us finish this up.
    Senator Kaine.  Okay.
    The Chairman.  Let us get the substitute amendment adopted.
    Senator Kaine.  Okay.
    The Chairman.  And then let us talk about that other 
amendment.
    Senator Kaine.  Got it.
    The Chairman.  So is there--let us see, who do I have next? 
Senator Johnson.
    Senator Johnson.  You know, as a co-sponsor of this bill, I 
listened to Senator Paul, and he made many good points. 
Unfortunately, this piece of legislation, I think, is 
necessary. I have said repeatedly it is a tragedy of historic 
proportions that Putin and Russia has chosen the path they have 
chosen: their aggression against Georgia, against Russia, you 
know, the pros and cons of Transnistria, the illegal annexation 
of Crimea. And the fact of the matter is we have, you know, 
these partners that are aiding and abetting Russia's 
geopolitical aggression.
    I would love to have Russia be no more than a friendly 
rival as opposed to pretty much a stated adversary. So it is a 
dirty, ugly world in many respects, and I think this is 
something that we have to pass to send a pretty strong message 
and try and prevent that. Ukraine is ground zero in this 
geopolitical struggle, and we do need to support the new 
president, President Zelinsky. We need to support Ukraine. Nord 
Stream 2 obviously undermines Ukraine dramatically.
    And so, again, I listen to your points. I agree with so 
many of them, but I think the higher goal here is countering 
Russia's aggression and doing it with this type of legislation. 
And, again, it is unfortunate that this is required, but I 
think it is. So, again, I appreciate the work that Senator Cruz 
and Senator Shaheen have done on this trying to make a bad 
situation a little bit better.
    The Chairman.  Thank you, Senator Johnson. Senator Shaheen 
and then Senator Cruz.
    Senator Shaheen.  Well, I just wanted to correct some of 
the incorrect points that I think Senator Paul made about the 
companies that are affected. There are only two companies that 
are affected by this legislation. One is Allseas, and it is the 
only one that is still affected by the legislation. The other 
is an Italian company, Saipem. And Shell Oil, at least 
according to the people from Shell who talked to our office 
yesterday, they understand that they are not affected by this 
legislation.
    The other thing that I just wanted to point out is that the 
deal with Nord Stream 2 was signed by Chancellor Schroeder 
before he left office, actually in the final weeks of his time 
as chancellor. He left there to become the head, the CEO and 
chairman, of Gazprom. So as Chancellor Merkel pointed out, he 
had a huge conflict of interest when he signed that deal. And, 
you know, again, Germany is not united in supporting Nord 
Stream 2 as--and Europe is not either. So I think the idea that 
this is somehow going to be against the interests of our allies 
is not at all true.
    The Chairman.  Thank you, Senator Shaheen. Senator Cruz.
    Senator Cruz.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 
Senator Shaheen's effective comments a moment ago, and I want 
to thank everyone around the table for the strong bipartisan 
support for this bill. I do want to briefly respond to some of 
the substantive points Senator Paul made just simply to correct 
the record.
    I have agreed with Senator Paul on a number of issues 
before this committee, including supporting his amendments on 
tax treaties, and I think his concerns are often well founded. 
In this instance, I think his concerns are particularly ill 
founded. Voting no on this bill, as Senator Paul is urging you 
to do, would have predictable effects. It would be good for 
Russia, bad for America, and bad for Europe. This pipeline 
being built is good for Russia, bad for America, and bad for 
Europe.
    Senator Paul suggested a whole list of companies that might 
potentially be targeted by this. That list is inaccurate. As 
Senator Shaheen pointed out, there are two companies that are 
laying this pipe. This is surgically designed to stop the 
pipeline from being built. And actually, if and when this bill 
is passed and signed into law, it is my expectation that this 
bill will result in sanctioning nobody. This bill is designed 
to change the conduct of those two companies. Those two 
companies when this bill is signed into law will make the 
rational economic decision that the sanctions are too punitive 
to undertake, and so they will cancel the contract.
    The intended effect of this bill is to stop Nord Stream 2 
in its tracks before it is built. Now, Senator Paul argued, 
well, the pipeline will be complete no matter what. There are 
five companies and only five companies on earth that have the 
technology to do this. As long as this bill is on the books, 
none of those five companies is going to step forward and 
subject themselves to the sanctions. And so unless Aquaman 
magically appears and starts laying pipe, this pipeline is not 
getting completed, and the Russians do not have the technology 
to do it. So they may scream and yell, but they do not actually 
have the technology to get the job done.
    I would point out also if you are concerned about sanctions 
on our friends, the worst thing you could do is vote against 
this bill. Why is that? Because if Nord Stream 2 is completed, 
under the terms of CAATSA, which we passed, Section 232 
authorizes sanctions on anyone who ``sells, leases, or provides 
any goods, services, technology, information, or support over 
$1 million for constructing Russian energy export pipelines.'' 
Under existing law, the Trump administration or any next 
administration has the authority to sanction the hell out of 
almost all of our allies if Nord Stream 2 is built. If you do 
not like sanctions against our allies, this bill prevents 
Europe from being subject to CAATSA sanctions that we have 
already passed into law and are binding right now. So this 
actually avoids sanctions going into effect by stopping the 
project.
    One final point. In terms of Europe and what Europe wants 
to see happen, it is worth noting that on March 12th, 2019, the 
European parliament adopted a resolution calling for Nord 
Stream 2 to be stopped. The vote in the European parliament was 
402 to 163. Europe understands that being dependent on Russia 
and placed in a position of being subject to economic blackmail 
is bad for Europe. And so this is a vote standing with our 
friends in Europe and also standing up for America.
    Senator Paul.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  One more time, Senator Paul.
    Senator Paul.  The pipeline will be built. It is an 
inevitability. Everybody involved with it says it will be 
completed. It is 80 percent completed. The deepest and the most 
difficult technological work has been done, so the pipeline 
will be completed. But let us give you the point and say, oh, 
well, we are going to stop them in their tracks because we 
believe in the free market, except for when we do not believe 
in the free market because we do not like other countries. We 
are going to stop them in their tracks. Maybe we will be able 
to sell some more gas from Texas or wherever.
    They are going to sell the gas. They will sell it to China. 
They got a pipeline to China. It is going somewhere. We say, 
well, we would rather the gas be routed through Ukraine. Who 
are we? Like, you know, like we are some sort of omnipotent god 
and we should decide where oil is routed and what countries it 
goes through, and we are here to arbitrate and tell the world 
how to sell their oil and what routes it should take? One, it 
is not practical and will not work, but the arrogance of 
thinking that somehow we should be in charge of the world's 
energy supply, it is not going to happen.
    The pipeline will be built. You are sanctioning friends and 
allies. And the thing is, even if you could possibly stop it, 
which you will not, that oil is going to go somewhere. It is 
going to go China. We are driving Russia into China's hands. 
Our sanctions really have not worked in general. A lot of them 
have been ill thought. Even when Corker was here and Corker was 
walking out the door, someone said, well, have the Russian 
sanctions even worked, and he said no. Even Corker admitted it. 
None of them have worked.
    You guys really think you are going to--Russia is going to 
come on bended knee and say, oh, we are sorry, America, we are 
going to do everything you tell us now. What should we do, 
leave Crimea? None of that is ever happening. So, I mean, if 
you--if you want war with Russia, let us declare war with 
Russia and we might militarily go do something, but the 
sanctions is just a way of prolonging this.
    And really, it is not that Europe is dependent on it. 
Europe will be able to get oil and natural gas from many 
different sources, but you only make economic transactions that 
benefit both sides. And so I would say, yes, I know we will 
lose overwhelmingly, but I do want a recorded vote on it. And I 
also wanted to ask that the letter--I cannot remember if you 
ruled on including the letters.
    The Chairman.  I did. It will be admitted.
    Senator Paul.  And then I would ask for a recorded vote.
    The Chairman.  The vote will be recorded. With that, let 
us--I would entertain a motion to adopted the revised Cruz 
substitute amendment promoted by the sponsors.
    Senator Cruz.  So moved.
    The Chairman.  Senator Cruz. So moved.
    Senator Shaheen.  Second.
    The Chairman.  Senator Shaheen has seconded. There will 
be--did you want a recorded vote just on this--
    Senator Paul.  Just on the final--on the final passage.
    The Chairman.  Final passage? Okay.
    All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed, nay?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it, and the revised Cruz 
amendment has been adopted.
    There are now--obviously there are amendments. Senator 
Kaine, what I would respectfully request is that you not pursue 
that. I think there is--first of all, I share your passion for 
NATO and our continuance in NATO. There are some constitutional 
separation of powers in your proposal that I think will affect 
badly the bill. And I commit to you that I will work in good 
faith to get a standalone just as I have with Senator Murphy. I 
think the sooner we get at it, the better. I think Senator 
Murphy particularly, his pursuit of the carrot.
    Senator Kaine.  And, Mr. Chair--
    The Chairman.  Senator Kaine.
    Senator Kaine.  So I am fine with not offering--it is Kaine 
Amendment 1, which essentially is to bring up Senate Joint 
Resolution 4, which is a bipartisan resolution saying that no 
President can withdraw from NATO, which is a treaty ratified by 
the Senate, absent either a two-thirds vote of the Senate or an 
act of Congress. That is what the bill would do.
    The President's comments about NATO have raised a really 
interesting constitutional question, which is the Constitution 
requires Senate ratification of treaties. The Constitution is 
silent about how to get out of treaties. It is very clear 
constitutional law that in the event of an constitutional 
silence on a matter like that, that Congress can act. And so my 
bill, S.J.Res.4, which has 12 sponsors, Democrats and 
Republicans, including members of this committee, would just 
say that since the Senate ratified the NATO treaty, no 
President can back of the treaty without either Senate two-
thirds vote or an act of Congress.
    I would be willing to not offer Kaine 1 dealing with the 
security if I could get a commitment that we would have a 
markup of my bill when we return from the recess, and obviously 
in the markup, people could offer amendments. If they have 
constitutional concerns and want to do that, we would have the 
normal amendment process, but I do believe the bill has been 
pending for a good while. This is the 70th anniversary of NATO. 
It is a bipartisan bill, and I would like a commitment that it 
would be marked up in this committee.
    The Chairman.  We will do that, Senator Kaine.
    Senator Kaine.  Thank you. I will--I will then not offer 
it.
    The Chairman.  But I would ask that we would continue to 
work because there are some rough edges that need to be knocked 
off. There are some constitutional questions here. I am with 
you. I cannot fathom that Congress cannot act where the 
Constitution is silent. Certainly we can act. I understand the 
legal beagles are split as to whether or not a chief executive 
could get us out when two-thirds of the Congress have gotten us 
in. That question ought to be resolved I think, and your 
legislation certainly does that. And the only thing I would say 
is, again, I hope that we can work in good faith with the 
staffs to try to get a bill--
    Senator Kaine.  And, again, as long as I have a commitment 
that my bill will be brought up for a markup, whether or not we 
can work it out. If we cannot work it out, I will not get the 
votes.
    The Chairman.  No, I get that.
    Senator Kaine.  But if we can have the commitment for a 
markup, I will not offer it as an amendment.
    The Chairman.  We will do that, and then probably we ought 
to get a bunch of these together. So we have had a robust 
debate here today.
    Senator Kaine.  Right.
    The Chairman.  I think it has been well layered. Senator 
Menendez.
    Senator Menendez.  Mr. Chairman, having made the commitment 
to Senator Kaine, I would like to call up Menendez Amendment 1. 
And to avoid reading the full text of the amendment, this is 
basically the Defending America's Security from Kremlin 
Aggression bill that Senator Graham, myself, and various 
members of this committee on both sides of the aisle sponsored.
    It is a comprehensive piece of legislation that builds upon 
the efforts that we are trying to pursue as it relates to our 
defenses as well as those of our allies, and it focuses on 
Moscow specifically. Before I get to the heart of it, let me 
just say I respect Senator Paul's thoughtful exposition of some 
of the issues that we have on sanctions. He has spoken to these 
issues before.
    You know, I look at sanctions as one of the handful of 
peaceful diplomacy tools we have to promote the national 
interests and security of the United States. I do not think it 
is an instrument that should be used all of the time. It is not 
always the best instrument. How it is tailored, as in this 
case, is incredibly important. But I think that conversation is 
an important one, and I do think that the conversation of 
engaging our transatlantic partners, including with carrots, as 
Senator Murphy's bill with others, does, I think is incredibly 
important. So I just want to commend that there are things that 
Senator Paul has stated that I think are worthy of 
consideration. I am, of course, in support of the legislation.
    But, look, let us be honest. We had an electronic Pearl 
Harbor on our country. If the attack that took place upon our 
democracy, as verified by all of the intelligence agencies of 
the United States under the previous and this administration's 
nominees and appointments, as verified by Bob Mueller in his 
report, as verified week ago by the FBI director that it 
continues, if that attack had taken place in any other way, our 
response would be quick, it would be overwhelming, and I would 
hope it would be united.
    But because we are in a new age and because maybe some 
said, well, the election did not turn out badly from their 
perspective, it is okay. It is not. It is not. If Iran, who is 
now developing these capacities, sees the Trump administration 
as a challenge and wants to use the same exact efforts against 
it, would we be happy? No. And so what has struck me is our 
inability, unwillingness, paralysis to actually strike back in 
a way that is the use of peaceful diplomacy tools.
    So I believe that a bill that is looking directly to 
sanction Russia via the Nord Stream pipeline is an important 
opportunity to consider DASKA and other bills. I think that is 
what happening in Ukraine in terms of continuous--you know, we 
do not maybe have it on the front pages, but there is a 
continuous loss of lives, and continuing Russian intervention. 
I see what Russia did in the midst of the chemical weapons 
attack, the Skripal attack last year. I see what he has done 
with innocent civilians of Syria that continue to be bombed by 
Russian entities.
    You know, the Kremlin is emboldened, and it has no reason 
to let up, and we have not responded to it. So DASKA is an 
important opportunity to send a message that you cannot attack 
our country, electronically or otherwise, with impunity at the 
end of the day. And I believe Senator Cardin wants to speak to 
this as well.
    The Chairman.  Senator Cardin.
    Senator Cardin.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank 
Senator Menendez and Senator Graham for this legislation, and I 
would urge us to take this up and consider it. This is the 
jurisdiction of this committee, and we have indisputable 
evidence that Senator Menendez has pointed out about what 
happened in 2016. It was a direct attack on our election 
system. We also have information that Russia and other foreign 
entities may be actively engaged in the 2020 elections.
    Now, what is important about the legislation that Senator 
Menendez has now brought forward as an amendment to this bill, 
it spells out very clearly that we prohibit the Russians from 
getting involved in our--integrity of our voting systems so we 
are on record on this. There can be no ambiguity. And there 
will be consequences if Russia tries to interfere in 2020 in 
our free election system.
    We have a responsibility to act. This is the committee of 
jurisdiction on this issue, and I do not know how many other 
opportunities we are going to have, but I do think it is 
important that we speak with a very clear voice. Our effort 
here, similar to the Nord Stream, is to prevent action. We do 
not want Russia to interfere in this election. But I must tell 
you there have been mixed signals with the meetings that have 
taken place between the President and Mr. Putin, and I think we 
have to make it clear that there is no mixed message coming 
from the United States Congress.
    So I strongly urge the chairman to allow this legislation 
to move forward. Let our committee recommend to the full Senate 
the appropriate preventive actions we have to take before the 
2020 elections. Let our committee carry out our responsibility. 
Hopefully then we will have a chance on the Senate floor. None 
of us can predict that, but it is important that this committee 
carry out its constitutional responsibility to protect the 
integrity of our free election system within the jurisdiction 
of our committee.
    The Chairman.  Thank you, Senator Cardin. Look, we are 
drifting a long, long way from what hopefully is a targeted 
bill. I think that the requests that have been made here are 
reasonable requests. I think we need to schedule--first of all, 
the staff has got a lot of work to do to try to knock some 
rough edges off of these. There are competing bills to this 
particular DASKA bill.
    But, look, we have had a robust debate here. It is a good 
debate. I think we should continue it on in a different meeting 
when we get all of these done. And people are going to have to 
commit to sit here and work through this just as we have, but 
this is the way legislation works and the way it should work. 
So I will bring DASKA. I will bring the competing bills here.
    In the meantime, it will--first of all, by adding yours, 
Senator Menendez, I think it compromises the bill, probably 
fatally, as far as going forward, which I know that is not 
really what any of us want to do here. I want to accommodate 
Senator Cruz and Senator Shaheen.
    Senator Menendez.  Mr. Chairman, if I may, I heard you say 
correctly that you are going to include DASKA in among all the 
other competing bills in markup. Is that--
    The Chairman.  That is correct.
    Senator Menendez.  Well, then based upon that--I am getting 
a complex, though, that the chairman continuously refers to 
legislation that I offer on a bipartisan basis with others as 
so infectious that it kills any possibility.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Menendez.  I will try to come up with a better 
vaccine along the way. But based upon the chairman's commitment 
to at least give us an opportunity to make our case, I will 
withdraw it because I do not want to see this bill--
    Senator Romney.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Senator Romney, did you have an infectious 
comment?
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Romney.  I hope not.
    Senator Cruz.  What his brother-in-law's ex-wife does.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Romney.  That was second cousin once removed, but 
anyway.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Romney.  I just wanted to express my support for 
the comments made by the ranking member, which is I do feel 
very strongly that Russia understand that there is consequence 
for their bad action, and that America is willing to exert all 
the consequence that is necessary to keep them from carrying 
out bad action. I recognize that sanctions are of limited 
capacity in changing people's course, but they happen to be one 
of the few things we have available to us.
    We have tariffs. We do not buy a lot from Russia, so 
tariffs are not going to impact them in a significant way. We 
have sanctions, and that is what we typically apply. And then 
of course we have kinetic capability, and we are certainly not 
looking for a kinetic response at this stage. But applying the 
tools we have in the most aggressive way we can is, in my view, 
essential for us to protect our democratic election process and 
to have them recognize that bad action comes with a cost.
    I was very much moved and persuaded by many of the things 
that Senator Paul mentioned a moment ago with regards to the 
pipeline. The most powerful argument, in my view, that he made 
was that the pipeline is going to go ahead anyway, and it will 
be unfortunate if we go through all that we have described 
going through and the pipeline gets completed in any event. It 
is my hope that he is incorrect in that. We will never fully 
know, but with the hope and the prospect that it will not be 
completed given the sanctions that have been--being applied by 
this legislation, there is a hope that it will not be completed 
that I decided to vote in favor of it.
    But sanctions are what we have, and in some cases they will 
not change people's behavior, but they will have to calculate 
what the cost will be of doing bad things. And while I do not 
like applying sanctions to other countries and overplaying our 
hand in that regard, they are a tool we have which is short of 
kinetic force. And in protecting our democracy and protecting 
the democracies of our friends around the world, they are, in 
my opinion, an appropriate tool.
    The Chairman.  Thank you, Senator Romney. Senator Gardner.
    Senator Gardner.  I apologize, Mr. Chairman, for not being 
here for the first part of this hearing. We had a markup in the 
Commerce Committee where we also talked about Russian energy, 
and we talked about the impact it is having in the United 
States. We talked about pipeline issues, and we also talked 
about the fact that Massachusetts receives energy from Russia, 
oil from Russia, tankers there because of other restrictions 
and prohibitions on receiving or being able to get energy from 
the United States. So I completely agree with Senator Cruz's 
efforts on the pipeline and support the effort, but I also know 
that we have to do more in the United States to avoid giving 
dollars back to the same people that we are trying to avoid 
through the Nord Stream 2 and the pipeline there.
    Also just adding on election security. Look, we have an 
election coming up in Taiwan, end of this year, beginning of 
next year, and we know that China may very well try to 
interfere with that election, try to influence the outcome of 
that election. And DASKA, the efforts that we are doing in the 
DETER Act and others are important as we go forward with this 
committee to talk about how we can send the right signal around 
the globe that we are not going to stand for that and we are 
going to take, indeed, action against it. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman.  Thank you.
    Senator Merkley.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Yeah, Senator Merkley.
    Senator Merkley.  I just want clarity. Are you making a 
commitment to put DASKA up on a business agenda?
    The Chairman.  I will. Again, I think--I urge all the 
parties to work together in good faith to try to get it to a 
point where it is a bill that can become law as opposed to just 
messaging. And in any event, as we approach the Russia thing, 
one or two things that drops through the cracks that I wish 
people would put it back on the list is we have forgotten that 
Russia invaded and occupies two territories in Georgia. Nobody 
ever talks about that. And to me, one of the worst ones is them 
sending the agents to London and poisoning people in London 
that they do not like, and injuring up to 35 British citizens 
in the process. I mean, that is just stunning that a country 
can do that and walk away from it. So, I mean, the list of the 
sins is long, but there are a couple of others. We should make 
it a complete list, I think, as we go forward.
    So with that, are there any--anybody want to offer an 
amendment?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  If not, we will move to the bill. There has 
been a roll call vote. The question before the committee is 
shall the revised Cruz substitute amendment be adopted. The 
clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Rubio?
    The Chairman.  Yes, this is on final passage. An aye vote 
will send the bill to the floor. A no vote will hold the bill 
in committee. So the clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Rubio.
    The Chairman.  Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Johnson.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Gardner?
    Senator Gardner.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Romney?
    Senator Romney.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Graham?
    The Chairman.  Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Isakson?
    The Chairman.  Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Portman?
    Senator Portman.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Young?
    Senator Young.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Cruz?
    Senator Cruz.  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 Menendez.  No 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 Menendez.  Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  The clerk will report. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 20; the nays are 2.
    The Chairman.  The motion has been adopted. That completes 
the committee's business.
    I ask unanimous consent that the staff be authorized to 
make technical and conforming changes.
    Without objection, it is so ordered.
    And with that, the committee stands adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., the meeting was adjourned.]

              Additional Material Submitted for the Record

                Correspondence Submitted by Senator Paul

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                     WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2019

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

                Summary of Action Taken by the Committee

                                NOMINEES

  Mr. Andrew P. Bremberg, of Virginia, to be Representative of the 
        United States of America to the Office of the United Nations 
        and Other International Organizations in Geneva, with the rank 
        of Ambassador, agreed to by roll call vote (12-10)

          Ayes: Risch, Rubio, Johnson, Gardner, Romney, Graham, 
        Isakson, Barrasso, Portman, Paul, Young, and Cruz (proxy)

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

  Mr. John Leslie Carwile, of Maryland, a Career Member of the Senior 
        Foreign Service, Class of Minster-Counselor, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Republic of Latvia, agreed to by voice vote

  Mr. Anthony F. Godfrey, of Virginia, a Career Member of the Senior 
        Foreign Service, Class of Minster-Counselor, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Republic of Serbia, agreed to by voice vote

  Mr. Doug Manchester, of California, to be Ambassador Extraordinary 
        and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the 
        Commonwealth of The Bahamas, (removed by the Chairman)

  Ms. Erin Elizabeth McKee, 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 Independent State of Papua New Guinea, 
        and to serve concurrently and without additional compensation 
        as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United 
        States of America to the Solomon Islands and Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Republic of Vanuatu, agreed to by voice vote

  Ms. Herro Mustafa, of California, 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 Bulgaria, agreed to by voice vote

  Mr. Adrian Zuckerman, of New Jersey, to be Ambassador Extraordinary 
        and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to Romania, 
        (removed by the Chairman)

                               FSO LISTS

  Courtney L. Lacroix, dated May 21, 2019 (PN 787-2), agreed to by 
        voice vote

  George Habib Abi-Nader, et al., dated July 25, 2019 (PN 1001), agreed 
        to by voice vote

  Cynthia K Deurr, dated July 25, 2019 (PN 1002), agreed to by voice 
        vote

  Jessica Abenstein, et al., dated July 25, 2019 (PN 1003), agreed to 
        by voice vote

  Kendra Michelle Arbaiza-Sundal, et al., dated July 25, 2019 (PN 
        1004), agreed to by voice vote

                           Meeting Transcript

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:41 p.m., in 
Room S-116, U.S. Capitol, Hon. James Risch, chairman of the 
committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Risch [presiding],Rubio, Johnson, 
Gardner, Romney, Graham, Isakson, Barrasso, Portman, Paul, 
Young, Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, Kaine, and 
Merkley.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. RISCH,
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO

    The Chairman.  This meeting of the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee will come to order.
    Today, we will consider seven nominees for a variety of 
posts across the State Department but actually it is going to 
be five.
    The Chairman is exercising his discretion and Mr. 
Manchester and Mr. Zuckerman are going to be pulled off of this 
calendar.
    The other ones we are going to consider are Andrew 
Bremberg, John Carwile, Anthony Godfrey, Erin McKee, and Ms. 
Herro [Mustafa].
    These are important nominations. I appreciate everyone's 
attendance. We will move as quickly as we can because I know 
all of you have other commitments that you need to attend to. 
So with that, we will get to it.
    Senator Menendez.  Mr. Chairman, thank you.
    You are pulling off Manchester and Bremberg, is that 
correct?
    The Chairman.  I am.
    Senator Menendez.  Okay.
    The Chairman.  Zuckerman.
    Senator Menendez.  Oh, I am sorry. Zuckerman, okay. So I 
will save my comments about both of them for the future when 
you-- when and if you decide to hold the meeting on them.
    The Chairman.  Thank you.
    Senator Menendez.  Let me speak to Mr. Bremberg then. 
Regarding Mr. Bremberg, it would be an understatement to say 
that I do not think he is the best person to represent the 
United States in Geneva.
    Mr. Bremberg's views on women's rights and access to 
reproductive health care are not only out of sync with much of 
the world but outside the mainstream of even the Republican 
Party and in opposition with the longstanding position of the 
United States Government and more than three-quarters of the 
American public.
    Specifically, by way of example of what I am talking about 
at the hearing, he asserted that women and girls who are raped 
in war should not have access to abortion even where it is 
legal, even where it is legal.
    Each administration gets to send a message with the 
individual they select to represent the United States at 
international fora. In nominating Mr. Bremberg, I think the 
White House is essentially saying that it does not value women.
    This administration may wish to have Mr. Bremberg serve 
somewhere but the very last place he should be is in a position 
in which he can do further damage to erode global access to 
women's health care.
    For that reason, I will oppose his nomination and I will 
support the rest of the nominations that follow.
    The Chairman.  Thank you.
    We are first going to consider the five Foreign Service 
Office lists on the agenda [and] Mr. Carwile, Mr. Godfrey, Ms. 
McKee, and Ms. Mustafa.
    Is there a motion to accept these?
    Voice. So moved.
    The Chairman.  Is there a second?
    Voice. Second.
    The Chairman.  There is a motion, duly seconded.
    Is there debate?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  Being none, all those in favor, signify by 
saying aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it.
    The votes will be recorded.
    Next, we will take up a motion on the nomination of Mr. 
Bremberg.
    The Ranking Member has stated his views on that and 
certainly appreciate that. We had Mr. Bremberg before the 
committee. He was very clear that notwithstanding the personal 
views he might have, that he will follow the law, U.S. law 
regarding the abortion issues.
    In any event, is there a motion to adopt?
    Voice. So moved.
    Voice. Second.
    The Chairman.  It has been moved. It has been seconded.
    Senator Menendez.  Recorded vote.
    The Chairman.  The recorded vote has been requested.
    The Clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Rubio.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Johnson.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Gardner?
    Senator Gardner.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Romney?
    Senator Romney.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Graham?
    Senator Graham.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Isakson?
    Senator Isakson.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Portman?
    Senator Portman.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Young?
    Senator Young.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Cruz?
    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 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 Menendez.  No by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 12, the nos are 10.
    The Chairman.  The motion has carried. He will be favorably 
reported to the Floor.
    I think that is it. I ask unanimous consent for staff to 
make technical and conforming changes. Without objection, and 
if there is nothing else for the good of the order, the 
committee is adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 1:46 p.m., the meeting was adjourned.]


                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                     WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2019

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

                Summary of Action Taken by the Committee

                              LEGISLATION

  S. 1590, Rescuing Animals With Rewards Act of 2019, without an 
        amendment - agreed to by voice vote (Udall added as cosponsor)

  S. 1678, Taiwan Allies International Protection and Enhancement 
        Initiative (TAIPEI) Act of 2019, with an amendment, agreed to 
        by voice vote (Romney, Cruz, and Menendez added as cosponsors)

     Managers Amendment, agreed to by voice vote

  S. 1838, Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019, with an 
        amendment, agreed to by voice vote (Cruz added as cosponsors)

     Managers Amendment, agreed to by voice vote

  S. 2372, Save Our Seas 2.0: Enhanced Global Engagement to Combat 
        Marine Debris Act, with an amendment, agreed to by voice vote 
        (Cruz and Shaheen added as cosponsors)

     Managers Amendment, agreed to by voice vote

  S. 2503, United States Commission on International Religious Freedom 
        Reauthorization Act of 2019, held over

  S. Res. 183, A resolution reaffirming the vital role of the United 
        States-Japan alliance in promoting peace, stability, and 
        prosperity in the Indo-Pacific region and beyond, and for other 
        purposes, with an amendment, agreed to by voice vote

     Preamble Amendment, agreed to by voice vote

  S. Res. 236, A resolution reaffirming the strong partnership between 
        Tunisia and the United States and supporting the people of 
        Tunisia in their continued pursuit of democratic reforms, 
        without an amendment, agreed to by voice vote (Coons added as 
        cosponsors)

  S. Res. 277, A resolution remembering the 25th Anniversary of the 
        bombing of the Argentine Israelite Mutual Association (AMIA) 
        Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires, Argentina, and 
        recommitting to efforts to uphold justice for the 85 victims of 
        the attacks, without an amendment, agreed to by voice vote 
        (Coons added as cosponsor)

  S. Res. 318, A resolution to support the Global Fund to fight AIDS, 
        Tuberculosis and Malaria, and the Sixth Replenishment, with an 
        amendment, agreed to by voice vote (Cruz added as cosponsor)

     Merkley 1st Degree 1 REVISED, agreed to by voice vote

                              NOMINATIONS

  Mr. Adam Seth Boehler, of Louisiana, to be Chief Executive Officer of 
        the United States International Development Finance 
        Corporation, agreed to by voice vote

  Mr. Adrian Zuckerman, of New Jersey, to be Ambassador Extraordinary 
        and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to Romania, 
        agreed to by voice vote (Cardin and Merkley recorded as NO)

                                FSO LIST

  12. Melissa McInnis, et al., dated May 21, 2019 (PN 786), agreed to 
        by voice vote

                           Meeting Transcript

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:40 p.m., in 
Room S-116, The Capitol, Hon. James Risch, chairman of the 
committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Risch [presiding], Johnson, Gardner, 
Romney, Graham, Isakson, Barrasso, Portman, Young, Cruz, 
Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Udall, Murphy, and Merkley.

           OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. RISCH, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO

    The Chairman.  The committee will come to order, and I want 
to thank all of you who are here. I would preach to those that 
were not, but it would not do any good.
    So in any event, we have a committee business meeting today 
where we have four resolutions and it looks like five bills. I 
am going to remove Senate Bill 2503. I think everybody on this 
committee is interested in that bill. Everybody on this 
committee wants to pass this bill. I think it will go quicker 
and smoother if I can pull this right now and bring it back 
next time. I know, Senator Menendez, did you want to say about 
that right now or no?

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

    Senator Menendez.  I will as part of my remarks. I am 
deeply disappointed in that----
    The Chairman.  So am I.
    Senator Menendez  [continuing]. We are having it pulled. I 
will just say, Mr. Chairman, on this, I understand that one of 
our fellow colleagues is holding over the bill, and that is 
deeply disappointing after months of negotiations. We reached a 
bipartisan compromise on the text agreed by Senator Rubio, the 
chairman, Senator Durbin, and myself to reauthorize the U.S. 
Commission on International Religious Freedom for years. And 
then yesterday we are told that the bill is being held over, 
and we would have to reopen negotiations, and I am honestly 
confused.
    We negotiated in good faith for months. Our staffs met with 
the current commissioners and the executive director multiple 
times to get their input. Senators read and then signed off on 
the bipartisan text. I have not heard a single objection to the 
bill from a senator or, for that matter, from a commissioner, 
just some rumors that one or two commissioners do not like the 
bill and contacted Republican staff, as they claim. Now, if 
there are genuine problems with the text, I am happy to discuss 
them, but pulling the bill off of the agenda because of a 
commissioner's whispers is not the way we should be doing 
business.
    My staff has been told that there is now opposition to the 
bipartisan language--bipartisan language that would require the 
commission to examine the abuse of religion to justify human 
rights violations. And I wonder why opposition all of a sudden 
because the USCIRF already does this. Why is there opposition 
to putting something into law simply--the law that some--that 
the USCIRF has done for years? They have done reports on the 
use of blasphemy laws in certain countries and abuse within 
Saudi textbooks. Do we not want them to look at blasphemy laws 
in Saudi textbooks anymore?
    My staff have also heard that some object to provisions 
which increase transparency of Commission activity. The idea 
that Republicans want less transparency from a federally-funded 
congressionally-created commission is perplexing. The agreed-
upon text tackled some of the most concerning issues of the 
Commission. The bill requires the disclosure of privately-
funded foreign travel, requires USCIRF staff to follow Senate 
ethics rules, clarify that USCIRF employees are employees under 
the Congressional Accountability Act, and provide for removal 
of commissioners who violate the CAA. It comes as no surprise 
to me that maybe some of the current commissioners may take 
issue with the new requirements precisely because they are part 
of the problem.
    The USCIRF is a congressionally-created entity. Congress, 
not commissioners, has the duty to reauthorize and, when 
necessary, reform the Commission. So I really hope, Mr. 
Chairman, and I appreciate the work that you put into this with 
us to get to a bipartisan compromise that I thought we were 
ready to go with. I hope we can get back there very soon.
    The Chairman.  I hope so, too, and I believe we will get 
back there very soon. I think the problems are not quite as 
extensive perhaps as you have outlined. But I am --I am not the 
one that is carrying the torch on this, so we will--we will get 
to this. I think everybody on this committee wants a vote on 
this. I suspect it is going to be a unanimous vote. Senator 
Shaheen.
    Senator Shaheen.  Do we know who is holding it up? Is it 
someone on the committee or is it someone----
    The Chairman.  Well, Senator Rubio has been the one that 
made the request, and he is--I think if he was here today, we 
would probably be able to hammer that out. But as a matter of 
comity, I am going to hold this up. Look, the ranking member is 
correct. I want this as much as anybody else does, and 
everybody on this committee, I think. I think by doing it the 
way we are talking about, we will get there easier, and sooner 
rather than later. Senator Coons.
    Senator Coons.  Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, I just want 
to express my pleasure that there is a broad slate of 
bipartisan bills and resolutions before us today. I think we 
are at a substantive business meeting. I request to be added as 
a co-sponsor to Resolution 183 relating to our relationship 
with Japan; 236, supporting Tunisian democracy; and 277, the 
Buenos Aires car bombing attack. I just think it is good we are 
getting back to this point.
    The Chairman.  Thank you, Senator Coons, and you will be 
added.
    Senator Menendez.  Mr. Chairman, if I may----
    The Chairman.  Go ahead.
    Senator Menendez.  On the broader context, I was responding 
to the pulling of the one legislation.
    The Chairman.  Sure.
    Senator Menendez.  So before turning to the rest of today's 
agenda, I feel compelled to speak about the news of the past 
few days. The allegations made against the President, I 
believe, are grave and require the full attention of the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee. I believe we have to hold hearings 
to get to the bottom of what happened. Let me outline the steps 
I have taken and I hope we would take.
    First, I sent a letter yesterday to Secretary Pompeo 
calling on him to clarify the role of the State Department in 
the deliberations surrounding security assistance for Ukraine. 
I have asked him whether the Department provided any support to 
the President's personal lawyer, who appears to be playing the 
role of assistant secretary for Europe, a position for which 
the administration still does not have a nominee. The same goes 
for Kiev where we also do not have a Senate-12 confirmed 
ambassador. Second, I also wrote to the State Department 
inspector general and Acting Chief of Staff Mulvaney posing 
similar questions that I just outlined regarding Secretary 
Pompeo. And finally, I have introduced the Ukraine Foreign 
Assistance Integrity and Accountability Act of 2019, and I 
would welcome co-sponsors.
    Among other things, the bill would require an inspector 
general/State Department investigation into the Office of 
Budget and Management's delays in obligating these funds. My 
legislation would require the State Department to share all 
records related to the delay in obligating of critical security 
assistance for Ukraine and into the Department's role in 
facilitating the President's personal lawyer's engagement with 
the Ukrainian government. It would require the administration 
obligate all Ukrainian security assistance funds and authorize 
additional funds to counter Russia malign influence across 
Europe. And finally, it would express solidarity with the 
Ukrainian people by imposing some new sanctions on Russia for 
its continued aggression in Eastern Ukraine.
    So given the urgency of the situation, I asked you, Mr. 
Chairman, to consider marking it up today. I know you felt that 
there was short order involved. So I hope that we can get your 
permission to take up this legislation at the next business 
meeting when, along with considering DASKA and other Russia 
legislation, which you agreed to. I think this committee has a 
responsibility and an obligation to ensure that our national 
security process and diplomacy are not corrupted by anyone, by 
a President who has one interest and one interest only, self-
preservation. The committee would do a disservice to the 
American people if we allow the tools of foreign policy to be 
used in this way.
    And finally, I appreciate your support and the committee's 
effort on a different matter to address toxic waste in our 
ocean. This bipartisan bill focuses on improving U.S. foreign 
policy and international cooperation to combat foreign sources 
of toxic waste and marine debris. The reality is that the toxic 
waste in our ocean knows no borders. What may be a plastic 
wrapper floating down a river in China today could be the micro 
plastic in your tuna salad tomorrow. No one wants to swim in 
plastic or eat fish that fed on micro plastic. The bill has 
tremendous stakeholder support, including both environmental 
NGOs and in the private sector, and it is bipartisan.
    And I also support all of the other legislation before us. 
I commend those who have been the prime sponsors and who have 
joined, and as well as the nominees that are before the 
committee. I support them and the FSOs.
    The Chairman.  Thank you, Senator. First of all, let me say 
that yesterday Senator McConnell committed to having the Senate 
Intelligence Committee and directed the Senate Intelligence 
Committee to deal with the issues that--a number of the issues 
that you have raised. I am going to respect his request in that 
regard. Yesterday, the Senate unanimously approved the 
resolution offered by Senator Schumer to get the transcript 
released. It was released this morning. I urge every American 
to spend the few minutes it takes to read that and make up 
their own mind on that.
    As far as the Ukrainian Foreign Assistance Integrity and 
Accountability Act of 2019, I--it was delivered yesterday. I 
have not had a chance to read it yet or study it. I will do so, 
and then we will talk about going forward on it, so thank you 
very much.
    Senator Menendez.  Mr. Chairman, one observation.
    The Chairman.  Please.
    Senator Menendez.  The resolution passed by--agreed to--
Senator Schumer provided and passed by the Senate speaks to the 
question of the whistleblower in the intelligence community who 
wishes to come before the Intelligence Community and share 
their story of whatever it is they feel is wrong. That is fine. 
But there are a series of issues here having nothing to do with 
the whistleblower, that have everything to do with the State 
Department that this committee has jurisdiction and oversight 
on and should be engaged robustly in them. And I would urge you 
separate and apart--I know the chairman also sits on the 
Intelligence Committee.
    But bifurcating whatever the whistleblower has to say, 
there are serious here. How is it that Rudy Giuliani becomes an 
entity of the United States to engage in Ukraine? Who made him 
ambassador? Who made him special envoy? Who made him whatever 
to do that? How is it--what is it that the State Department did 
or did not as it relates to our assistance to the Ukraine?
    My understanding is that they not only sent the request for 
the monies to be committed, that there was no policy objections 
to the request posed by the State Department, and no policy 
questions posed to them by OMB. But we need to verify it and 
get that information out there if that is the case. So I would 
urge you to consider all those things that are outside of the 
whistleblower issues, but surely within the jurisdiction of the 
committee.
    The Chairman.  And I will do so. This matter is relatively 
new. It is very fluid. And as it crystalizes, we will--I will 
make a decision on where we are going to go on it. I appreciate 
your concerns on that, and I--in any event, if it is okay, we 
will go on with the business of the committee meeting. So with 
that----
    Senator Shaheen.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Yeah, Senator Shaheen.
    Senator Shaheen.  Would it be appropriate to make a 
statement about another issue now? It is not on the agenda and 
it has to do with Afghanistan.
    The Chairman.  Well, that has not bothered me, right? Oh, 
please make your statement.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Shaheen.  I just--I just wanted to remind everybody 
what I am sure most people already know, and that is 
Afghanistan is having their presidential elections this 
Saturday. The ambassador--I had a meeting with the ambassador 
last week, and we talked about the fact that it would be 
important for the United States to go on record as supporting 
free and fair elections given the Taliban is interested in 
preventing those from happening. I have been working on a 
resolution with Senator Tillis because we are the co-chairs of 
the Senate NATO Observer Group, and this is a NATO mission.
    But we are going to circulate that and get as many sponsors 
as we can. I think it is appropriate for it to be a bipartisan 
resolution that says that it is in the interest of all of us 
that Afghanistan is able to hold their elections on time 
without interference. So I would hope that everybody would take 
a look at that and consider signing on because I think it is 
important for us to make a statement that the Afghans receive 
about the importance of their elections.
    The Chairman.  Thank you. And I have a couple of questions 
about that, but because of our timing, I will talk to you about 
that privately. So with that, this is the chairman's intent 
here. We have got two noms. I am going to take those up first, 
then we will go to the resolutions, and then finally to the 
legislation. If there is no objection, both Mr. Boehler and Mr. 
Zuckerman have been in and out and around and around. We have 
debated it backwards and forwards. I would entertain a motion 
en bloc to approve both Mr. Boehler and Mr. Zuckerman, then do 
a--and--excuse me--and there is a lengthy list also--an FSO 
list. I would entertain a motion to approve all three of those 
by voice.
    Senator Menendez.  So move.
    Voice. Second.
    Voice. Second.
    The Chairman.  You have heard the motion, which has been 
duly seconded.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed, nay.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it, and the motion is passed.
    Senator Cardin.  Recorded as ``no'' on the Zuckerman 
nomination.
    The Chairman.  Pardon?
    Senator Cardin.  Recorded no on the----
    The Chairman.  Yes. Yes. Senator Cardin will be recorded 
``no'' on Zuckerman. Anybody else wish to be recorded?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  There being none, we will move now to the 
resolutions. There are Resolutions 6, 7, 8, and 9. Again, these 
have been hashed out really well as far as the staff is 
concerned. This is Senate Resolution 183, as amended by the 
preamble amendment, Senate Res. 236, Senate Res. 277, Senate 
Res. 318, as amended by the revised Merkley First Degree 
Amendment. So I am told that we have all the issues hammered 
out on that. I would--I would accept a motion to approve the 
full resolutions en bloc.
    VOICE. So move.
    The Chairman.  It has been moved and seconded that we 
approve all four en bloc. Senator Cruz, did you have debate or 
were you----
    Senator Cruz.  No, I was just going to ask consent to be 
added to Senate Resolution 318 as a co-sponsor.
    The Chairman.  There being no objection, it will be so 
ordered.
    Is there anything further?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  If not, all those in favor of the motion, 
signify by saying aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed, nay.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it. Those four resolutions I 
have read have been adopted.
    Senator Romney.  Mr. Chairman, was that the--Tunisia, that 
was 236? Is that right?
    The Chairman.  It was, yes.
    Senator Romney.  I would like to be shown also as a co-
sponsor of that.
    The Chairman.  If there is no objection, you will be added.
    Senator Menendez.  Mr. Chairman, I would ask to be added as 
a co-2 sponsor to the TAIPEI Act.
    The Chairman.  Is there objection?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  Hearing none, it is so ordered.
    Senator Merkley.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Senator Merkley.
    Senator Merkley.  Can I be added as--recorded ``no'' on Mr. 
Zuckerman?
    The Chairman.  Yes, you may.
    Senator Merkley.  Thank you.
    The Chairman.  The clerk will add you as a ``no.'' Okay. 
The first thing we are going to take up is the--did you want to 
take this one up first or not? All right. Senate Bill 1678, the 
TAIPEI Act. Is there any debate or is there a motion on Senate 
Bill 1678--excuse me--the manager's amendment on Senate Bill 
1678, the TAIPEI Act. The chairman will entertain a motion.
    Voice. So move.
    The Chairman.  Is there a second?
    Senator Menendez.  Second.
    The Chairman.  Moved and seconded that the manager's 
amendment to the TAIPEI Act, Senate Bill 1678, be adopted. Is 
there debate?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  There being no debate, all those in favor, 
signify by saying aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed, nay.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it, and the motion is passed.
    Senator Cruz.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Now, with the--yes, Senator Cruz.
    Senator Cruz.  I would ask consent also that I be added as 
a co-sponsor to S. 1678, and also 1838, and 2372.
    The Chairman.  There being no objection, it is so ordered.
    Now, let us go to final passage on--Senator?
    Senator Romney.  Mr. Chairman, same request on my behalf.
    The Chairman.  Senator--it will be so ordered. Senator 
Gardner.
    Senator Gardner.  I just want to make a few comments on the 
bill itself.
    The Chairman.  Okay. Well, would you make a motion to adopt 
the bill? We have adopted----
    Senator Gardner.  I move to adopt S. 1678----
    The Chairman.  As amended by the manager's package.
    Senator Gardner.  As amended by the manager's amendment.
    The Chairman.  Okay. Is there a second?
    Senator Menendez.  Second.
    The Chairman.  Is there debate? Senator?
    Senator Gardner.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing 
this up. Obviously with the news that in recent days of the 
Solomon Islands and Kiribati changing their allegiance or their 
recognition of Taiwan to China, China's continued harassment 
and bullying and economic activities throughout the region pose 
a significant threat to Taiwan's democracy and economy, and it 
is time the United States do more as we stand with Taiwan. It 
is time the United States do more to stand with Taiwan.
    We have passed a number of great legislative actions and 
measures over the past several years--the Taiwan Travel Act, 
the Asian Reassurance Initiative Act, and a number of other 
provisions. This is one more way to stand with those countries 
who will stand with Taiwan to create rewards and opportunities 
for those that stand with the United States as we stand with 
Taiwan.
    Look no further than what is happening in Hong Kong as what 
Taiwan's future looks like should Chinese aggression, bullying, 
and disregard for democracy and autonomy be allowed to move 
forward without the United States standing up. So thank you 
very much for the support of the bill, and I look forward to 
moving this through the process.
    The Chairman.  Thank you, Senator. Is there further debate?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  There being no further debate on the motion 
to Senate Bill 1678, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed, nay.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it.
    I will go to Senate Bill 1590, Rescuing Animals with 
Rewards Act. There is no manager's amendment on it. I will 
consider a motion to----
    Senator Merkley.  So move.
    Senator Menendez.  Second.
    The Chairman.  Senator Merkley has moved. Senator Menendez 
has seconded. Is there debate?
    Senator Merkley.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Senator Merkley.
    Senator Merkley.  I will say briefly that the international 
trafficking in wildlife is having a huge impact on species 
across the world. This gives the State Department authority to 
offer rewards for information to understand those trafficking 
networks or to pursue specific criminal networks. The State 
Department has had a rewards program, but they have never had 
authorization for it, and I think this will provide a strong 
foundation for them to expand that and expand their attack on 
this illegal trade.
    The Chairman.  Well said, Senator Merkley. It certainly is 
an appropriate issue that you are focused on. We deeply 
appreciate it.
    Senator Udall.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Senator?
    Senator Udall.  Could I be added as a co-sponsor to that?
    The Chairman.  Senator Udall will be added as a co-sponsor. 
So we have a motion pending to adopt Senate Bill 1590.
    Senator Menendez.  So move.
    Voice. Second.
    The Chairman.  Moved and seconded. We now have a motion. Is 
there further debate on Senate Bill 1590?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  There being none, all those in favor, 
signify by saying aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed, nay.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it. Senate Bill 1590 has been 
approved.
    We will now move to Senate Bill 1838. This one has been a 
work in progress for a long time. The committee has worked 
really hard on this. Everybody should be--everybody should be 
proud of the work that was done on this bill. It is truly a 
bipartisan bill on a very difficult, depressing matter.
    We have before us the--a manager's amendment, and it 
incorporates Merkley and first-degree amendments, and adds 
language directing the administration consider appropriate 
adjustments to current U.S. export controls with respect to the 
supply of crowd control and surveillance equipment to Hong 
Kong. Is there a motion to adopt the manager's amendment?
    Senator Cardin.  I move to adopt.
    Senator Cruz.  Second.
    The Chairman.  Senator Cardin moved. Senator Cruz second. 
Is there debate?
    Voice. [Off audio.]
    The Chairman.  Okay. There being no further debate, all--I 
am sorry.
    Senator Menendez.  On the manager's amendment.
    The Chairman.  Okay. We will go--we will get to debate 
after the manager's amendment.
    All those in favor of the manager's amendment, please 
signify by saying aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed, nay.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it, and the manager's 
amendment has been adopted.
    Now, we need a motion to adopt Senate Bill 1838, as amended 
by the manager's amendment. Is there a motion?
    Senator Cardin.  So move.
    The Chairman.  Senator Cardin has moved.
    Voice. Second.
    Senator Cardin.  Can I be heard for just one minute?
    The Chairman.  Yes.
    Senator Cardin.  First, I really do want to thank Chairman 
Risch and Ranking Member Menendez for your patience on this 
bill and the work that was done. Senator Rubio and I have 
worked on this bill with a lot of members of the committee. It 
is absolutely essential that we speak out in regards to what is 
happening in Hong Kong. We know that the Chinese government has 
infringed upon the autonomy after it was anticipated. We have 
legislation here that provides certain responsibilities for the 
continuation of the special status in Hong Kong.
    This legislation will complement that, give us the 
information we need to make sure that the autonomy of Hong Kong 
is being respected as well as the human rights of the people 
that live in that place. So I just want to thank again the 
leadership of this committee. I think it is an important bill 
for us to pass.
    The Chairman.  Well said. Further debate? Senator Merkley.
    Senator Merkley.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an 
amendment that I have withdrawn upon conversation with the 
chairman and his team. But under--it essentially says, look, we 
are not going to allow the export to the police of Hong Kong or 
the police auxiliary tear gas, pepper spray, rubber bullets, 
water cannons, and bean bag--bean bag rounds. I think--thought 
it was a very clear and crisp strategy, but export controls get 
complicated. So I understand that there is a desire to make 
sure there are no unintended consequences, but I do intend to 
bring this issue back. And, Mr. Chairman, I understand you 
share the concern about these items going to the police, and 
that we will have a chance to work together on this.
    The Chairman.  You are correct on that, Senator Merkley. 
And, first of all, let me say that a lot of credit should go to 
the ranking member on this. He raised this in a--in some 
meetings we have had and in committee, and these are very, very 
legitimate concerns. As you indicated, they are complicated.
    On September 10th, Senator Menendez and I with the chairman 
and ranking member of the Banking Committee, the other 
distinguished senator from Idaho being the ranking--being the 
chairman, sent a letter to the administration about U.S. policy 
regarding the export of crowd control equipment to Hong Kong. 
We are moving forward on that. There certainly is not, I think, 
disagreement. I think we are just in the weeds on the details, 
but we will work--we will together.
    Senator Merkley.  Great. Thank you.
    The Chairman.  I appreciate it.
    Senator Menendez.  Mr. Chairman, if I may.
    The Chairman.  Yes, Senator Menendez.
    Senator Menendez.  First of all, I want to commend Senator 
Cardin and Senator Rubio. There was a lot of work that went 
into this bill to get it to the point that we have the 
consensus we have today. So I want to commend them on their 
legislative skills in doing that.
    The chairman and I had an opportunity to meet right across 
the table there with some of the most dynamic, incredibly 
inspiring young people who are leading the effort in Hong Kong, 
and they spoke about this bill as something they are critically 
looking forward to see happen. So I want to commend the 
chairman for finally bringing it up here after it has all been 
worked out. And on this final issue that Senator Merkley 
raised, I have raised it. We are working together. I think the 
chairman is in common cause with us as it relates to it, and I 
think--I am optimistic that we are going to get there.
    The Chairman.  Thank you. I associate myself with those 
remarks. Those young people are brave, and it was an honor to 
meet them.
    Senator Gardner.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Senator Gardner.
    Senator Gardner.  We have a committee hearing tomorrow to 
continue this conversation, for those of you on the 
subcommittee, at 10:45 tomorrow.
    The Chairman.  Thank you so much. I appreciate it.
    Senator Menendez.  Could we highlight for the record that 
the chairman associated himself with my remarks?
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman.  This one time. Thank you. Good work to the 
committee on this. So do we have a motion pending? Are we at 
final passage? Have we had the motion? We have.
    All those in favor of final passage of this bill, signify 
by saying aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed, nay.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it, and Senate Bill 1838 has 
passed to the floor of the Senate.
    We have lastly Senate Bill 2372, which Senator Menendez 
described in his opening statement in way too clear a detail 
for something right after lunch. But in any event, those of 
us--and we are all concerned about marine debris. This is 
appropriate. The parties who worked on this are certainly to be 
commended for that.
    We have a manager's amendment to this bill which clarifies 
several portions of the legislation and incorporates elements 
of the first-degree amendments that were filed. I will be 
supporting the manager's amendment. So is there a motion to 
adopt the manager's amendment?
    Senator Menendez.  So move.
    Senator Shaheen.  Mr. Chairman, can I be added as a co-
sponsor?
    The Chairman.  Can we get--can we get a second on that?
    Senator Gardner.  Second.
    The Chairman.  Okay. Senator Gardner. Senator Shaheen, you 
wish to be----
    Senator Shaheen.  Can I be added as a co-sponsor?
    The Chairman.  You may. You will be added as a co-sponsor. 
So is there further debate on Senate Bill--excuse me--on the 
manager's amendment to Senate Bill 2372?
    Senator Udall.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Senator Udall.
    Senator Udall.  Mr. Chairman, I have several amendments to 
offer, but I am not going to offer them at this point. I want 
to very much congratulate Senator Sullivan and Senator 
Whitehouse for their work on this piece of legislation, Save 
Our Seas. I do not think, though, that the way this legislation 
stands, this is going to correct everything. I think we have 
got a real serious problem on single-use plastic. I think we 
need to be more aggressive. We need to go further. And so I 
hope that when we bring this bill to the floor, we can do 
provisions that then will do that. I am also working on 
legislation.
    But I think it is a great piece of legislation on the 
recycling part, the Government policies, but we need to be --we 
are in a plastic crisis. We are producing too much, and so we 
need to--we need to get a reduction in place is where we are 
headed in terms of the legislation. So thank you very much.
    The Chairman.  This is a worldwide problem, and I think we 
are at the incipient stages of it. And it is going to take more 
work, there is absolutely no question about that. Is there 
further debate?
    Senator Barrasso.  Mr. Chairman, thank you. The similar 
bill in the jurisdiction of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee passed the committee unanimously this morning, Save 
Our Seas.
    The Chairman.  Thanks for that information. Is there 
further debate on the manager's amendment to Senate Bill 2372?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  There being none, all those in favor of the 
motion to adopt the manager's amendment, please signify by 
saying aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed, nay.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it.
    We now have before us Senate Bill 2372, as amended. Is 
there a motion to adopt?
    Senator Menendez.  So move.
    The Chairman.  It has been moved.
    Voice. Second.
    The Chairman.  It has been seconded. Is there debate on the 
bill itself?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  There being none, all those in favor, 
signify by saying aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed, nay.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it, and Senate Bill 2372 has 
been adopted.
    That completes the committee's business. I ask unanimous 
consent that staff be authorized to make technical and 
conforming changes.
    Without objection, it is so ordered.
    With that, the committee will be adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 2:07 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]


              Additional Material Submitted for the Record

  Statement for the Record Submitted by Ranking Member Robert Menendez

    AMIA Jewish Community Center Bombing Resolution
          Twenty-Five years after the attack on the Argentina Israelite 
        Mutual Association (AMIA) Jewish Community Center, one of the 
        deadliest terrorist attacks in Argentina's history, justice has 
        still not been served. The investigation into this heinous 
        attack has been marked by international inaction, political 
        interference, investigative misconduct, and even allegations of 
        cover-ups.
          This bipartisan resolution commemorates the lives lost that 
        day while also calling for accountability for those 85 victims. 
        And in positive news on this front, I also want to recognize 
        President Macri's decision on July 18 to designate Hezbollah as 
        a terrorist organization for its role in these attacks.
    TAIPEI Act
          As the Co-Chair of the Senate Taiwan Caucus, I am pleased to 
        support the TAIPEI Act, Mr. Chairman, and I ask Unanimous 
        Consent to be added as a cosponsor.
          This week marks the loss of yet two more of Taiwan's 
        diplomatic allies on President Trump's watch. Congress must 
        step in to ensure that the United States is committed to 
        maintaining Taiwan's diplomatic space. This bill allows us to 
        offer incentives--or punishments--to countries who are 
        considering altering their relationship with Taiwan.
    S. 183, United States-Japan Alliance Resolution
          I was pleased to introduce, along with the Chairman and 
        Senators Markey, Gardner, Coons and Shaheen, the resolution 
        reaffirming the vital role of the United States-Japan alliance 
        in promoting peace, stability, and prosperity in the Indo-
        Pacific region. It is a 70-year relationship of common 
        interests and common values fundamental to U.S. engagement in 
        the Indo-Pacific and around the globe.
    S. Res 236, Tunisia-U.S. Partnership Resolution
          I am also pleased to introduce the Tunisia resolution, along 
        with Senator Romney, reaffirming the strong partnership between 
        Tunisia and the United States. As instability mounts around 
        Tunisia's borders, it is critical that we reaffirm our support 
        and our shared values, interests, and pursuit of long-term 
        stability and security.
    Other Resolutions
          I also support passage of S. Res. 318, a resolution to 
        support the Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and 
        Malaria, and S. 1590, the Rescuing Animals with Rewards Act, 
        and I commend my colleagues, especially the Chairman and 
        Senator Merkley, for their introduction.



                               __________


        Statement for the Record Submitted by Senator Tom Udall

          Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, I first want to thank you 
        both and all of the members of the Senate who have joined in 
        this effort to tackle plastic pollution.
          We are beyond a tipping point in the plastic waste crisis. 
        And it is high-time that Congress and the administration 
        acknowledge this crisis and take action.
          We only need to look around our very own neighborhoods and 
        communities to see that plastic is polluting our rivers and 
        streams . . . parks and public place . . . streets and 
        sidewalks . . . nearly all of our landscapes--in addition to 
        our oceans and beaches.
          This is not just a coastal or ocean state problem. Plastics 
        are everywhere. And they don't break down.
          This is a national and international crisis in every corner 
        of the globe.
          Wildlife everywhere are exposed, consuming plastic that is 
        mistaken for food.
          And they are not alone-all of us are consuming plastic as 
        well.
          Reports show that humans are consuming a credit card's weight 
        worth of plastic each week--through our drinking water, our air 
        and our food, where plastic particles have broken down to the 
        microscopic level and are entering our bodies.
          The U.S. Geological Survey scientists recently published a 
        report titled, ``It is raining plastic.''
          The scientists found that plastics showed up in over 90 
        percent of the rainwater samples taken at eight different 
        sites, mostly between Denver and Boulder, Colorado-including 
        sites that are 10,000 feet above sea level.
          I will vote for this legislation-but I have to say that it is 
        very modest compared to a massive problem and I need to raise a 
        word of caution.
          We won't make true progress until we address the root of the 
        problem: we must reduce the amount of plastic we generate in 
        the first place.
          Many of us support recycling and are avid recyclers. But this 
        is not a problem we can recycle our way out of. We are far past 
        that option.
          And we cannot shift the blame to developing countries, to 
        Asia in particular, pointing the finger that they are 
        responsible for the marine debris.
          The truth is we are pumping the planet with plastic. And the 
        United States is a major contributor.
          Plastic production has increased exponentially--from 2.3 
        million tons in 1950 to 448 million tons in 2015. Production is 
        expected to double that by 2050.
          Half of all plastics ever manufactured has been manufactured 
        in the last 15 years.
          Every year, about 8 million tons of plastic waste escapes 
        into the oceans from coastal nations.
          According to U.S. Census Bureau data for 2018, 78 percent of 
        U.S. plastic waste exports was sent to countries with poor 
        waste management practices.
          That's about 157,000 large shipping containers--about 429 per 
        day--of U.S. plastic waste sent to countries already 
        overwhelmed with plastic waste that are major sources of 
        plastic pollution to the ocean.
          For too long, we have kidded ourselves that what we put in 
        our blue bins is getting recycled.
          For too long, those items were buried in landfills or 
        incinerated--because plastic recycling in the United States is 
        just not economic.For too long, we have shipped our plastic 
        waste overseas--where the infrastructure to recycle the waste 
        doesn't exist either.
          And the plastic has piled up . . . and found its way into our 
        environment, our wildlife, and our own bodies.
          As the plastic companies have made profits, plastic pollution 
        has created a financial crisis for our states and local 
        governments that are burdened with the ballooning and 
        overwhelming costs of handling plastic waste.
          The true costs of plastic production are being off-loaded--
        principally to local government and the taxpayers. To us.
          Producers are making private profits, and creating socialized 
        costs.
          And we are missing out on opportunities for commercial 
        innovation in developing sustainable and biodegradable 
        packaging.
          States and local governments are aggressively trying to 
        reduce the source of the waste.
          We need to match that at the Federal level.
          I am currently preparing legislation that will meet this 
        challenge.
          I am working with other members of Congress, including 
        Senator Merkley and Representative Lowenthal, to focus on 
        cutting waste at the front end and to put the onus of 
        responsibility where it belongs: on the producers.
          So, while I'll vote this bill out of committee, I urge us to 
        improve it and the other components of Save Our Seas on the 
        floor--by tackling the problem head on to reduce plastic 
        pollution in the first instance.


                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                      WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2019

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

                Summary of Action Taken by the Committee

                                NOMINEES

  Ms. Roxanne Cabral, of Virginia, a Career Member of the Senior 
        Foreign Service, Class of Minster-Counselor, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Republic of the Marshall Islands, agreed to by 
        voice vote

  Ms. Carmen G. Cantor, of Puerto Rico, a Career Member of the Senior 
        Executive Service, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and 
        Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the 
        Federated States of Micronesia, agreed to by voice vote

  Ms. Andeliz N. Castillo, of New York, to be United States Alternate 
        Executive Director of the Inter-American Development Bank, 
        agreed to by voice vote

  The Honorable Kelley Eckels Currie, of Georgia, to be Ambassador at 
        Large for Global Women's Issues, agreed to by voice vote

  Ms. Kelly C. Degnan, 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 Georgia, agreed to by voice vote (Paul recorded as 
        no)

  Mr. Michael George DeSombre, of Illinois, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Kingdom of Thailand, agreed to by voice vote

  Mr. David T. Fischer, of Michigan, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and 
        Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Kingdom 
        of Morocco, agreed to by voice vote (Coons, Kaine, and Merkley 
        recorded as no)

  Mr. Robert S. Gilchrist, of Florica, 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 Lithuania, agreed to by voice vote

  Ms. Alma L. Golden, of Texas, to be an Assistant Administrator of the 
        United States Agency for International Development, agreed to 
        by voice vote (Cardin, Coons, Kaine, and Merkley recorded as 
        no)

  Mr. Peter M. Haymond, 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 Lao People's Democratic Republic, agreed to by 
        voice vote

  The Honorable Sung Y. Kim, of California, 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 Indonesia, held over

  Ms. Yuri Kim, of Guam, 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 Albania, agreed to by voice vote

  Ms. Alina L. Romanowski, of Illinois, a Career Member of the Senior 
        Executive Service, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and 
        Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the State of 
        Kuwait, agreed to by voice vote

  The Honorable John Joseph Sullivan, of Maryland, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Russian Federation, agreed to by voice vote 
        (Menendez recorded as no)

  Mr. Morse H. Tan, of Illinois, to be Ambassador at Large for Global 
        Criminal Justice, agreed to by voice vote

  Ms. Leslie Meredith Tsou, 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 Sultanate of Oman, agreed to by voice vote

                                FSO LIST

  Derrick Scott Brown, et al., dated April 10, 2019 (PN 606-1), agreed 
        to by voice vote

                           Meeting Transcript

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:06 p.m., in 
Room S-116, The Capitol, Hon. James E. Risch, chairman of the 
committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Risch [presiding], Gardner, Romney, 
Isakson, Barrasso, Portman, Paul, Young, Cruz, Menendez, 
Cardin, Coons, Murphy, Kaine, and Merkley.

           OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. RISCH, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO

    The Chairman.  The business meeting of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee will come to order.
    First of all, thanks to everybody for the way we handled 
the Hong Kong resolution yesterday. I think everybody can be 
proud of the work that was done on that. I thank the committee 
on both sides, including Democrats, my Democratic colleagues, 
especially the ranking member, for getting this done. I think 
it was a good day for all of us, so thanks a lot.
    We have another issue that is biting us very quickly, and 
that is the South Korea/Japan issue, which I think almost 
everyone here is familiar with. The ranking member and I have 
been working on a resolution. I am told we are either there or 
very close, but we will probably have that hammered out this 
afternoon. So this is something that needs real attention. The 
drop-dead date is 10:00 a.m. on Friday morning. This thing has 
not gotten any attention or very little attention from the 
national and international media. So I would urge everyone to 
talk about it and to bring it to light.
    There are some members that are not members of this 
committee that are doing letters to heads of both states saying 
that you ought to get together and resolve this. Well, that is 
a good proposition, but it also equalizes the two positions, 
and I--from my own standpoint, I do not think the two positions 
are equalized. I think that one side has more to do than the 
other side. So in any event, when you see that resolution, I 
hope everyone will get on board and talk it up.
    On the agenda today are two--and this meeting should go 
quickly--foreign service officer lists and 16 nominees. I have 
been asked to hold the nom for the Honorable Sung Kim to be 
ambassador to Indonesia. This nomination will be considered in 
a future business meeting. These are important nominations. I 
appreciate everyone's attendance so we can process these 
individuals and play our part in ensuring diplomatic posts 
overseas are filled.
    I will now turn it over to Senator Menendez.

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

    Senator Menendez.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There are 16 
nominees and one foreign service promotion list on the agenda 
today. I am going to speak only on the nomination of Mr. 
Sullivan, and I will be supporting all other nominees on the 
agenda today.
    I appreciate that Mr. Sullivan has been one of the senior 
political appointees in the Department who has been willing to 
engage Congress, and I wish more Trump appointees would follow 
his lead. Nevertheless, as I made clear during his nomination 
hearing, I am deeply disappointed by his ``hear no evil/see no 
evil'' approach in response to the character assassination of 
Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch. She is an exemplary public 
servant whom Mr. Sullivan himself said represented our country 
capably and admirably.
    Yet while false accusations were being leveled against her, 
Mr. Sullivan did not advocate for a statement of support from 
the State Department. So I sincerely hope that if confirmed, 
Mr. Sullivan will not permit the dedicated diplomats at Embassy 
Moscow to be maligned the way he allowed Ambassador Yovanovitch 
to be. I do not want to send a message, especially as we are 
now considering another nominee to be the deputy secretary of 
state, that that performance is, one, acceptable, and, two, one 
which you get a continuing vote of confidence, at least from 
this member.
    Let me just talk about this relationship that he is going 
to. The U.S.-Russia relationship, I think, remains deeply--one 
that I am deeply concerned about by the President's, you know, 
actions with President Putin, which has led him to take steps 
that run counter to U.S. interests in our national security, 
failing to sanction Turkey for the S-400, allowing Russia to 
become the dominant power in Syria, saying that Russia should 
join the G-7, and a whole host of other things. So I do 
appreciate that Ambassador Sullivan consistently said he would 
be tough on Russia in private meetings at his hearing. He has a 
lot of work to do on that front. But given his approach to the 
Yovanovitch issue and other issues of information, I cannot in 
good conscience support his nomination.
    Finally, I know that we have dwelled, over the course of 
the last couple of years, my concern over the shocking 
mistreatment of career professionals at the State
    Department is matched only by my alarm at the total lack of 
vetting conducted by the administration for political nominees 
sent to this committee. Recently, one of those nominees, Mina 
Chang, has been much discussed around the country. Ms. Chang 
just resigned from her position as a deputy assistant secretary 
at the State Department. In both the 115th and 116th 
Congresses, she was nominated to be the USAID assistant 
administrator for the Asia Bureau, which has an annual 
budgeting totaling approximately $1 billion.
    I had strong concerns about Ms. Chang's qualifications. Her 
biography contained a number of embellished claims, such as 
stating that she was an alum of Harvard Business School when 
she only attended a 7-week course and had no degree. Worse, 
there appear to be serious irregularities concerning the actual 
size and accomplishments of her nonprofit, Linking the World. 
Following my request for additional information, I received 
word of Ms. Chang's withdrawal from consideration in September, 
yet she continued to serve as a deputy assistant secretary 
until news of her embellished qualifications became public.
    In any other administration, there would be hard questions 
asked about the spectacular vetting failure of Ms. Chang and 
other nominees. I am not confident that is the case here. 
Despite the concerns raised by committee Democrats, Ms. Chang 
and others were re-nominated at the start of the 116th 
Congress, even as a number of qualified career State Department 
candidates had their nominations withdrawn. That should give us 
a sense of the administration's priorities and its lack of 
respect for the working professionals at the State Department.
    It is for that reason that I have been dogged, Mr. 
Chairman, about this vetting process, which I know sometimes 
creates discomfort and creates sometimes difficulties for the 
chair. But on more than one occasion, as we just saw with the 
withdrawal of the ambassador, the nominee for the Bahamas, 
there are serious questions here, and that ultimately creates 
the types of necessity we have in the vetting of these issues.
    So I am going to be happy to support everybody else today. 
Unfortunately, I cannot support Mr. Sullivan.
    The Chairman.  Would you like to have us pull that one and 
do a roll call vote on it?
    Senator Menendez.  (Off audio.)
    The Chairman.  Okay. That will be fine. Is there a motion--
I am sorry.
    Senator Kaine.  Mr. Chair?
    The Chairman.  Yes?
    Senator Kaine.  If I could briefly, I am going to support 
all the nominees with the exception of David Fischer and Alma 
Golden, but I do want to just say something about Mr. Sullivan. 
I am troubled by the same points that Senator Menendez raises. 
I resolved it a little bit differently, and I just wanted to 
put on the record why I am supporting him.
    Senator Menendez asked John Sullivan a very important 
question that was bluntly phrased, and he got a very blunt 
response. Senator Menendez said, ``Do you think it is ever 
appropriate for the President to use his office to solicit 
investigations into a domestic political opponent?'' We have 
been in a number of hearings where similar questions have been 
asked, and we have had witness give very equivocal and very 
hedgy answers. And John Sullivan did not give an equivocal or 
hedgy answer. His answer was blunt. ``Soliciting investigations 
into a domestic political opponent? I do not think that would 
be in accord with our values.''
    I wish everybody who was coming before the committee would 
answer a question like that and answer it in the way he did. 
And while I am concerned that he did not vigorously advocate 
for Ambassador Yovanovitch, he did tell her you have done 
nothing wrong. And she testified to that, and we asked him 
about it. He said, yes, that is exactly what I told her because 
she did not do anything wrong, and she is a very, very 
qualified individual who has served the country well.
    So I also would have wished he would have been more forward 
leaning in protecting somebody that it is his job to protect as 
the key person at the State Department. So I reflect my 
colleague's concern. But I think his unequivocal recognition of 
what behaviors are on the right side of the legal and ethical 
line and what behaviors are on the wrong side of the legal and 
ethical line that convinced me to support him.
    The Chairman.  Thank you. Would you be satisfied with just 
being recorded as no, or do you want----
    Senator Kaine.  Yes, I can just be recorded no.
    The Chairman.  How about Sullivan?
    Senator Menendez.  I can just be recorded as no.
    The Chairman.  As a no? Okay. Any other comments? Senator--
--
    Senator Coons.  I will associate myself with the comments 
of the senator from Virginia and his intentions.
    The Chairman.  Thank you. Senator?
    Senator Paul.  No on Degnan.
    The Chairman.  Okay. We will get to that when we are done. 
We will do the voting----
    Senator Cardin.  I will record when we do the vote.
    The Chairman.  I am sorry?
    Senator Cardin.  I want to be recorded no on Golden.
    The Chairman.  Right, we will do that when we are done. So 
I would accept a motion to approve two foreign service officer 
lists, plus the 16 that we have identified that are up in front 
of us today, and that does not include the gentleman we took 
off, right, Kim for Indonesia. So I would--I would accept that 
motion at the end, anybody who wants to be recorded as no.
    Senator Young.  So moved.
    The Chairman.  It has been moved. Is there a second?
    Senator Romney.  Second.
    Senator Menendez.  Second.
    The Chairman.  Is there any further debate?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  There being no further debate, all those in 
favor, signify by saying aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed, nay?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it. The list will be--will be 
approved, and we will now take those who want to be recorded as 
no. Senator Menendez on Sullivan is a no?
    Senator Menendez.  No, on Sullivan.
    The Chairman.  Senator?
    Senator Cardin.  No on Dr. Golden.
    The Chairman.  No on Dr. Golden for Senator Cardin. Senator 
Coons?
    Senator Coons.  No on Fischer and Golden.
    The Chairman.  No on Fischer and Golden for Coons. Senator 
Kaine?
    Senator Kaine.  No on Fischer and Golden.
    The Chairman.  Senator Merkley?
    Senator Merkley.  Same on both Fischer and Golden.
    The Chairman.  Okay. Any other--Senator Paul?
    Senator Paul.  No on Degnan.
    The Chairman.  No on Degnan. Any others?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  If not, thank you all for being so prompt 
and getting this done.
    This completes the committee's business.
    I ask unanimous consent that staff be authorized to make 
technical and conforming changes.
    Without objection, it is so ordered.
    The committee is adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 2:16 p.m., the meeting was adjourned.]


                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                      WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2019

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

                Summary of Action Taken by the Committee

                              NOMINATIONS:

  Sung Y. Kim, of California, 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 Indonesia, agreed to by voice vote 
        (Barrasso recorded as no)

  Stephen E. Biegun, of Michigan, to be Deputy Secretary of State, 
        agreed to by voice vote

                              LEGISLATION:

  S. 2641, Promoting American National Security and Preventing the 
        Resurgence of ISIS Act of 2019, with an amendment, agreed to by 
        roll call vote (18-4)

          Ayes: Risch, Rubio, Gardner (proxy), Romney, Graham (proxy), 
        Isakson, Barrasso, Portman (proxy), Young (proxy), Menendez, 
        Cardin, Shaheen, Coons (proxy), Murphy, Kaine, Markey (proxy), 
        Merkley, and Booker (proxy)

        Nays: Johnson (proxy), Paul, Cruz (proxy), and Udall (proxy)

     Manager's Amendment, agreed to by voice vote

  S. 2547, Indo-Pacific Cooperation Act of 2019, with an amendment, 
        agreed to by voice vote (Paul recorded as no and Cruz added as 
        co-sponsor)

     Manager's Amendment, agreed to by voice vote

  H.R. 2744, USAID Branding Modernization Act, with an amendment, 
        agreed to by voice vote

     Substitute Amendment, agreed to by voice vote

  S. 2977, Venezuela Defense of Human Rights and Civil Society 
        Extension Act of 2019, without amendments, agreed to by voice 
        vote

  S. 1310, Organization of American States Legislative Engagement Act 
        of 2019, with an amendment, agreed to by voice vote

     Substitute Amendment, agreed to by voice vote

  H.R. 133, United States-Mexico Economic Partnership Act, with an 
        amendment, agreed to by voice vote

     Substitute Amendment, agreed to by voice vote

  S. 1830, Energy Security Cooperation with Allied Partners in Europe 
        Act of 2019, with amendments, agreed to by voice vote (Cardin, 
        Merkley, Paul, Menendez, recorded as no)

     Substitute Amendment, agreed to by voice vote

     Merkley 1st Degree Amendment #1, agreed to by roll call vote (12-
        10)

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

        Nays: Risch, Rubio, Johnson (proxy), Gardner, Graham (proxy), 
        Isakson, Barrasso, Portman (proxy), Young, and Cruz

  S. 704, European Energy Security and Diversification Act of 2019, 
        with amendments, agreed to by voice vote (Merkley recorded as 
        no)

     Substitute Amendment, agreed to by voice vote

     Markey 1st Degree Amendment #1, failed by roll call vote (8-14)

          Ayes: Menendez, Cardin (proxy), Coons (proxy), Udall (proxy), 
        Kaine, Markey, Merkley, and Booker (proxy)

          Nays: Risch, Rubio, Johnson (proxy), Gardner, Romney, Graham 
        (proxy), Isakson (proxy), Barrasso, Portman (proxy), Paul 
        (Proxy), Young, Cruz (proxy), Shaheen, and Murphy

     Merkley 1st Degree Amendment #1 - failed by roll call vote (16-6)

          Ayes: Cardin (proxy), Coons (proxy), Udall (proxy), Markey 
        (proxy), Merkley, and Booker (proxy)

          Nays: Risch, Rubio, Johnson (proxy), Gardner, Romney, Graham 
        (proxy), Isakson, Barrasso (proxy), Portman (proxy), Paul 
        (proxy), Young, Cruz, Menendez, Shaheen, Murphy, and Kaine

     Murphy 1st Degree Amendment #1 Revised, agreed to by voice vote

  S. 1189, Stopping Malign Activities from Russian Terrorism Act, with 
        an amendment, agreed to by voice vote (Murphy recorded as no)

     Manager's Amendment, agreed to by voice vote

  S. J. Res. 4, A joint resolution requiring the advice and consent of 
        the Senate or an Act of Congress to suspend, terminate, or 
        withdraw the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty and 
        authorizing related litigation, and for other purposes, with an 
        amendment, agreed to by voice vote (Menendez, Shaheen and 
        Merkley to be added as co-sponsors)

     Substitute Amendment, agreed to by voice vote

  S. 482, Defending American Society from Kremlin Aggression Act of 
        2019, held over

  S. Res. 142, A resolution condemning the Government of the 
        Philippines for its continued detention of Senator Leila De 
        Lima, calling for her immediate release, and for other 
        purposes, with amendments, agreed to by voice vote

     Preamble Amendment, agreed to by voice vote

     Resolving Clause Amendment, agreed to by voice vote

  S. Res. 152, A resolution expressing the importance of the United 
        States alliance with the Republic of Korea and the 
        contributions of Korean Americans in the United States, with 
        amendments, agreed to by voice vote

     Preamble Amendment, agreed to by voice vote

     Resolving Clause Amendment, agreed to by voice vote

  S. Res. 260, A resolution recognizing the importance of sustained 
        United States leadership to accelerating global progress 
        against maternal and child malnutrition and supporting the 
        commitment of the United States Agency for International 
        Development to global nutrition through the Multi-Sectoral 
        Nutrition Strategy, with amendments, agreed to by voice vote

     Title Amendment, agreed to by voice vote

     Preamble Amendment, agreed to by voice vote

     Resolving Clause Amendment, agreed to by voice vote

  S. Res. 297, A resolution commending the Inter-American Foundation 
        (IAF) on the occasion of its 50th anniversary for its 
        significant accomplishments and contributions to the economic 
        and social development of the Americas, without amendments, 
        agreed to by voice vote

  S. Res. 343, A resolution congratulating the people of the Czech 
        Republic and the people of the Slovak Republic on the 30th 
        anniversary of the Velvet Revolution, the 26th anniversary of 
        the formation of the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic, 
        and the 101st anniversary of the declaration of independence of 
        Czechoslovakia, without amendments, agreed to by voice vote

  S. Res. 371, A resolution reaffirming the support of the United 
        States for the people of the Republic of South Sudan and 
        calling on all parties to uphold their commitments to peace and 
        dialogue as outlined in the 2018 revitalized peace agreement, 
        with amendments, agreed to by voice vote

     Revised Preamble Amendment, agreed to by voice vote

     Revised Resolving Clause Amendment, agreed to by voice vote

  S. Res. 374, A resolution expressing support for the designation of 
        October 23, 2019, as a national day of remembrance of the 
        tragic terrorist bombing of the United States Marine Corps 
        barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, in 1983, without amendments, 
        agreed to by voice vote (though this was agreed to, the 
        resolution is actually referred to SASC so it will not be 
        reported)

  S. Res. 375, A resolution recognizing the 75th anniversary of the 
        Warsaw Uprising, with an amendment, agreed to by voice vote

     Preamble Amendment, agreed to by voice vote

  S. Res. 385, A resolution celebrating the 30th anniversary of the 
        fall of the Berlin Wall, the reunification of both Germany and 
        Europe, and the spread of democracy around the world, with an 
        amendment , agreed to by voice vote

     Revise Markey 1st Degree Amendment #1 Revised, agreed to by voice 
        vote

  S. Res. 395, A resolution recognizing the 40th anniversary of the 
        Iran Hostage Crisis, and for other purposes, without amendment, 
        agreed to by voice vote

  S. Res. 447, A resolution expressing serious concern about widespread 
        irregularities in Bolivia's October 20, 2019, general elections 
        and supporting the convening of new elections in Bolivia at the 
        earliest possible date, with amendments, agreed to by voice 
        vote

     Preamble Amendment, agreed to by voice vote

     Resolving Clause Amendment, agreed to by voice vote

  S. Con. Res. 23, A concurrent resolution honoring the 75th 
        Anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge fought during World War 
        II, recognizing the valiant efforts of the Allied Forces in 
        December 1944, and remembering those who made the ultimate 
        sacrifice, all of which contributed to the Allied victory in 
        the European Theater, with an amendment, agreed to by voice 
        vote

     Preamble Amendment, agreed to by voice vote

                           Meeting Transcript

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in 
Room S-116, The Capitol, Hon. James E. Risch, chairman of the 
committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Risch [presiding], Rubio, Gardner, 
Romney, Isakson, Barrasso, Paul, Young, Cruz, Menendez, Cardin, 
Shaheen, Murphy, Kaine, Markey, and Merkley.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E RISCH,
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO

    The Chairman.  The committee will come to order.
    And today on the agenda, we have 23 pieces of legislation 
and 2 nominees to consider.
    Thank you for those of you who showed up to deliver a 
quorum. We had Senate bill 482, the DASKA bill, which was 
requested to be held in a future meeting. We have agreed to 
hear that next Wednesday.
    The other big piece of legislation we had on, we also had a 
request on to hold until the next meeting. And so that one, we 
are going to hold for the next meeting. The next meeting is 
going to be held as quickly as we can a little later this week. 
Senator Menendez and I are negotiating that at the present 
time.
    And we are going to talk about it today. At the next 
business meeting, the only thing we will do is we will vote on 
the bill on Turkey. But everybody can debate it today and put 
their two cents' worth in, and we will vote on whatever 
amendments we have left at that time and the bill itself. So, 
with that, as to that bill, like I said, we are going to talk 
about it today.
    So Senate bill 2641 is the Promoting American National 
Security and Preventing the Resurgence of ISIS Act of 2019, a 
piece of legislation on which I have been very pleased to work 
in close partnership with Senator Menendez and his staff, as 
well as with a number of other members of this committee. Many, 
if not all of us, can agree that President Erdogan's conduct in 
recent months has been cause for alarm.
    President Erdogan and the Turkish government have 
repeatedly been warned by the United States and fellow NATO 
allies that we will not abide the purchase--we will not stand 
by while they purchase the Russian 400 missiles. At Erdogan's 
recent visit to the White House, he sat across from me and made 
the case for keeping the Russian weapon systems. I made it 
clear in no uncertain terms that doing so is a nonstarter for 
those of us in the Senate.
    As long as the S-400s are in Turkey, under Turkish control, 
there will be no F-35s delivered to Turkey. This is President 
Erdogan's choice, and he is well aware of the consequences. 
Turkey cannot retain S-400 air defense systems and at the same 
time obtain F-35 aircraft. That Turkey has begun to test the S-
400s, especially against U.S.- origin F-16s, is certainly 
unacceptable.
    The legislation will put in place a number of incentives 
that we hope will result in Mr. Erdogan rethinking the choices 
he has made and walk away from the S-400s. His incentives 
include barring the sale or transfer of F-16s and F-35s, 
including--until the President certifies Turkey has divested 
itself of the Russian S-400s.
    Additionally, Turkey's destabilizing activity in northeast 
Syria is of great concern, and this bill will address that and 
aim to curb any future actions that endanger our friends and 
partners, Syrian Kurds, and any actions which jeopardize the 
U.S. strategy between ISIS and Syria. This legislation is also 
aimed to dissuade Turkey from further interference in counter 
ISIS operations and imposes costs for serious Turkish- backed 
abuses of human rights.
    Now is the time for the Senate to come together and take 
this opportunity to change Turkish behavior. We must take 
action to change their course and incentivize them to once 
again behave like a NATO ally. We have enjoyed a long history 
of positive relations with the Turkish people, and with 
targeted, smart policy like this, which we are considering 
today, I am confident we can convince President Erdogan to 
change course.
    If he does, we can enjoy positive relations once again. 
When I met with President Erdogan, I told him how painful this 
was for us because of the fact that the Turks have been such a 
great ally of ours and worked so close together over the years, 
and the drift is painful, but unacceptable.
    Finally, we will consider a very important resolution 
honoring the service of our dear friend Johnny Isakson today. I 
hope we will have a unanimous vote on that.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman.  Senator Isakson has been a member of the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee since 2009. He served as 
ranking member of the Subcommittee on African Affairs from 2009 
to 2013 and as chairman of the Subcommittee on State Department 
and USAID Management, International Operations, and Bilateral 
International Development from 2017 to 2019. Johnny has been a 
great champion for global development and reforming foreign 
assistance programs to enhance economic growth and bolster U.S. 
national security.
    He led more than a dozen trips to Africa and worked to 
strengthen our relationship with the continent's 54 nations. He 
advocated for the work of the Peace Corps and led efforts to 
improve security and protection for volunteers with the passage 
of the Kate Puzey Peace Corps Volunteer Protection Act of 2011. 
He also fought for the long overdue compensation for the Tehran 
hostages through the creation of the U.S. Victims of State-
Sponsored Terrorism Fund.
    As Senator Isakson wraps up his time in the Senate, he 
leaves behind an important legacy. He will be deeply missed by 
each and every one of us. From a personal standpoint, I will 
miss one of the best friends I have made up here.
    I will now turn to Senator Menendez for his comments.

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

    Senator Menendez. 
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I am pleased that we have such a large legislative agenda 
before us this morning.
    I think it shows that there is significant interest and 
demand among members to legislate, and I am glad that we are 
having the opportunity to do so, and I hope we will continue to 
do so as we move forward. I know many members on my side have 
talked to me about legislation. A fair number of them have 
their items in here. Others are looking forward to the future.
    I support passage of almost all of the items on the agenda, 
and I will only speak about a few. I appreciate the hard work, 
Mr. Chairman, that you, your staff, and my staff have done to 
finalize the text for S. 2641, the Promoting American National 
Security and Preventing the Resurgence of ISIS Act. The bill 
makes clear to Turkey that
    its behavior with respect to Syria is unacceptable and its 
purchase of the S-400 system is untenable.
    The House has already passed a version of this bill, so 
committee action sends an important message of joint American 
resolve.
    We find ourselves at an inflection point with Turkey. For 
years, I have been more skeptical than most about Erdogan and 
his orientation towards the West. But Turkey's actions over the 
past year are truly beyond the pale. Purchasing the Russian S- 
400 air defense system in violation of U.S. law and of NATO's 
interoperability needs; engaging in offensive operations in 
northeast Syria against the Kurds and other civilians; 
committing, directing, or knowingly facilitating human rights 
abuses against our Kurdish allies in Syria; hindering 
counterterrorism operations against ISIS; engaging in the 
forcible repatriation of Syrian refugees from Turkey to Syria 
are just some of these actions.
    And for some time now, I remember when Secretary Pompeo was 
before the committee well over a year ago and I showed him a 
photograph of President Erdogan, President Putin, and Rouhani, 
and I said, ``What is wrong with this picture?'' What was wrong 
with this picture was that here is our NATO ally engaged in 
conversations with two of our adversaries about the future of 
Syria. One, we were not there, and two, he was fully engaged 
with them.
    This is the same Erdogan who made the statement before he 
came to meet President Trump and some of our colleagues that 
said, well, I am going to have an engagement with President 
Putin to decide what that agenda should be. So a NATO ally 
talks to Putin about what his conversation with the President 
of United States should be.
    So for those who are worried about the proposition that 
doing anything pushes Turkey into Russia's arms, I think they 
are in their lap already. So I, for one, do not subscribe to 
that proposition.
    So this bill would sanction Turkey for that behavior. It 
would also provide affirmative support for our Kurdish partners 
through refugee programming and participation in the Special 
Immigration Visa Program. These courageous individuals fought 
alongside the United States when it mattered. We should be 
there now in their time of need.
    So, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to expeditiously coming to 
an agreement with you to move forward on the legislation.
    I am also pleased that the committee is considering my 
reauthorization of the 2014 Venezuela Defense of Human Rights 
and Civil Society Act, which authorizes targeted sanctions 
against regime officials involved in human rights abuses. The 
committee voted on an extension of these sanctions in the 
VERDAD Act earlier this
    year. The Democratic hotline for the VERDAD Act has already 
cleared. I appreciate the chairman's staff working with us 
toward full Senate approval, and I want to thank Senator Rubio 
for his partnership on this reauthorization.
    I am very pleased that we are taking up S.J. Res. 4, and I 
want to commend Senator Kaine for his efforts in crafting and 
working to advance an important legislative item. NATO is the 
most successful military alliance in history. Maintaining U.S. 
membership in it is vital to the security of the United States.
    There have been media reports that indicate the President 
has discussed withdrawing from NATO on multiple occasions 
because he does not see the value of the alliance and thinks 
it,s a drain on our resources. I believe that that is woefully 
wrong.
    Our membership in, and contributions to, NATO deters 
potential attackers because they understand that in threatening 
us, they are threatening 28--hopefully soon to be 29--other 
countries as well. And considering the number of times the 
President has sought to withdraw from international treaties 
without consulting Congress, I think it makes eminent sense to 
make sure that there is a view that no President, this or any 
future one, can do that as it relates to NATO.
    There is a longstanding legal debate concerning the full 
reach of the Senate's treaty powers. I will simply say today 
that I find it inconceivable that the same Founding Fathers who 
crafted a heightened standard for Senate advice and consent to 
ratify a treaty somehow also intended that a President could 
withdraw from Senate-approved treaties without even providing 
notice, much less consultation with or the approval of the 
Senate. So I look forward to supporting Senator Kaine in that 
effort.
    I support passage of many other legislative items on the 
agenda. I appreciate the hard work my colleagues have put into 
the items on the agenda today. Just to mention a few, Senator 
Gardner's bill Stopping Malign Activities from Russian 
Terrorism, Senator Romney's Indo-Pacific Cooperation Act, 
Senator Markey's efforts to end the continued detention of 
Senator Leila De Lima in the Philippines, and Senator Coons' 
work on supporting the people of South Sudan.
    With regard to DASKA, I appreciate that in light of the 
holdover, the chairman has committed to place it on the agenda 
for next week's business meeting.
    And finally, for Senator Isakson, who I had remarks for 
once before when I thought it was his last session, but I am 
glad he is here helping us get this business meeting agenda 
over the line. Senator Isakson has proven to be one of the most 
incredible, positive forces on this committee and, to my view, 
in the Senate. He is the ultimate bridge builder. He helps to 
often bridge the divide between the different views of our 
parties and our institution.
    And on this committee, his leadership has made for 
outstanding legislation that has become law and that will be a 
legacy not only to him, but to the causes which he endured. And 
so I am very happy once again, Johnny, to recognize your 
service, and I am pretty sure we are going to get a unanimous 
vote. And if not, the person who does not vote with us on your 
resolution will have difficulties in the days ahead.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Menendez.  So that is a Jersey thing. [Laughter.]
    The Chairman.  Yes. Senator, coming from you, we know what 
that means.
    Senator Menendez.  With that, Mr. Chairman, thanks very 
much.
    The Chairman.  You are very welcome. Senator Isakson?
    Senator Isakson.  I do not want to take the time of the 
committee, but I cannot help it. You are, obviously, such good 
friends and everybody has been so nice, and I appreciate it 
very much. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your acknowledgment, and 
honestly, I love you guys and ladies, and I love this 
committee.
    I did not want to go on the Foreign Relations Committee. 
When I went on Foreign Relations, Mitch told me, ``I cannot get 
anybody to take it, and I need one more member on this so we 
got votes.'' I said, ``I will do it for you, Mitch.'' And I 
went on and said, ``Oh, now I have to go to committee 
meetings.''
    Then they wanted to put me on the Africa subcommittee. So 
they sent me to Africa, and all of a sudden, I said this is 
fantastic. And I have had the best 6 years of my life--working 
on this committee, with the chairs and ranking members. And Jim 
and the rest of you, I just want to thank you very much for 
making it very important to me, with a committee assignment 6 
years ago to be one of the most meaningful jobs I got to do in 
my time in Congress.
    So I appreciate all your support very much. I am not going 
to talk any longer.
    Thank you very much, and I appreciate it.
    The Chairman.  I am going to move through the calendar now. 
Senator Paul, did you want the floor to talk about it?
    Senator Paul.  I wanted to speak about the bill S. 2641, in 
opposition. I would also ask unanimous consent to enter letters 
from the administration and the State Department in opposition 
to the bill.
    The Chairman.  They will be admitted.
    [The information referred to above is located at the end of 
this transcripT.]
    Senator Paul.  The administration--sorry [coughing].
    Voice. It was very emotional.
    Senator Paul.  Yes.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Paul.  I have not even got to the emotional part 
yet. We will soon get there.
    But the administration is concerned about this bill for 
several reasons. One, as we have talked about in our committee, 
if we are going to have sanctions to influence behavior, we 
have to have some sort of plan for removing sanctions. So this 
bill has further congressionally mandated sanctions that cannot 
be removed without Congress.
    The problem is, is Congress does not do a real good job or 
even have a means or a venue for negotiating with foreign 
countries. Particularly with Russia, we do not even meet with 
them because we sanctioned their legislators, and they 
consequently sanctioned the chairman of the committee, as well 
as others. So I think it is a little hard for Congress to 
negotiate removal of sanctions. We just keep placing them on, 
and the question is whether or not they work or not.
    I think there is a constitutional question with this 
legislation, whether or not you can by statute change the 
Constitution. I do not think by statute you can take away 
presidential power and give it to the Office of the Director of 
National Intelligence. I think that there are possible legal 
challenges to this and should be. Because I do not think we 
want to set up a hierarchy where the President is given power 
by the
    Constitution, and then we are going to make the Office of 
the Director of National Intelligence above the President. I 
think that is very, very worrisome.
    One of the things that has happened recently is while we 
are unhappy with many of the things Turkey has done, and I 
agree completely with the sense of the bill that we should not 
sell them arms. I am all for that. We should withhold the F-35, 
the F-16, you name it. We should withhold all of those.
    But sanctions are a different thing. And the reason I 
mention this is as Turkey began their incursion, it was 
projected to go much further than it did. The President put 
sanctions on, and for one of the first times in recent history, 
they had an effect, and he changed--the Turks changed their 
behavior, halted their incursion, and there was much less loss 
of life than had been predicted by many.
    So we have a situation where at least in the short-term 
interim, Turkey is actually talking to us and has actually 
listened to the threat of sanctions, and the leverage of 
sanctions has changed their behavior. If we put on sanctions 
that are hard to remove, that even the President gets vetoed by 
his own administration's Director of National Intelligence, I 
think we send a wrong message to them. Turkey this morning 
said, their foreign minister this morning said that they are 
considering closing our bases if we do this.
    You know, we still have this big question of nuclear 
weapons that are still in Turkey. All of these things demand 
diplomacy, agility, and as Under Secretary Hale testified 
before our committee, he stated that there is a need for 
flexibility and reversibility with regard to sanctions. The 
point of sanctions is to condition behavior, not simply to 
punish another nation.
    The Department of State has offered their views on this 
legislation, and we have entered those into the record. And 
they emphasize that they need more flexibility.
    How do we have diplomats negotiate if they do not have the 
power to remove the sanctions?
    In the State Department's letter, they mention that the 
sanctions on Turkey that the President both implemented, then 
lifted 9 days later did affect and change Turkey's behavior. 
This is exactly the type of flexibility and outcome we should 
seek from sanctions, the quick application to send a message of 
disapproval and the quick reversal if we get a change in 
behavior.
    Let us also not forget that the Turks understand that 
President Trump is fully capable and willing to not only 
implement sanctions on their country, but he also has the 
ability and will to do them at a moment's notice. He has not 
shown that he is afraid of implementing sanctions. In fact, he 
very quickly did, and they had an effect.
    In some ways, the sanctions bill sort of ignores what has 
happened and just sort of says we are angry, and we are going 
to do this. But there is a possibility we get the opposite of 
the intended--the intended result. There is a possibility this 
simply pushes Turkey quicker and faster into the orbit of 
Russia.
    If we are going to have mandatory sanctions on Turkey, I 
think it may undermine what has already been the case of an 
effective foreign policy tool. Further, I think we risk 
weakening and undermining the President's ability to negotiate 
with the Turks on issues such as the S-400. I think we also 
drive them further into Russia's orbit.
    Section 312 is the section that also says that any weapons 
likely to be used in Syria. This essentially will be a 
moratorium on all weapons sales, I believe.
    The risk we run with mandatory sanctions is pushing Turkey 
farther and further to the East, instead of to the West. Going 
back to Under Secretary Hale's testimony, when I asked him if 
there had been any meaningful behavioral changes by the 
Russians as a result of our various mandatory sanctions, he 
said basically no.
    Add to that an August 2019 IMF estimate that our sanctions 
regime on Russia was costing them 0.2 percent off their GDP. So 
it is not having a large economic effect, and we are unable to 
point to behavioral changes on the part of Russia, and so now 
we have failed with sanctions towards Russia, and we are going 
to try the same thing on Turkey.
    I think we need to be aware and cognizant of the 
possibility that we get the unintended result of actually 
completely losing Turkey. Rather than having them turn back 
towards us, which I think is the intent of the committee, there 
is a possibility it further quickens their pace away from us.
    I think we are all in agreement that Turkey has been a less 
than stellar ally of late, and Erdogan's conduct in many 
instances has not been acceptable. However, in this case, the 
incursion into Syria was responded to, an agreement was 
reached, and the situation is now somewhat stabilized.
    You could even make the argument that Turkey's presence 
around Idlib may well have prevented massacres in Idlib. The 
reports leading up to that until Turkey put troops there was 
the possibility that there was going to be a massacre in Idlib. 
The Russians or Assad or Hezbollah would lead to a massacre.
    Congressional sanctions will not give the administration 
leverage or supplement our efforts. I think it will detract. 
Congressional sanctions are a vehicle for undoing the 
administration's policy and for sowing even more distrust from 
Turkey, who feels like they have been talking to us. They 
actually in a small way have at least limited their incursion, 
and now they are being told they are going to get sanctions 
despite at least some degree of cooperation.
    I think what we have here is a pretense to toughness that 
will have exactly the opposite of the intended effect. The 
President's threat of sanctions deterred the Turks from 
continuing their incursion into Syria. We should let that work. 
These sanctions today, when placed despite Turkish overtures, 
will simply depict the U.S. in Turkish eyes as untrustworthy.
    I hope the Senators will rethink this hasty and ill-timed 
action that I believe events has passed by and considering 
allowing the President to have some leeway in trying to modify 
Turkey's behavior.
    The Chairman.  Thank you, Senator Paul.
    I can tell you that, with all due respect, I view this 
thing very differently than you do. This is not some minor 
dust-up with this country. This is a drift by this country, 
Turkey, to go an entirely different direction than what they 
have in the past. They are abandoning their commitment to us. 
They are abandoning their commitment to other NATO allies.
    One of the precipitating factors for me on this has been 
the purchase of the S-400 missiles from Russia. This is a 
violation of law of the United States, the CAATSA law that 
Senator Menendez was so instrumental in getting on the books. 
And this is not something that is not well thought out. I have 
been meeting with the foreign minister, with the Ambassador, 
with the minister of defense, and many other people from 
Turkey, their public officials, over these many, many months, 
telling them that they simply could not do this.
    And they have thumbed their nose at us, and they thumbed 
their nose at their other NATO allies. This has got to be done. 
If we just look the other way on this, every country in the 
world is going to be looking at going the same direction, and 
we will be viewed as weak.
    When the Turks came to see me, every time they would come 
in, including President Erdogan, when I met with him 2 or 3 
weeks ago, said, well, we had to buy these because the United 
States would not sell us Patriot missiles for defense. That is 
a lie. That is an absolute lie. And I proved it to President 
Erdogan because I handed him the letter that Senator Shaheen 
and I signed and hand delivered to the foreign minister in 
Ankara in his living room of his personal residence on October 
2, 2012.
    That letter said we have available for you to purchase 
Patriot missiles. Buy them.
    And so any statement by the Turks that we would not sell 
them Patriot missiles is an absolute lie. They made a decision 
to purchase these from the Russians for a reason I do not 
understand, but it is clear that they are looking in a 
different direction than they have in the past.
    I told President Erdogan, I tell the Turkish people this 
all the time, this is incredibly painful. This has been a great 
ally of ours over the years. As you noted, we have established 
a base there and worked with them for many, many years.
    So I--with all due respect, I understand you have a 
different view on this, Senator Paul. I respect that view. But 
this is something that we really need to do.
    Senator Paul.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Yes. Senator Paul, I will give you a word.
    Senator Paul.  Just very quickly in response, I do not 
disagree with most of what you have said. I am very concerned 
about their behavior as well. I actually think the appropriate 
response is withholding the F-35 and any other significant 
military weapons from them at this point.
    So not selling them weapons I think is a great idea. I 
think they have already accepted that, and I think the 
President is already doing that. I do not think there will 
necessarily be a response to that. I think going the extra 
beyond that, putting on sanctions that are very difficult to 
remove, such as we put on Russia, will not change their 
behavior, and that is the real question. It is an unknown. I do 
not know the answer, and no one knows the answer.
    You want them to come back in our orbit. So do I. But the 
thing is, is will sanctions work to bring them towards us or 
push them away? And I think it is a debatable question that 
well-intended people do not know the answer to. But my fear is 
by doing this, we push them much quicker away, and we are 
acting precipitously. Whereas we should continue to condemn and 
criticize and try to find a solution to the S-400 while 
withholding the F-35.
    But I think going to the sanctions, there is a big problem 
if we wind up them taking over our bases, including our nuclear 
weapons. That is a real problem, you know? And so I do fear it 
getting worse instead of better.
    The Chairman.  Well, I appreciate that, Senator Paul. I 
would say this, that there is no fear of them taking over our 
nuclear weapons. We cannot really go into that in an 
unclassified setting, but that is not a fear.
    As far as them taking over our bases, that could happen. 
They could decide they do not want to be in NATO anymore. They 
are a sovereign nation, and they can certainly make that 
choice.
    I think what we need to do is to deliver them real, honest-
to-goodness consequences. They are making between 900 and 1,000 
parts--or were making 900 to 1,000 parts of the F-35. That is 
in the process of being removed. It is going to be painful for 
them from an economic standpoint, and certainly, the 
administration there in Turkey I think is going to have to 
weigh very carefully the very significant economic consequences 
that are going to flow from the passage of this bill.
    And again, I respect your position. I just respectfully 
disagree. Senator Romney?
    Senator Romney.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I would note that there are two elements, dramatic elements 
of Turkey's behavior to this that I think merit a significant 
consequence. One, of course, is the S-400 purchase and the idea 
of withholding F-35s and parts and so forth for F-16s that 
followed from that action.
    But there is another action that I hope we do not forget, 
and that is that we exerted all the effort we could 
diplomatically, president-to-president, to tell Turkey do not 
invade Syria. Do not attack the Kurds. They are our allies. 
They are our friends. We are there. Do not come in.
    We did everything in our power as a nation to tell them not 
to come into Syria, and they did. They did it anyway. They came 
in and attacked our allies, killed our allies, and then we went 
to them and said please stop, and we will pull off sanctions.
    So we had sanctions in place for the bad behavior. Then we 
pulled them out. What consequence is there for the fact that 
they turned against their ally, against our extreme wishes 
expressed to them every way we possibly could, what 
consequences are they facing by virtue of having invaded their 
sovereign neighbor and killed members of the Kurd community?
    And that is one reason, in my view, that it is appropriate 
for sanctions to be put in place. I am glad they did not keep 
on going, but let us not forget that they went in there in the 
first place, contrary to our wishes expressed to them in as 
most clear a way as we possibly could.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Menendez.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Senator Menendez?
    Senator Menendez.  Mr. Chairman, I have just a couple of 
points, and I understand Senator Paul has a view against 
sanctions, and I respect that. I have a difference with him. 
There is only a handful of peaceful diplomacy tools we have as 
a nation. Russia uses its military to pursue its foreign 
policy. We do not do that. We should not do that.
    But by the same token, we only have a handful of peaceful 
diplomacy tools, the use of our aid and our trade to induce 
countries to act a certain way; international opinion, and we 
can create enough international opinion in a country 
susceptible or leader susceptible to being affected by that; 
and then the denial of aid or trade or our financial 
institutions, which are sanctions. And that is, in essence, the 
limited arsenal we have of peaceful diplomacy tools.
    I would just say that, but even going to this specific 
bill, these sanctions, Senator Murphy made the case to us early 
on, along with others, that what we should do is have sanctions 
if Turkey does not change its course. This is to affect its 
actions.
    So the sanctions only kick in if, in fact, Turkey moves on 
a path that violates the criteria. So it has an option. It is 
an attempt to move away from the sanction that is automatic and 
then figure out how you take it off to saying we will only 
sanction you if you do X, Y, or Z. So I think it is very 
prospective in that regard.
    Secondly, there are waivers here. And to be very honest 
with you, having seen the President with CAATSA, where he still 
has not slapped sanctions on Turkey on CAATSA, I get concerned 
about waivers because we send a global message. You know, if 
Turkey gets away with this, then how do you tell any other 
country that wants to buy the S-400, you know, sorry, you are 
going to get sanctioned, but you did not sanction Turkey, which 
means they are likely to buy it.
    Egypt is looking at this. So at the end of the day, they 
are likely to go ahead and buy it because, at the end of the 
day, the United States is not going to do anything.
    Yet, nonetheless, there are waivers in this legislation, in 
addition to the fact that its sanctions are prospective in its 
criteria. I think those are two very meaningful differences 
than other sanctions legislation we have crafted in the past.
    And then, lastly, I would just say at some point I am 
wondering whether we are hostage to Turkey in our foreign 
policy? We cannot recognize the Armenian genocide, which is a 
fact of history that our own diplomats documented at great 
length, because it offends Turkey. Even though a dozen other 
countries, including a host of NATO allies,
    have recognized it.
    We cannot sanction Turkey on this because, oh, God forbid, 
they will take our base. At the end of the day, they huffed and 
they puffed, and the President blinked. And we are in Syria 
where we are. It is not because of sanctions. They got their 
way. They got what they wanted.
    At some point, if you see that a country's constant actions 
belie their words and most importantly, at the end of the day, 
show that nothing is stopping them, based upon the good 
efforts, the diplomacy that we have generated, the forbearance 
that we have had with Turkey versus virtually any other 
country, then you have to say, well, that is not working 
either.
    So I am strongly supportive of the chairman's effort. I 
think it makes a lot of sense, and I know that he does not come 
to this--it is not necessarily his predilection either. So the 
fact that we have come together to negotiate something that is 
prospective, has waivers and whatnot, I think hits the sweet 
spot and is the right action.
    Senator Cardin.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Senator Cardin?
    Senator Cardin.  Mr. Chairman, I just really want to 
underscore the point that you and Senator Menendez made, and 
Senator Paul is a very passionate legislator and views. We 
disagree on these issues.
    I want to talk about sanctions for one moment in a more 
general sense. Because as Senator Menendez said, the United 
States prefers to use nonmilitary ways to deal with foreign 
policy, and the military should be a matter of last resort. 
That is different than other countries, such as Russia, who use 
military first, and we want to avoid military confrontation.
    Sanctions have played an extremely important part of our 
foreign policy historically, and U.S. leadership on sanctions 
has brought about fundamental changes around the world. I think 
about the isolation of the apartheid South Africa and how we 
were able to bring about change in that country without the use 
of force. That was U.S. leadership, and that was controversial 
at the time, but it brought about change.
    I think about U.S. leadership in isolating Iran. That got 
them to the bargaining table. You may not have liked the final 
agreement, but they would not have gone to the bargaining table 
without the sanctions. And we were able to isolate them in 
order to do that.
    I would argue that sanctions have played an important part 
in the calculations of North Korea. So sanctions have worked 
effectively in the past. And on human rights, sanctions have 
been a very powerful tool. Think about the summit meeting 
between President Trump and Mr. Putin in which the Magnitsky 
sanctions were on the agenda of Mr. Putin because it does 
affect very much decisions made by all of oligarchs as to what 
they are going to do in regards to human rights issues.
    So Senator Paul mentioned that it only had an, in fact, 0.2 
percent of their GDP; 0.2 percent, by the way, is significant. 
That is not an insignificant change in economic activity. But 
we know sanctions have had a major impact on the economies of 
countries which have been under U.S. sanctions, particularly 
when it is joined by the international community, which have 
followed us in these sanctions.
    And quite frankly, we cannot measure the number of people 
who have been spared being human rights victims because of the 
recognition of abusers that if they do these things, they may 
end up as a Magnitsky sanction. So, to me, it is one of the 
most powerful tools that America has, and the proof here is 
that the international community looks to America for 
leadership as we apply these types of diplomatic tools in order 
to bring about change. And we have brought about change as a 
result.
    The Chairman.  Senator Merkley?
    Senator Merkley.  I just wanted to thank you for including 
in the measure and we do eventually officially consider this a 
clause that encourages NATO to pursue an agreement that members 
will not acquire military equipment that is incompatible with 
the security of NATO. I kept wondering, how did this S-400 
decision come about? Did NATO not have some kind of 
understanding that no member is going to compromise the 
security of the whole?
    And certainly, that is consistent with the philosophy and 
the goal of NATO. And so I think the S-400 does suggest that 
NATO should have that discussion, trying to figure out how to 
prevent a similar situation from arising in the future, and 
thank you for including it.
    The Chairman.  Well said, Senator Merkley.
    As we talked about this, one wonders why there was not such 
a provision in NATO, but it is kind of like a lot of other 
things. I think the people sitting around the table believed 
that everyone was going to act in good faith and that really no 
one could conceive that someone would be doing this sort of 
thing.
    And here, we were trying to push back on the bear, and one 
of the NATO allies would be holding hands with them under the 
table. People could not even conceive that. So that is probably 
why it was not on there, but well said, and I think this should 
be explored in the future to strengthen the alliance.
    Is there further debate? Senator Paul, do you still want to 
wait until tomorrow to vote on this?
    Senator Paul.  You know, I am kind of feeling the Christmas 
spirit. You want to just vote now?
    The Chairman.  That would be really good if we could. We 
will do that.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman.  We will do that. Thank you very much.
    Senator Paul.  Merry Christmas.
    The Chairman.  And Merry Christmas to you. Senator Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen.  I have two amendments, and I am not going 
to offer either of those to the bill. One was that was language 
recommended by the Syria study group that created an ISIS 
detainee coordinator. That language was in the manager's 
amendment. I appreciate the chair and ranking member agreeing 
to that.
    The second would have put sanctions on Turkish officials 
and their families for human rights violations and corruption 
in not just Syria, but also in Turkey. I appreciate the 
concerns about that and hope that you all, both the chair and 
ranking member, will join me in a letter to Mnuchin and Pompeo 
because we do have the authority under the Magnitsky sanctions 
to do that.
    The Chairman.  Senator, I really appreciate that. This is 
a--this compromise was delicate, to say the least. And so that 
the withdrawing that amendment I think will be very helpful and 
conducive to moving this thing along.
    So thank you for doing that.
    Senator Menendez.  Pardon me, Mr. Chairman. I want to 
congratulate Senator Shaheen, first of all, on the first part, 
which is included in the manager's amendment,
    and I am strongly supportive of your effort. I appreciate 
you not offering it because we need to move forward on this 
bill. It is a challenging one, but I will sign onto it.
    Senator Shaheen.  Thank you.
    The Chairman.  Thank you.
    All right. With that, Senator Paul?
    Senator Paul.  Do you want the other amendments now, or 
what are you looking for?
    The Chairman.  What is that?
    Senator Paul.  Are you looking for amendments to be 
offered?
    The Chairman.  No, I am not looking for anything. 
[Laughter.]
    The Chairman.  Thanks for asking. Where are we--yeah. Well, 
do you have an amendment to offer?
    Senator Paul.  Sure.
    The Chairman.  Okay. How many do you have?
    Senator Paul.  Two, and they are very short.
    Senator Menendez.  Mr. Chair, procedurally, before Senator 
Paul offers his, or anyone else, are you going to offer the 
manager's amendment?
    The Chairman.  I am going to do that, yeah. But----
    Voice. Go. You can go in what order----
    The Chairman.  All right. Well, let us take the manager's 
amendment first. If we can do that, we could do it on a--
quickly on a voice vote, then move to the substance.
    I would entertain such a motion.
    Senator Menendez.  So move.
    Senator Cardin.  Mr. Chairman, just to clarify, I 
understand I think included in the manager's amendment is the 
reference that nothing in the statute would be interpreted as 
an authorization of use of military force. Is that in----
    The Chairman.  Yes, that is in this.
    Senator Cardin.  I just wanted to make sure that was in 
there.
    The Chairman.  Is there a second to the motion?
    Senator Cardin.  Second.
    The Chairman.  It has been moved and seconded that we adopt 
the manager's amendment.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed, nay.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it, and the manager's 
amendment has been adopted.
    Senator Paul?
    Senator Paul.  Actually, I was just informed that both of 
my amendments are in the manager's package. So I do not have 
any amendments.
    The Chairman.  Merry Christmas to you again. [Laughter.]
    The Chairman.  Given that, is there further debate?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  If not, we would move to send it to the 
floor, send it to the floor with affirmative recommendation.
    Senator Menendez.  So move, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman.  Is there a second?
    Senator Cardin.  Second.
    Senator Paul.  Mr. Chairman? Can I have a recorded vote?
    The Chairman.  Yes, we will have a recorded vote. It has 
been moved and seconded that we adopt and send to the floor 
with a ``do pass.''
    The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Rubio.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Johnson?
    The Chairman.  No, by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Gardner?
    The Chairman.  Aye, by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Romney?
    Senator Romney.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Graham?
    The Chairman.  Aye, by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Isakson?
    Senator Isakson.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Portman?
    The Chairman.  Aye, by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Young?
    The Chairman.  Aye, by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Cruz?
    The Chairman.  No, by proxy.
    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 Menendez.  No, 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 Menendez.  Aye, by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 18; the nays are 4.
    The Chairman.  The motion is passed.
    Let us move to the nominations. We have two nominations. 
One is the Honorable Sung Kim to be Ambassador to Indonesia and 
Mr. Stephen E. Biegun to be Deputy Secretary of State.
    I would entertain a motion.
    Senator Menendez.  So move.
    Senator Merkley.  Second.
    The Chairman.  It has been moved and seconded that the 
appointments be favorably reported. Is there debate? There 
being no debate----
    Senator Barrasso.  Mr. Chairman, if I may----
    The Chairman.  Senator Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso [continuing]. On moving the nomination of 
Sung Kim to be the Ambassador to Indonesia, and I spoke about 
this in the committee hearing when he was there testifying, and 
I am going to reiterate my opposition to the nominee.
    On September 5th of 2007, the Associated Press reported 
that the Ambassador, at the time Ambassador to the Philippines, 
pledged to the Government of the Philippines to move what are 
known as the Bells of Balangiga from Wyoming to the 
Philippines.
    He specifically stated, he said that the United States was 
``deeply committed that the bells are returned to the Filipino 
people.''
    Nothing could be further from the truth, Mr. Chairman. This 
raised lots of questions about the process in which the U.S. 
Government was supposed to consult with Wyoming veterans. Based 
on Ambassador Kim's comments, it appears the decision was 
already made before they consulted with the Wyoming American 
Legion and the Wyoming Veterans of Foreign Wars, and I join the 
Wyoming veterans in strongly opposing the efforts of Ambassador 
Kim.
    The bells were not just some bells indiscriminately taken 
during the Philippine insurrection. These bells were part of a 
veteran memorial located in Wyoming that paid tribute to those 
who were the victims of massacre of the C Company of the 9th 
Infantry. The bells were used by the Filipino insurgents to 
signal an attack on American soldiers while they were asleep. 
Forty-eight of the 75 U.S. soldiers were killed during the 
attack,
    and to honor the soldiers of the company, these bells were 
legally brought to Cheyenne, Wyoming, placed at Fort D.A. 
Russell, which is now F.E. Warren Air Force Base.
    So Ambassador Kim's support for moving the bells to the 
Philippines resulted in tearing down a veteran memorial in 
Wyoming with a strong tradition of never forgetting the 
sacrifices of our brave men and women, and dismantling this 
veterans memorial was completely unacceptable. To me, 
Ambassador Kim's support and involvement helped establish a 
dangerous precedent for future veteran and war memorials. So I 
will oppose his nomination and will continue to oppose it 
through the process.
    The Chairman.  Thank you, Senator Barrasso. I think we all 
understand the sensitivity of this. So would you accept a roll 
call vote with you recorded as no? Or excuse me, a voice vote, 
with you recorded as no?
    Senator Barrasso.  Yes.
    The Chairman.  Okay. Thank you.
    Is there further debate on the two nominations?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  There being none, all those in favor of 
reporting these nominations favorably en bloc, please signify 
by saying aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed, nay.
    Senator Barrasso.  Nay.
    The Chairman.  Senator Barrasso will be recorded as voting 
no. The ayes have it, and the nominations will be so moved.
    Senator Menendez.  And that is just on Kim?
    The Chairman.  Yes, just on Kim.
    Senator Barrasso.  On Kim alone.
    The Chairman.  Yes. Thank you, Senator.
    Okay. With that, we will next move to we have 12 
revolutions--resolutions. [Laughter.]
    The Chairman.  We only have one revolution. We have got 12 
resolutions.
    Voice. It would be a momentous meeting.
    The Chairman.  Yes, and we have negotiated those I believe 
to the point where they are available to vote out en bloc. I 
think I need to read, I am told, into the record.
    So the Senate Res. 142, as amended by the preamble and 
resolving clause amendments.
    Number two is Senate Res. 152, as amended by the preamble 
and resolving clause amendments.
    Number three is Senate Res. 260, as amended by the title, 
preamble, and resolving clause amendments.
    Four is Senate Res. 297. Five is Senate Res. 343.
    Number six is Senate Res. 371, as amended by the revised 
preamble and revised resolving clause amendments.
    Number seven is Senate Res. 374.
    Number eight is Senate Res. 375, as amended by the preamble 
amendment. Number nine is Senate Res. 385, as amended by the 
revised mark to the first-degree amendment.
    Number 10 is Senate Res. 395.
    Number 11 is Senate Res. 447, as amended by the preamble 
and resolving clause amendments.
    And number 12 is Senate Concurrent Resolution 23, as 
amended by the preamble amendment.
    Would any members like to comment on any of these 
resolutions?
    Senator Isakson.  Yes, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman.  Senator Isakson?
    Senator Isakson.  I just want all the committee to be 
aware, we are finally getting some compensation for the Iran 
hostages--Tehran. This is first time we have been able to do 
it. I have worked on it a long time in the committee. We worked 
through this unanimously. And they got their second checks 
recently and will get the remainder of them as the money comes 
in from Iran that was taken----
    And we also settled the argument that the hostages--those 
who lost money and lost friends in New York during the attack 
of 9/11 will be compensated. So we are helping with that, and 
the first hostages, the Iran hostages are finally getting the 
help they should have over the years.
    Thank you.
    The Chairman.  Thank you, Senator Isakson. With that, 
Senator Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I am not speaking directly to S. Res. 374, but because it 
raises the issue of Lebanon and the Marines killed in the 
tragic bombing, terrorist bombing in 1983, I want to again 
raise before this committee the fact that we have an American 
citizen from New Hampshire, Amer Fakhoury, who is being held in 
Lebanese jail without charges. Has been held there since 
September the 12th.
    Now he has been diagnosed by a Lebanese doctor in a 
Lebanese hospital with lymphoma, which it appears that he 
received because of the unsanitary conditions in the Lebanese 
jail. And they are still refusing to let him out, give him a 
humanitarian release so he can come back to the United States 
and get treatment.
    I think this is a travesty, and we should continue as a 
committee to raise concern any time an American citizen is 
falsely imprisoned overseas.
    The Chairman.  Thank you, Senator Shaheen. Well said. We 
will note that in the record, and I could not agree with you 
more.
    So, with that, we have had a motion pending before us to 
adopt these 12 resolutions en bloc. Anybody can record it 
afterwards as a nay.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed, nay.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it. These will be reported out 
favorably. Does anybody wish to record a no on any of them?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  If not, thank you very much.
    We now--Senators, I appreciate your patience on this. We 
have got a number of pieces of legislation that we really need 
to move through, but what we have to start with is we have 
negotiated five of these to be moved en bloc.
    Number one is S. 2547, the Indo-Pacific Cooperation Act, as 
amended by the manager's amendment.
    Number two is H.R. 2744, USAID branding bill, as amended by 
the substitute amendment.
    Number three is Senate bill 2977, the Venezuela bill.
    Number four is S. 1310, the OAS bill, as amended by the 
substitute amendment.
    And five is H.R. 133, the U.S.-Mexico Economic Partnership 
Act, as amended by the substitute amendment.
    First of all, is there a motion to adopt these en bloc?
    Senator Menendez.  So move.
    The Chairman.  Second?
    Senator Cardin.  Second.
    The Chairman.  It has been moved and seconded to adopt 
these en bloc positively. And is there any comment on any of 
these bills before we approve them? Very significant 
legislative----
    Senator Paul.  Could I be recorded as a no on S. 2547?
    The Chairman.  You may, Senator. Which one was it? 2977?
    Senator Paul.  The Indo-Pacific bill.
    The Chairman.  You will be recorded as no. Any further 
comments, debate?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  If not, all those in favor, signify by 
saying aye. [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed, nay.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it, and the five matters will 
be reported out positively. Senator Paul will be recorded as a 
no on S. 2547.
    So, with that, we will now move to a number of pieces of 
legislation. We have in front of us--first one is Senate bill 
1830, the ESCAPE Act. We will consider Senate bill 1830.
    Senator Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso.  Mr. Chairman, thank you. I appreciate 
you putting this bill on the markup today. I also wanted to 
thank the cosponsors on this committee, Senators Gardner and 
Isakson and Cruz, for their support of the legislation.
    Energy security is a critical part of our shared defense. 
This is a national security program for the United States when 
our allies are increasingly dependent on Russian gas. Freeing 
Europe from Russian energy dependence is going to strengthen 
both our allies and our NATO alliance.
    Russia continues to undermine peace and security in Europe 
through a variety of mechanisms, including its use of energy as 
a geopolitical weapon. It uses its energy sector as a weapon to 
intimidate, influence, and coerce other nations. Russia is 
Europe's main energy supplier. It also has a significant 
ownership in Europe's energy infrastructure, its distribution 
and storage facilities.
    It is in the national security interest of our country to 
help our allies decrease their dependence on Russian energy. 
Our national security is increased by reducing the potential 
leverage that Russia would hold over our NATO allies. So due to 
some technical advances and newfound abundance of natural gas 
in the United States, we here can be a strategic energy 
supplier and should be to Europe.
    The United States can help Europeans meet their energy 
demands, diversify their energy imports, and get away from 
countries that use energy as a weapon. Our ability in the 
United States to provide natural gas exports creates jobs 
across our country and assists in reducing our Nation's trade 
deficit, and it helps our allies and strategic partners across 
the globe.
    So I introduced this what is called the ESCAPE Act, and it 
stands for Energy Security Cooperation with Allied Partners in 
Europe, and it defines ways to help our NATO allies address 
energy security. The bill does three things.
    It deems it as in the public interest to export U.S. 
liquified natural gas to NATO allies. It creates a 
transatlantic energy security strategy focused on enhancing the 
energy security of NATO allies and increasing American export 
of energy, energy technologies, and energy development services 
to these countries, and it directs our NATO representatives to 
work with our allies and our partners to achieve that energy 
security.
    So I think it is time for Congress to provide our NATO 
allies and our defense treaty partners a better energy option. 
And with that, I bring this and support passage of S. 1830.
    The Chairman.  Senator Paul?
    Senator Paul.  If I could speak briefly in opposition to 
it? I think the interdependency of trade is actually a 
deterrent to war, and when people describe Germany as being 
dependent on Russian oil, Russia is equally dependent on 
Germany's euros. I mean there is an equation really where both 
sides have an interdependency.
    Trade is a good thing, and I think cutting off trade, and 
if we were in a war with Russia, that is one thing. But we are 
not at war. We are adversaries. We have a lot of problems. We 
are trying to modify behavior. But we should not be getting 
involved in--we should not get involved in sort of economic 
kind of mercantilism that we are going to protect ours against 
theirs kind of stuff.
    And so I think it is a really bad idea. The Nord Stream 2, 
as I have mentioned before, is almost done. It will probably be 
done before any of the things will get promulgated. I mean, it 
is really on the cusp of being done.
    So I would like to be recorded as a no on this.
    The Chairman.  Thank you, Senator Paul.
    We have a substitute amendment to start with. Is that 
correct, Senator? Is there a motion to adopt the substitute 
amendment?
    Senator Barrasso.  So move.
    Senator Menendez.  Second.
    The Chairman.  It has been moved and seconded the 
substitute amendment be adopted.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  And Senator Paul, did you want to be 
recorded as no?
    Senator Paul.  On the final passage.
    The Chairman.  On the final passage, okay. Are there other 
amendments at this time?
    Senator Merkley.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Senator Merkley?
    Senator Merkley.  So I do have an amendment, a couple of 
concerns. First, I share Senator Barrasso's concerns about 
Russian gas and European dependence on the Nord Stream 2 
pipeline. But this bill does more than that. This bill 
addresses not just NATO, but also Japan and also any other 
nation designated by the Secretary of State in consultation 
with the Secretary of Defense.
    So it is opening the door worldwide, and it says that 
exports shall be deemed to be consistent with the public 
interest. Which some 20 years ago, I might have completely 
agreed with, but I do not today because we are facing a 
planetary challenge of damage created by carbon pollution from 
burning fossil fuels.
    And I think each and every expanded use of fossil fuels 
raises the damage, and my State is experiencing a tremendous 
number of effects. It is affecting our ranchers and our farmers 
because of the less irrigation water coming out in the summers 
in the Cascades. It is affecting our forest industry because of 
fires. It is affecting our cities because of the smoke. It is 
affecting off the coast of Oregon our entire ocean ecosystem 
with the more acidic, warmer water.
    And I think it is just absolutely wrong to be saying we are 
going to deem expediting transactions in natural gas around the 
world to be in the public interest. It is an issue that should 
be debated on a case-by-case basis in the future.
    I was also concerned about the language that there will be 
essentially expeditious approval that goes along with this 
deeming of the public interest and wanted to make sure that we 
were not overriding any provisions related to eminent domain in 
the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and so forth.
    And so I will oppose the bill on the basis that we should 
not be deeming in the public interest, but I am also proposing 
that we make it very clear that we are not overriding the Clean 
Water Act, that we are not overriding the Clean Air Act, that 
we are not overriding the Endangered Species Act, that we are 
not overriding anything related to citizens' rights with 
eminent domain.
    So that is my amendment. You have it before you, and I 
encourage you pass it.
    The Chairman.  We are talking about Merkley 1. Is that 
correct?
    Senator Merkley.  Yes.
    The Chairman.  Then are you going to offer Merkley 2 also, 
Senator?
    Senator Merkley.  Just 1.
    The Chairman.  Just 1 at this time. Okay. Senator Barrasso, 
did you wish to speak?
    Senator Barrasso.  If I may, Mr. Chairman? I urge my 
colleagues to not adopt this amendment as drafted. Nothing in 
the bill modifies or eliminates the application of any 
environmental laws in the Department of Energy's export 
application process. This amendment seeks to undermine, I 
believe, the very purpose of the bill, which is to ensure that 
we can export American natural gas to our allies and friends 
quickly and when needed.
    They are going to use someone's natural gas. This is not 
going to keep natural gas out of being used. Under current law, 
shipments to countries with whom we have a free trade agreement 
with the natural gas amendment are deemed in the public 
interest, an application shall be granted without modification 
or delay. That is the Natural Gas Act, Section 3.
    Now Senator Merkley's amendment could be construed to 
oppose NEPA requirements on applications to the Free Trade 
Agreement countries, and this is going to create delays, 
especially endless legal exposure to the process of shipping 
domestic gas to our allies. This has nothing to do with NEPA.
    And as discussed, if we keep our energy in the ground at 
home, it is going to result in production increases elsewhere. 
By adding uncertainty and delay to exports, I think we are just 
creating a very enticing opening for Russia to do more.
    The Chairman.  Further debate? Senator Cardin?
    Senator Cardin.  I am going to support the Merkley 
amendment, and I am going to reluctantly oppose the bill. And I 
want to continue, I think what Senator Barrasso is trying to do 
is the right thing, that is take away the weaponization of 
energy that is particularly used by Russia, which is something 
I strongly support.
    I am concerned that this does deal with domestic energy 
policy that I do not think has been totally thought out the 
impacts of changing the export rules in regards to our own 
energy sources. So I hope we can work that out as this bill 
moves forward, but I just wanted to explain my negative vote 
now because I think the bill is well intended.
    Senator Menendez.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Senator Menendez?
    Senator Menendez.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I appreciate Senator Barrasso, probably the foremost voice 
in promoting energy exports from the United States and seeking 
to use energy as a positive tool at the end of the day. But as 
worded, I agree with Senator Merkley. I am afraid that that 
goal, as important as it is, in the language here, I take this 
language to suggest that it is expedited permitting for just 
about any pipeline.
    And it is the deregulation of natural gas and a lack of 
provisions for renewable energy that cause me to be concerned 
as part of an overall package. So I think that the concerns 
that Senator Merkley has are on point, and I am going to 
support his amendment and ultimately, depending upon how that 
goes, I may very well oppose the bill based upon this.
    The Chairman.  Senator Cruz?
    Senator Cruz.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Just a question for Senator Barrasso. I am a cosponsor of 
the bill. I think it is a very positive bill, increasing U.S. 
energy exports. But to make clear, since the discussion is the 
impact on the environment, to the extent the United States is 
exporting more liquid natural gas and our trading partners are 
shifting their energy production from coal to natural gas, my 
question for Senator Barrasso is, is making that shift good or 
bad for the environment?
    Our friends, particularly on the Democratic side, 
frequently point to concerns about climate change. Is it not 
the fact that moving from coal production to natural gas 
production dramatically reduces the carbon emission? So if that 
is a concern, this bill would be a serious step in the right 
direction.
    Senator Barrasso.  Well, I think it is a serious step in 
the right direction. You are absolutely right. We have seen in 
the United States emissions have actually gone down as we have 
had more natural gas-powered electric generation at gas-powered 
power plants.
    We have seen that across the country, which is why over the 
last 10 years our emissions have gone down as a result of the 
technology. With fracking and development of additional 
supplies of natural gas, it is cheaper. On the other hand, you 
have Russia having to build and bring a tanker into the Boston 
Harbor to bring in natural gas because they do not have the 
pipeline to pass it.
    Now a statement by one of my other colleagues, actually 
there is nothing in here that has to do with pipelines. You may 
read it that way. That was not intended in any way. To me, 
there is nothing in this that relates to expediting approval 
for pipelines.
    This has to do with exports, not pipelines.
    The Chairman.  Further debate? There being none----
    Senator Merkley.  May I ask the chairman if I might 
respond?
    The Chairman.  Yes.
    Senator Merkley.  One cannot argue both--well, I guess one 
can argue because we just heard it. But----
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Merkley  [continuing]. It is inconsistent to argue 
that nothing in this bill touches on eminent domain or clean 
water or clean air and then argue that including an amendment 
that says so explicitly creates some kind of obstacle. It is 
either one or the other.
    And so I do appreciate the affirmation that this bill does 
not touch on those issues, but if, in fact, that is the case, 
then let us say it in writing.
    Second, I think it is important, and Senator Cruz, you and 
I have had this conversation before, to note that while at the 
point of combustion, natural gas does produce more energy with 
less carbon dioxide, taken as a system as a whole, because of 
the leaking of the natural gas system, which releases a 
tremendous amount of methane, it is actually more or less 
equivalent with the damage to the climate.
    And then you throw in LNG, which spends a tremendous amount 
of energy in compression on both ends of the operation, and it 
is very questionable whether it is better in that case. So I am 
just challenging that basic premise you put forward. It will 
remain an item of debate.
    The Chairman.  Thank you, Senator Merkley.
    We have before us a motion to adopt Senator Merkley's 
Amendment Number 1.
    I did not hear a second.
    Voice. Second.
    The Chairman.  It has been moved and seconded that Merkley 
1 be adopted. I am going to have the clerk call the roll on 
this.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Rubio.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Johnson?
    The Chairman.  No, by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Gardner?
    Senator Gardner. No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Romney?
    Senator Romney.  Yes.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Graham?
    The Chairman.  No, by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Isakson?
    Senator Isakson.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Portman?
    The Chairman.  No, by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul.  Yes.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Young?
    Senator Young.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Cruz?
    Senator Cruz.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Menendez?
    Senator Menendez.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen.  Yes.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Coons?
    Senator Menendez.  Aye, by proxy.
    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 Menendez.  Aye, by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 12; the nays are 10.
    The Chairman.  The nays are how many?
    The Clerk.  Ten.
    The Chairman.  Okay, the amendment has been adopted.
    We now have before us substitute amendment, as amended by 
the Merkley 1 amendment. Voice vote okay?
    All those--and anybody who wants to be recorded can be 
recorded. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed, nay.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it, and Senate bill--
    Senator Cardin.  I would like to be recorded as no.
    The Chairman.  Senator Cardin will be recorded as no. 
Senator Merkley will be recorded as no.
    Senator Paul is recorded as no. Senator Menendez recorded 
as no.
    So, with that, we will move to the Senate bill 704, 
European energy security bill. We have a substitute amendment 
on this. I would like to get that adopted first.
    Is there a motion?
    Senator Murphy.  We have a first-degree amendment on this.
    The Chairman.  Well, there is a substitute first, Senator. 
Then we will move to--then we will move amendments.
    Is there a motion?
    Senator Menendez.  So move.
    The Chairman.  It has been moved. Is there a second?
    Senator Cardin.  Second.
    The Chairman.  It has been moved and seconded that the 
substitute amendment be adopted.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed, nay.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it. We now have before us 
substitute amendment 704. Are there amendments?
    Senator Murphy.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Senator Murphy?
    Senator Murphy.  Mr. Chairman, I do have a revised first-
degree amendment.
    Let me just thank all of my co-signers and particularly 
Senator Johnson and Senator Rubio, Senator Gardner, Senator 
Cardin, and Senator Shaheen.
    This is a piece of legislation that seeks to redress what 
has been an asymmetry in the way in which we try to combat 
Russia's attempts to curry favor in the region with its oil and 
gas. It is just, I think, a complement in many ways to Senator 
Barrasso's legislation, which I am glad passed.
    This would set up a capacity inside the new Development 
Finance Corporation to finance projects in and around Russian 
peripheries that would make those nations energy independent of 
Russia. This is energy resource nonspecific, and so it would 
allow the Development Finance Corporation, in consultation with 
the Department of State, to make decisions about which projects 
would merit this kind of financing.
    Projects done in Europe would be done in consultation with 
Europe's priority list of projects that they are planning to 
put money into as well.
    And I think that this, frankly, is the best way ultimately 
to hurt Putin. Perhaps if we are able to help make countries 
truly energy independent of Russia's energy largesse, then it 
effectuates so many U.S. national security goals in the region. 
I support Senator Barrasso's bill specific to LNG. This would 
allow the United States to finance a much larger scope of 
projects in the region.
    Again, I thank Senator Johnson for his work. I have a 
clarifying amendment to the manager's package, Murphy first-
degree revised, that I ask be adopted.
    The Chairman.  Is there a motion to adopt?
    Senator Menendez.  So move.
    Senator Murphy.  Second.
    The Chairman.  It has been moved and seconded. All those in 
favor, signify by saying aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.)
    The Chairman.  Opposed, nay.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it. Is there further----
    Senator Menendez.  Move to adopt the legislation.
    The Chairman.  It has been moved----
    Senator Murphy.  Second.
    The Chairman  [continuing]. And seconded, that we favorably 
adopt Senate bill 704, substitute amendment revised for 
Murphy's amendment.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    Senator Barrasso.  Mr. Chairman, just before we do that.
    The Chairman.  Yes.
    Senator Barrasso.  I just wanted to thank Senator Murphy 
for his leadership on this. Thanks for working with me and my 
team. It was a very cooperative effort. I appreciate what you 
are doing.
    The Chairman.  Thank you, Senator. All those in favor, 
signify----
    Senator Merkley.  I think we are under discussion of the 
proposal at the moment?
    The Chairman.  Oh, if you wish to do so, please do so.
    Senator Merkley.  Stand by, I think Senator Markey is en 
route, I am told, to present his amendment. I am happy to 
present my amendment while we are waiting for him. If he 
arrives, I will defer.
    The Chairman.  All right. Well, let us take Merkley then, 
Merkley 1.
    Senator Merkley.  Okay. So I strongly like the spirit 
behind this, but I have to again raise the issue we should not 
be encouraging the additional use of fossil fuels. As you have 
all heard me note, in our lifetime--in my lifetime, for those 
of you who are my age or older--we have increased the carbon 
dioxide in the air by more than 33 percent. It is affecting us 
in every possible way.
    So my amendment notes that, yes, let us do exactly what 
this bill proposes, but let us encourage it to be non-fossil 
fuel expansion of energy. That is my amendment. That is all I 
need to say about it.
    The Chairman.  Further debate? Senator Murphy?
    Senator Murphy.  I certainly appreciate the spirit in which 
the Senator offers his amendment. I would oppose it. We have 
crafted language in this bill that, frankly, reflects previous 
legislation passed by this committee investing in energy 
security. This language mirrors that which was in the Power 
Africa Act.
    And as I noted in my initial statement, I share the same 
concern as Senator Merkley and Senator Markey do about trying 
to make sure that we are financing projects that are, indeed, 
confronting the crisis of climate change. But I do note that in 
several parts of this bill, we prioritize projects that are 
part of the EU's strategic investment plan. And the EU is, of 
course, prioritizing projects that are combatting climate 
change.
    So I think in the underlying language, we give the kind of 
preference that Senator Merkley is looking for. I do not think 
that this amendment, nor Senator Markey's amendment, if he 
should offer it, is necessary.
    The Chairman.  Further debate?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  There being no further debate, Senator 
Merkley has moved to adopt his amendment. Is there a second to 
that?
    Senator Kaine.  Second.
    The Chairman.  It has been moved and seconded to adopt 
Senator Merkley's amendment.
    We will have a roll call vote, if that is all right with 
everyone, and the clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Rubio.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Johnson?
    The Chairman.  No, by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Gardner?
    Senator Gardner. No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Romney?
    Senator Romney.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Graham?
    The Chairman.  No, by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Isakson?
    Senator Isakson.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Barrasso?
    The Chairman.  No, by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Portman?
    The Chairman.  No, by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Paul?
    The Chairman.  No, by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Young?
    Senator Young.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Cruz?
    Senator Cruz.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Menendez?
    Senator Menendez.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Menendez.  Aye, by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Coons?
    Senator Menendez.  Aye, by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Udall?
    Senator Menendez.  Aye, by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Markey?
    Senator Menendez.  Aye, by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Booker?
    Senator Menendez.  Aye, by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 6; the nays are 16.
    The Chairman.  The amendment has failed.
    We will now take up the Markey amendment. Senator Markey is 
here. Senator Markey? What is the preference?
    Senator Menendez.  Mr. Chairman, in deference to Senator 
Markey, I will move his amendment, and I will, just for 
members' purposes, provide the essence of why he seeks to do 
this.
    This amendment removed a reference to fossil fuels from a 
line about projects eligible for assistance under the bill and 
instead inserts ``prioritization for renewable energy.'' That 
change does not prevent assistance for being used for fossil 
fuels, and that is the purpose of Senator Markey's amendment. 
And I move his first-degree amendment.
    The Chairman.  Is there a second?
    Senator Kaine.  Second.
    The Chairman.  It has been moved and seconded that Markey 1 
be adopted. Senator Murphy?
    Senator Murphy.  Thank you.
    Again, I object to this amendment on the same grounds. I 
think the underlying language achieves that prioritization. By 
deferring and including a reference to European entity 
prioritization, we are inevitably going to be in the business 
of funding projects that lean towards renewables and away from 
fossil fuels. And given that the underlying goal here is really 
a national security goal, to try to break Russia's energy grip 
on its periphery, I think having some degree of flexibility 
here is important. I imagine this one winds up very much like 
the other one.
    Senator Kaine.  Mr. Chair?
    The Chairman.  Senator Kaine?
    Senator Kaine.  Could I ask the sponsor a question? To the 
sponsor of the bill, Senator Murphy, my understanding, as I 
look at the two amendments is that the Merkley amendment that 
we just voted on would restrict assistance only to non-fossil 
fuel projects, but the Markey amendment does not include that 
restriction and just expresses a preference or a prioritization 
for non-fossil. Am I reading the two correctly?
    Senator Murphy.  I think that you are reading them right 
there. There is certainly a difference between two.
    Again, I believe that that prioritization is already 
included in the underlying legislation because of the specific 
references that we have built into financing projects that have 
been already prioritized by the EU.
    The EU, in their own energy financing goals, clearly states 
that renewables and projects that will reduce global warming 
emissions meet their criteria. So, again, I think that we have 
done the work of this prioritization in the underlying bill.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman.  Senator Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen.  Well, I am a sponsor of the bill, and so 
I certainly support it, and I appreciate Senator Murphy's 
leadership. But I guess my question is putting this language in 
is not going to affect the underlying language that is already 
in there. What it will do is just reaffirm that we ought to be 
prioritizing non-fossil fuel energy.
    Senator Murphy.  So this bill has taken a long time to get 
this committee. It is a carefully constructed compromise 
between the sponsors of the legislation, and you could probably 
guess where my sentiments would ultimately lie. But in the 
interest of getting this bill through this committee and 
getting it through the Senate and pass the House of 
Representatives and onto the President's desk, I am going to 
oppose this amendment because I believe very legitimately that 
the goals of this amendment are addressed in the underlying 
statute to try to hold together the carefully drafted 
compromise. I am going to oppose it.
    The Chairman.  Senator Merkley?
    Senator Merkley.  Mr. Chair, we have just had a significant 
debate over the fact that Europe is quite interested in fossil 
fuels, including building the Nord Stream 2 pipeline as a 
supply. There are a whole series of fossil fuel projects under 
way.
    And so I think that this amendment that my colleague has 
put forward--did you know you were speaking when you were 
outside?
    Voice. You were very intelligent.
    Senator Merkley.  And you were spoken for by the ranking 
member. I think this is very consistent with the underlying 
bill. If, indeed, that is the case, as my colleague has stated, 
then let us make it explicit.
    The Chairman.  Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Markey, your position has been ably represented. 
The vote may not reflect that, but I can tell you----
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Markey.  I thank you, and I will speak briefly. And 
that is that, obviously, you know, fossil fuels, that 
construction has been the default position of the world, and we 
are in a climate crisis. We can see what is happening. In terms 
of the increase in greenhouse gases across the planet, the 
evidence is overwhelming that the harm is growing as each day 
goes by.
    Amongst other things, 90 percent of all children on the 
planet are exposed to particulate matter that is unhealthy on a 
daily basis, 90 percent of all children. So it does call for us 
to move to prioritize renewable energy, to prioritize it. Say 
that should be the goal, to move in that direction because this 
is a global problem.
    And if the U.S. is going to be involved, we should be 
saying that where it is possible that should be the preference. 
So that is the objective here is just to state that clearly 
because of a couple of health consequences, especially for the 
children on the planet. It is just unsustainable long term to 
have close to 90 percent of children be exposed to unhealthy 
levels of particulate matter on a daily basis.
    And this is a global committee, and that should be the 
objective. So thank you, and I thank the Senator from Oregon.
    The Chairman.  Well, thank Senator Menendez. He took up the 
baton while you were gone.
    So, with that, will you accept a voice vote, or do you want 
a roll call vote? It is up to you entirely.
    Senator Markey.  Yes, I would accept a voice vote on this.
    The Chairman.  Okay. All those in favor of Senate bill 
704--excuse me--the Markey amendment.
    All those in favor of the Markey amendment, signify by 
saying aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed, nay.
    [A chorus of nays.]
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman.  Let us have a roll call and be done with 
this. Okay. The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Rubio.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Johnson?
    The Chairman.  No, by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Gardner?
    Senator Gardner. No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Romney?
    Senator Romney.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Graham?
    The Chairman.  No, by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Isakson?
    The Chairman.  No, by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Portman?
    The Chairman.  No, by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Paul?
    The Chairman.  No, by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Young?
    Senator Young.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Cruz?
    The Chairman.  No, by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Menendez?
    Senator Menendez.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Menendez.  Aye, by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Coons?
    Senator Menendez.  Aye, by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Udall?
    Senator Menendez.  Aye, by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Markey?
    Senator Markey.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Booker?
    Senator Menendez.  Aye, by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 8; the noes are 14.
    The Chairman.  The Markey amendment has failed to be 
adopted.
    We will now vote on the bill itself. Senate bill 704, 
substitute amendment. All those in favor, signify by saying 
aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed, nay.
    Senator Merkley.  Nay.
    The Chairman.  Do you want to be recorded?
    Senator Merkley.  Yes.
    The Chairman.  Senator Merkley will be recorded as no.
    The bill is passed and will be sent out with affirmative 
recommendation.
    We now have before us Senate bill number 1189. Is there a 
motion to adopt the bill?
    Excuse me. Manager's amendment. We have a manager's 
amendment to Senate bill 1189.
    Senator Menendez.  Move the manager's amendment.
    The Chairman.  Moved. Is there a second?
    Senator Murphy.  Second.
    The Chairman.  It has been moved and seconded that the 
manager's amendment to Senate 1189 be adopted.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed, nay.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it. Is there a motion to move 
on to final passage.
    Senator Menendez.  So move.
    Senator Murphy.  Second.
    The Chairman.  It has been moved and seconded, the final 
passage of Senate bill 1189. Is there debate?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  There being none, all in favor, signify by 
saying aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed, nay.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it. Senate bill 1189 will be 
moved to the floor with affirmative recommendation.
    Senate Joint Resolution number 4, we have a substitute 
amendment to start with.
    Let us adopt that.
    Senator Kaine.  So move.
    The Chairman.  Moved.
    Senator Menendez.  Second.
    The Chairman.  Seconded.
    All those in favor of the substitute amendment, signify by 
saying aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed, nay.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it. We will now----
    Senator Kaine.  May I speak to S.J. Res. 4?
    The Chairman.  Please, yes.
    Senator Kaine.  So President Trump has made some comments 
about whether the United States should get out of NATO. 
Questioning the value of NATO is something we should always 
analyze. Questioning the work plan of NATO we should always 
analyze it. Encouraging others to contribute more, we should. 
And the President has had some success in that regard, and that 
is good.
    But statements that we should get out of NATO are causing 
deep worry to our allies. Recently, French President Macron 
talked about NATO being afraid that because of the message that 
is being sent, those statements. And they also are very 
empowering of Russia.
    It is interesting. In this group of bills that we have gone 
through how many are bills that refer to NATO or are about NATO 
are driven by a concern about Russia. But the President has 
exposed an ambiguity that I think we should resolve, and that 
is the Constitution says that treaties are entered into by a 
two-thirds ratification of advice and consent vote in the 
Senate.
    The Constitution is silent about how a treaty can be 
withdrawn from. And so there is an ambiguity. And the President 
or any President--this President or any President--might 
believe you could withdraw from NATO without going back to the 
Senate that ratified the treaty.
    The law is clear that when the Constitution is silent and 
there is an ambiguity, Congress can act to clear up the 
ambiguity. There is nothing in the Constitution that would 
prohibit us from clearing the ambiguity.
    And so what this bill would do and has sort of done 
specifically on the 70th anniversary year would clarify that 
NATO, being a Senate treaty, cannot be withdrawn from 
unilaterally by a President and that withdrawal would require 
either the advice and consent of the Senate with two-thirds 
vote or an act of Congress where you put it through each House, 
subject to the President's veto.
    So that is what the bill would do. It would send a very 
strong message to our NATO allies. It would send a very strong 
message to Russia that we believe this alliance has value and 
will have value for decades to come.
    Two thank yous. I want to thank the chair because you 
committed that you would do this markup, and your staff has 
worked well with us to make the amendment that we just made by 
substitute to clarify some points. That was helpful.
    And I also want to thank Senators Gardner, Graham, Rubio, 
Reed, Blumenthal, Coons, Collins, Durbin, Feinstein, Jones, 
Moran, and Sullivan, who have all cosponsored the bill.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman.  Thank you. Is there further debate?
    Senator Menendez.  Mr. Chairman, I ask to be added as a 
cosponsor.
    The Chairman.  With no objection, it will be done.
    Senator Shaheen.  Mr. Chairman, I would also like to be 
added.
    The Chairman.  Likewise. Further debate?
    Senator Menendez.  Move the resolution.
    The Chairman.  Is there a second?
    Voice. Second.
    The Chairman.  It has been moved and seconded that the 
resolution be adopted. All those in favor, signify by saying 
aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed, nay.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it. S.J. Res. 4 has been 
positively adopted. So----
    Senator Murphy.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Oh, Senator Cruz will be added as cosponsor 
to Senate bill 2547. Senator Murphy?
    Senator Murphy.  Mr. Chairman, we moved a little fast 
there. Can I just be recorded as a no on Senate bill 1189?
    The Chairman.  You will be. Thank you.
    Are there further matters to come before the committee?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  If not, that completes the committee's 
business.
    Thank you to all of you who sat through this. We did a 
tremendous amount of business this morning.
    [Gavel sounding.]
    The Chairman.  Senator Shaheen has the floor.
    Senator Shaheen.  Mr. Chairman, before we leave, I would 
urge both you and the ranking member to speak to Senate 
leadership about allowing this package of bills to come to the 
floor. I know that people on both sides of the aisle are 
frustrated with the current legislative situation that we have, 
and I would hope that after all this work in the committee and 
all the work by individual members that we would actually be 
allowed to address these bills in the full Senate and try and 
get them done.
    The Chairman.  Well said, Senator Shaheen. That is a work 
in progress already.
    So, with that, I ask unanimous consent that the staff be 
authorized to make technical and conforming changes. Without 
objection, it is so ordered.
    And with that, the committee is adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., the meeting was adjourned.]

              Additional Material Submitted for the Record

  Department of State's Views on the Substitute Amendment to S. 2641, 
 Promoting American National Security and Preventing the Resurgence of 
    ISIS Act of 2019--Received by the Committee on December 10, 2019

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


  The Trump Administration's Views on the Substitute Amendment to S. 
     2641, Promoting American National Security and Preventing the 
                     Resurgence of ISIS Act of 2019

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                      WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 18, 2019

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

                Summary of Action Taken by the Committee

                              LEGISLATION

  S. 482, Defending American Security from Kremlin Aggression Act of 
        2019, with amendments, final passage agreed to by roll call 
        vote (17-5)

          Ayes: Rubio, Gardner, Romney, Graham, Portman (proxy), Young, 
        Cruz, Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Udall, Murphy (proxy), 
        Kaine, Markey, Merkley, and Booker (proxy)

          Nays: Risch, Johnson (proxy), Isakson (proxy), Barrasso, and 
        Paul (proxy)

     Manager's Amendment, agreed to by voice vote

     Cardin 1st Degree Amendment #7, Revised, agreed to by voice vote

     Merkley 1st Degree Amendment #3, agreed to by voice vote

     Merkley 1st Degree Amendment #4, agreed to by voice vote

                           Meeting Transcript

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:45 a.m., in 
Room S-116, The Capitol, Hon. James Risch, chairman of the 
committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Risch [presiding], Rubio, Gardner, 
Romney, Graham, Barrasso, Young, Cruz, Menendez, Cardin, 
Shaheen, Coons, Udall, Kaine, Markey, and Merkley.

           OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. RISCH,
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO

    The Chairman.  The committee will come to order. This 
morning we are going to complete the business originally 
noticed for last week's business meeting. And today we are 
going to consider the Defending American Security from Kremlin 
Aggression Act of 2019, or DASKAA, sponsored by Senator Graham 
and Senator Menendez. This bill would place a number of 
sanctions on the Russian Federation.
    The bill does contain some good initiatives that I would 
really join in on. One in particular is the creation of a 
sanctions coordinator at the State Department, and, frankly, in 
looking at that, I think that is a really good idea, and it 
might--if I were drafting it, I might even go further than 
that. But I really applaud the efforts to be tough on Russia, 
and I want to work--I want to join in this work whenever I can. 
And I--and I think the sins of Russia are too long to mention 
here, but just as a greatest hits reel, what they did in 
Georgia is despicable. They still occupy 2 regions in Georgia. 
They took Crimea. You would never know you were living in the 
21st century with the imperialism of the march like it is. What 
they are doing in the eastern Ukraine is as bad. Seizing 
vessels on the open seas and holding crews certainly is not 
acceptable.
    Interference in our hemisphere in places where they should 
not be and supporting despots like Maduro are not things that 
we can stand by and not do anything about it. Interference with 
democratic, fair and free elections is inexcusable. We all know 
they have done, or attempted to do, in ours. They have done it 
both overtly and covertly in other countries. And my personal 
height of indignation is their use of chemical weapons by 
poisoning people, even their own citizens, and citizens of 
other countries on foreign soil as they have done in London. 
This list goes on and on and on. They deserve to be sanctioned, 
and we really need to do more, I agree.
    I feel these sanctions proposed by DASKAA, however, are 
overly broad. We have seen that sanctions packages not 
carefully crafted can have unforeseen consequences, and I fear 
that is where these may go. They would indiscriminately 
sanction entire industries without regard to the consequences 
of those sanctions in full, and particularly where we may have 
friends or allies who are unfortunately much more entwined with 
Russia than we are. Where there are triggers for sanctions, the 
criteria, I believe, are too vague.
    This language has not been thoroughly vetted with relevant 
stakeholders, including State, Treasury, Justice, Homeland 
Security, and the intelligence communities. Further, these 
sanctions lack discretion, possessing no waiver stronger than 
the 30-day congressional review. As evidenced by the Deripaska 
case earlier this year,--this process has clear flaws. That 
lack of a usable waiver would make it very difficult for the 
administration to tailor these measures and its policies 
appropriately. My view on this is I feel strongly that we need 
to use sanctions where it is appropriate, but it really needs 
to be done with a rifle, not a shotgun. I am always concerned 
that when we do sanctions, we do it for the purpose that we 
want those sanctions to have, and that is to inflict sufficient 
notice to another country that they need to change their 
policies, not to hurt American businesses or to hurt our 
allies. Unfortunately, the law of unintended consequences all 
too often raises its ugly head.
    That these sanctions lack a sunset of any kind is also 
concerning. Sanctions are really easy for Congress to levy but 
virtually impossible to remove. Jackson-Vanik still remains in 
effect 45 years after its passage, 30 years after its demands 
have been fulfilled. I have supported the Obama administration 
in the levy of sanctions. I have supported the Trump 
administration in the 321 targeted sanction actions that they 
have taken, and I am going to publish in the record a list of 
those 321 targeted sanctions.


    [The information referred to above is located at the end of 
this transcript.]


    The Chairman.  This body and the administration have taken 
several actions to hold Russia--attempt to hold Russia--to 
account for its actions and help our European allies resist 
Russian influence. Yesterday the Nord Stream 2 bill was passed 
in the NDAA, much to our credit, much to the specific credit of 
many members of this--of this committee. And last week we 
passed several bills that pushed on Russia. I am also concerned 
that DASKAA will empty the diplomatic toolbox.
    I must note that many of our allies have come to us, and I 
am sure many of this committee have heard from our allies in 
opposition to this bill and the economic impact of sanctions 
on, for instance Russian LNG export facilities, that these will 
have on businesses and economies in our allies' countries. 
Finally, I am not going to vote for this because in the highly 
unlikely event it makes it to the President's desk, he will, of 
course, veto it, and I want to lead the charge to sustain that 
veto, not because I favor Russia, not because I do not believe 
we should not do more, but just the way this is crafted, I 
really have deep reservations about it. And I want to commend 
both of the sponsors of this bill for the--for what I think is 
a valid, good-faith effort to do more against Russia. I want to 
join in that in the future. We really need to do that. What we 
have--what we have levied just simply doesn't seem to be 
getting their attention, and we do need to be more--we do need 
to do more. I could not agree more with what you are doing. 
Except I do feel that the downside of this for our friends, 
and, for that matter, the unintended consequences we assign to 
ourselves, is not appropriate. So I will be voting no.
    I have two letters for the record opposing this. One is 
from the American Petroleum Institute. The other is from the 
Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America. I will 
enter those into the record.


    [The information referred to above is located at the end of 
this transcript.]


    The Chairman.  And with that, Senator Menendez?

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

    Senator Menendez.  Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me 
first start off by thanking you for fulfilling your commitment 
to hold this important markup. I appreciate that, as do many 
members who are concerned about Russia's aggressions. And I 
appreciate you following up on your commitments, so I want to 
thank you publicly. Several members on both sides of the aisle 
have strongly-held views with respect to U.S. policy on the 
Russian Federation, and this markup allows them the opportunity 
to share their perspectives.
    I want to thank Senator Graham for his leadership on DASKA. 
He has been a great partner in this effort going back to last 
year when we introduced the first iteration of this bill 
following President Trump's meeting with President Putin in 
Helsinki, and I am proud to join with him on this effort, and 
also appreciate the input and sponsorship of Senators Cardin, 
Gardner, and Shaheen. And I just want to recall that Senator 
McCain was an original co-sponsor of this when he was still 
with us.
    We had a hearing on Russia policy with Undersecretary Hale 
a couple of weeks ago that described the Kremlin's aggression 
in its own neighborhood and against its own people. The witness 
again made clear that Russia interfered in the 2016 election 
and was poised to do so again. Russia's behavior since the 
invasion of Ukraine in 2014 has only become more aggressive, 
more belligerent, and more emboldened. This bill is an 
important expression of the Senate's views on what U.S. policy 
towards Russia should be.
    It is not simply a sanctions bill. Among its many 
provisions, the bill creates a fusion center within the 
Government to better address challenges posed by Russia. The 
bill gives U.S. prosecutors the ability to shut down botnets 
and other cyber tools that are used to attack election 
infrastructure. It increases transparency in the U.S. real 
estate market, making it more difficult for Russian oligarchs 
to buy high-end property.
    Many of the amendments that were filed helped strengthen 
the policy framework of this bill, and I am pleased that 
Senator Graham and I were able to work with Senators Romney, 
Portman, Coons, and Cardin, in particular, to pull several of 
their amendments into the manager's package. In addition to 
these components, the bill does impose new sanctions based on 
the future behavior of the Russian Federation. It uses a 
conditions-based sanctions framework that follows the same 
exact model that was used in S. 2641, the Promoting American 
National Security and Preventing the Resurgence of ISIS Act of 
2019.
    That bill passed out of the committee last week under the 
chairman's leadership with a vote of 18 to 4. The conditions-
based sanctions in DASKA will not automatically go into effect, 
but will be triggered based on future Kremlin behavior. This 
decision lies with the Kremlin. Also, the sanctions in this 
bill are not permanent, and clearly lay out how this or any 
future administration can lift the sanctions in the event of 
Kremlin behavioral change.
    As with the policy framework, the sanctions in the 
manager's package reflects the excellent input of a bipartisan 
group of members on this committee. In particular, I appreciate 
the inputs of Senators Cardin, Romney, and Portman. I believe 
these sanctions provisions are warranted under the current 
circumstances. They are tough measures, but we have sought to 
refine them through conversations with allies and industry, and 
I believe this is a solid product.
    Now, let me just say that for those who suggest that the 
sanctions provisions are too expansive and that they will hurt 
U.S. companies more than Russia, the sanctions regime 
implemented by the administration to date has simply not put 
enough pressure on Russia to change its malign behavior. It is 
necessary that we increase pressure on the Kremlin in order to 
make clear that its aggression against the U.S. and our allies 
in Europe will not be tolerated. They attacked our election in 
2016. They are geared up to do so again in 2020. They conducted 
chemical weapons attacks in the United Kingdom. They continue 
to assault Ukraine. Clearly, we have not done enough to address 
the threat.
    When the sanctions regime began in 2014, many of the clear 
targets that were isolated to Russia and not intertwined with 
the international system were targeted. As we look to ramp up 
pressure on Moscow, we need to be prepared to take measures 
that affect decision-makers in the Kremlin, meaning the banking 
and energy sectors. Obviously we want the impact of any 
sanctions to be on Russia with minimum negative impact on our 
businesses and those of our allies and partners. We have sought 
to do this in DASKA, but let me address very clearly the 
suggestions that sanctions will hurt businesses. I want to 
address that point squarely.
    If we are to increase pressure on Moscow, and if we are to 
deter future attacks, we have to be honest that there will be 
some impacts on business around the world. That is how 
sanctions work. Under an enhanced sanctions regime, U.S. and 
foreign companies may no longer be able to benefit from the 
Russian economy in the same way they currently do. American and 
foreign investors may no longer benefit from Russian sovereign 
net market. The energy market may be impacted. The banking 
sector may be impacted. We, of course, seek to minimize these 
efforts, but our ultimate measure must always be how continued 
Kremlin aggression impacts our national security. At the end of 
the day, that is the only measure that truly matters.
    Now, Mr. Chairman, I have been the architect, along with 
many other colleagues, of sanctions going back in the previous 
administration, and even at the time of President Clinton, on 
different parts of the world. And I will say I have never met 
an administration, either Democrat or Republican, that wants to 
see congressionally-imposed sanctions, whether it be Global 
Magnitsky, whether it be on Iran, or the whole list. And so I 
just would urge our colleagues, if we get to the point that the 
pursuit of legislation by the Senate is one in which we will 
only determine what will the President sign, then we self-veto 
ourselves, because at the end of the day, I have seen 
administrations resist, particularly in the sanctions field, 
and then only find themselves with overwhelming votes from the 
Congress to go ahead and sign that legislation. And it was 
probably congressionally-directed sanctions and the broad 
bipartisan support that directed sanctions on Iran that led 
them ultimately to come to the negotiating table. We can 
disagree as to whether or not the ultimate decision and 
agreement that was achieved was good or bad, but they got there 
because of sanctions, sanctions not sought by an 
administration, sanctions directed by Congress
    So I just, looking at history, would remind us all, number 
one, I have never met an administration that wants something 
that the Congress imposes, and secondly, that they do not 
necessarily end up rejecting that which has broad bipartisan 
support. CAATSA, for example, did exactly that, 97 or 98 to 2. 
So like we did on CAATSA in 2017 and on several votes with 
respect to NATO, I urge the members to maintain the strong 
bipartisan approach that we have seen on Russia record here in 
the Senate.
    And a final note I would make is that there are some well-
intentioned amendments that may be offered. I actually embrace 
and support the efforts behind them. But at the end of the day, 
we can end up with a pyrrhic victory here. To the extent that 
we have a shot at having this be pursued on the floor, I think 
that the balance that we have created here, the input that we 
have gathered in a bipartisan way, is essential in order to 
have a shot to have these votes on the floor. And with that, I 
will speak to individual amendments when they come. I 
appreciate the intent in which they are being offered. I 
generally have a series of views that support the intentions of 
the amendments. I just am concerned that we will ultimately not 
be able to maintain the bipartisan effort to speak clearly and 
powerfully about our reaction to Russia and what they are 
doing, both tous here at home and across the world.
    With that, I thank the chairman for his indulgence.
    The Chairman.  Thank you. First of all, let me say that I 
agree with almost everything that you said, and I certainly 
agree that the tug-of-war between----
    Senator Menendez.  Can you not go just a little bit----
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Menendez.  In the Christmas spirit maybe, you know?
    The Chairman.  So close.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman.  So close. So close.
    Senator Menendez.  Senator Paul had the Christmas spirit 
descend upon him in the last session, so.
    The Chairman.  He did. He must have used it all up because 
he did not show back up.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Menendez.  There is still time.
    The Chairman.  Look, I could not agree with you more that 
there is always a tug of war between the legislative and 
executive branch, particularly on sanctions like this, and 
particularly when we have an enterprise like foreign policy 
that is shared between the first and second branch. The 
founding fathers intentionally gave it to us in that regard. I 
fully support that this branch has to exert itself in that 
regard.
    As I pointed out, I have some specific difficulties with 
this. I am certainly not opposed to the--to the overarching 
effort to try to get at Russia. I also agree with you that what 
we have done is not enough, and I agree with you we do need to 
do more. But, again, I just have some specific issues with the 
bill, and I am hoping if this gets high centered, which could 
possibly happen, we might look forward to some other 
legislation that we can get across the finish line, as we did 
with the Turkey bill. So with that----
    Senator Graham.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Yes. Oh, I am sorry. It is your bill.
    Senator Graham.  I just very briefly want to say thank you 
to Senator Menendez and his staff and to all of you who offered 
amendments and made the bill better. Bob is right. I remember 
Secretary Clinton opposing Iran sanctions until the very end, 
and we got 90-something votes, maybe 100. I cannot remember. So 
that ending is real, and I can understand the administration's 
reluctance for us to kind of lean on this.
    The punishment aspect of sanctions clearly has not been 
enough. Russia is not getting better. They are getting worse. 
The lack of deterrence, to me, is pretty obvious. The pain in 
this sanction proposal is real, you know, in the American 
energy sector, is real. And our fossil fuel economy is what 
keeps Russia afloat, and the business dealings with America, 
they will be scrutinized. And there will be some pain, but 
every time you deal with evil entities, like the Nazis and the 
Japanese and, I think, Putin's Russia, America has to 
experience some pain. And I think most Americans would be 
willing to experience some pain to make Russia a better member 
of the international community.
    This will eventually pass because of Russia, not us. I will 
make a prediction. Some time early next year, they will do 
something to the neighborhood or to our upcoming 2020 election 
where it would be hard to ignore this. They have a plan. They 
are going to follow through with that plan. They are going to 
do as much disruption as they can get away with. They are 
beginning to work with China now to lessen the sanctions on 
North Korea. Their plan is to inhibit our efforts to get the 
Iranians to change their behavior. Their plan is to intimidate 
the neighborhood they live in. Their plan is to chaos in our 
backyard. And they are going to keep doing it until it hurts 
too much.
    So this bill hopefully will have some deterrence. And if it 
ever gets passed, it will because of Putin, not anybody around 
this table. Thank you very much.
    The Chairman.  Thank you. We have a manager's amendment to 
the bill. Is there a motion to adopt the manager's----
    Senator Menendez.  So moved.
    The Chairman.  Second?
    Senator Cardin.  Second.
    The Chairman.  Moved and seconded that the manager's 
amendment will be adopted.
    Is there debate?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by 
saying aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed, nay.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it, and the manager's 
amendment has been adopted.
    Are there other amendments to the bill?
    Senator Cardin.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Senator Cardin?
    Senator Cardin.  Mr. Chairman, I have noted several 
amendments I am going to offer, too, but before I do that, let 
me just underscore the point that Senator Menendez and Graham 
made about congressional initiative and how important it is. 
They mentioned Iran, and you are absolutely correct. It is the 
congressional efforts that led to the possibility of 
negotiating with Iran. I could also mention Magnitsky. We would 
not have a Magnitsky statue today but for the Congress. And, 
quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, the tables were different then. We 
had a democratic President and a democratic Senate, and we had 
administration that did not want it, and we did it. And I think 
we all are very proud of the impact that has had on advancing 
human rights. And last week we showed our initiative in regards 
to Turkey. I think it was the right thing for us to do, and I 
am proud of our leadership one that says. So today we have an 
opportunity to do this with Russia, and I strongly support the 
legislation that has been introduced by Senator Menendez and 
Graham.
    I appreciate that three of the amendments that I had 
proposed or incorporated in the manager's amendments to deal 
with Magnitsky, one removing the sunset, the other activities 
that Russia is doing in regards to political prisoners, be 
considered for Magnitsky statutes, and that and the third 
amendment that was adopted deals with the--using the Russians--
countering Russia influence upon--to deal with the integrity of 
disinformation.
    Two other amendments that I want to offer, one I am going 
to offer and withdraw, Mr. Chairman, and the other I will offer 
and hope that we will accept it. The one I will offer and 
withdraw is Cardin Amendment Number 2 that deals with setting 
up an anti-corruption fund. It uses the Foreign Corruption 
Practice Act, the penalties and fines that are collected there 
as a fund. That fund would then be used as a fast response fund 
that--for U.S. foreign policy to counter corruption in 
countries so that we can deal with it in a more nimble way than 
we do today. It also establishes an interagency task force on 
anti-corruption, and designates a point person each embassy to 
deal with corruption.
    It is legislation that is co-authored by Senator Wicker. 
The two of us are the chair and ranking members on the Helsinki 
Commission. We have taken up corruption as one of our top areas 
to fight corruption around the Helsinki--the OSCE region. And 
we believe this will be--give us an additional tool. Now, quite 
frankly, we have had really good discussions with the staff of 
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I think we have made a 
lot of progress. I think we are going to be able to get this 
bill to the finish line. But I do not think it is quite ready 
for prime time unless the chairman and ranking member tell me 
otherwise. I am going to ask your help in trying to get this 
bill ready for action by our committee, but I will not press 
for a vote today.
    The second amendment I will offer and hope that we can 
adopt. So, Mr. Chairman, if I can, I will ask consent to offer 
and withdraw Amendment Number 2 before offering Amendment 
Number 7.
    The Chairman.  So ordered.
    Senator Cardin.  Amendment Number 7 deals with us getting a 
briefing on the capacity we have in our own country to deal 
with one of the tools being used by Russia. A report that was 
authored by the Democrats on this committee dealing with the 
asymmetric arsenal that Mr. Putin uses to advance his causes 
talks about the tools that are used. One of the tools that they 
use red notice, which is to intimidate individuals. And we saw 
it with Bill Browder, but there are others that they have used 
red notice to try to affect the ability of individuals to be 
able to travel. And what I am asking for is that we get briefed 
on our own capacity to evaluate the red notices that are issued 
to Interpol by our U.S. National Central Bureau and the 
National and Diffusion Task Force, so that we know whether we 
have the capacity to counter this tool that is now being used 
by Russia in an offensive way. The amendment simply asks for a 
briefing on our committee on the capacity to deal with 
evaluating red notices coming out from Russia. And I would 
press for that amendment.
    The Chairman.  Thank you, Senator Cardin. Is this a--does 
this ask--I do not have it in front of me. Does this ask for a 
classified briefing or----
    Senator Cardin.  It could be done either way. There is----
    The Chairman.  With or without this, we can get this done, 
but I will support this. Is there further discussion on Cardin 
Amendment Number 7?
    Senator Menendez.  Mr. Chairman, very briefly. I am 
strongly supportive of what Senator Cardin is seeking to do 
here. We are aware that both the Russian and Chinese government 
are abusing the red flag notices to go after political 
opponents. So having us be appropriately staffed and 
participating at Interpol is critical to our own interest. And 
I look forward to working with him on the Crook Act, which is 
with Senator Wicker. I think it is good legislation. I think we 
can get there, and I will support that as well. But I support 
the amendment.
    Senator Cardin.  Thank you.
    The Chairman.  Thank you. Is there further discussion?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  There being none, did you move--Senator 
Cardin----
    Senator Cardin.  Move to----
    The Chairman.  Is there a second?
    Senator Menendez.  Second.
    The Chairman.  It has been moved and seconded that the 
committee adopt Cardin Amendment Number 7.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed, nay.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it. Amendment 7 has been 
adopted.
    Further amendments?
    Senator Young.  I make a motion to call up Young Number 1, 
please.
    The Chairman.  Young 1. That will be in front of the 
committee. Senator Young, you have the floor.
    Senator Young.  So my amendment is very simple. It makes 
sure that New START does not--it is not idly allowed to lapse 
in February of 2021 without all possible information being 
presented before the fact to this committee and after the fact. 
I want to thank a number of members of this committee either 
who have officially co-sponsored this amendment or have 
indicated to me that they support the substance of it. So I 
have got Senators Merkley and Markey, who are co-sponsors, and 
I know Romney, Graham, Isakson, Portman, neither of whom could 
be here today, and others who are supportive, many on the 
Democratic side as well.
    So, listen, what problem am I trying to solve here? The 
lapse of an arms control agreement that is essential not just 
to arms control. It should not be viewed in isolation. This is 
key to our deterrence as a country. So START--through START, we 
have been able to monitor through the verification mechanisms, 
through the monetary mechanisms that are part and parcel of 
this agreement, compliance with certain thresholds of different 
types of long-range nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles that 
the Russians have. The State Department says that the Russians 
remain in compliance with New START. They have consistently 
remained in compliance with New START.
    This informs, as we--through the modification, monitoring, 
and verification mechanisms. So this informs the sort of 
nuclear weapons and delivery technologies that we invest in, 
and this is essential at the very moment when we are trying to 
modernize our own nuclear arsenal. The Russians are ahead of 
right now. If they are unconstrained, they are in a position to 
field hundreds more warheads on their new advanced ballistic 
missiles in the near future. In contrast, the United States is 
just beginning our modernization efforts. Our new systems will 
not come off the production line until the late 2020s. So this 
is very much about deterrence.
    Here is all we are attempting to do: to send a message, a 
unified message, to the administration to which they should not 
object, that it is the sense of this body--we talked about the 
importance of Congress speaking on these issues. It is the 
sense of Congress that the United States seeks to extend New 
START for only 5 years, from its initial termination date in 
February of 2021 through February of 2026. We also ask for some 
reports from DNI, an assessment of the size and posture of 
China's nuclear forces compared to the United States. I know 
that was a real concern of the administration, so we did 
incorporate China into our concerns. And furthermore, a report 
from the Secretary of State, in consultation with SecDef, 
related to their conversations with China as it relates to the 
reduction and limitation of strategic arms development and 
deployment.
    So I ask my colleagues to be supportive of this. I am 
aware, Mr. Chairman, of your sort of discomfort with this, and 
I am also aware that some fear that a vote on this amendment 
could jeopardize--something I question--but could jeopardize 
the larger measure that we are considering here today. So I am 
prepared to ask for a vote, but seeing as all of those who 
support the substance of this agreement also seem to support 
another route, which is a firm commitment to have a markup in 
January on this very measure, I am prepared to withdraw this 
amendment if I can get that firm commitment from the chairman. 
If not, we will vote.
    The Chairman.  Senator, did you say January?
    Senator Young.  I said January.
    The Chairman.  Yeah, January might be a little tough. There 
is other stuff going on around here. But I would commit to you 
to negotiate to get to the point where we can have a markup on 
this. I do have a discomfort with it, and it is--and really it 
is pretty simple. The New START Treaty is unfortunately out of 
date because there are new systems that have been developed, 
and they are not covered by New START. The Russians are saying 
they are not covered by New START. The Russians are dying to 
see us do what you want to do here, and that is to extend New 
START. They are taking the position that their systems are not 
covered. In addition to that, we really ought to have some 
classified information on what they are--what they are doing 
with INF, what they did with INF, and why it got us to where we 
are.
    So I will work with you on that. I cannot commit to a 
January--I cannot commit to a January date, but I think that is 
a very legitimate subject matter for this committee. It is 
something that we ought to take up. And I will give my promise 
we will use a good-faith effort to get it on the calendar for 
next year as early as we can. Is that good enough?
    Senator Young.  Well, it is close, Mr. Chairman, 
respectfully.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Young.  I see no reason why within a month of the 
end of the articles of impeachment, they dispense with one way 
or another, we cannot have said classified briefings and a 
formal markup in conjunction with the vigorous debate that I 
think we want on this consequential matter before the committee 
of jurisdiction. So I am prepared to extend that quite 
extensively for a month following a disposition on the articles 
of impeachment. Is that something, Mr. Chairman----
    The Chairman.  Again, I do not have the--I wish I had known 
this was coming. I do not have the agenda in front of us, but I 
have made commitments to other people about what subjects we 
are going to take up, and I just--I hate to slip this in in 
front of some other commitments I have made. So, look, whether 
we--when we vote on this, whether it passes or whether it does 
not pass, because even if it passes and gets attached to this, 
you are probably not going to see it again, and we should have 
something in regard to that. So whether this passes or whether 
this does not pass, I commit to you that I will make a good-
faith to get you--get you a hearing and a markup on something 
that you want to move. Go ahead, Senator Menendez.
    Senator Menendez.  Mr. Chairman, if I may. First of all, I 
appreciate all the hard work that Senator Young and others are 
doing to support extending New START. I am fully behind those 
efforts. I know there is disagreement on the committee about 
New START, and I was happy to work with Senator Young in a 
letter to the Director of National Intelligence asking for an 
assessment of what pulling out of New START would do to our 
intelligence collection, and I think it made eminent sense. And 
I am 100 percent committed to working with you and the chairman 
to prioritize an opportunity for such legislation to get marked 
up in the committee, and the committee can work its will and 
have its say at the end of the day.
    I would just urge my colleague in good faith, this DASKA 
bill has been in the works a long time. It has been crafted in 
a bipartisan way to achieve the goal to actually get a vote. I 
am concerned that the inclusion of New START in a sanctions 
bill ultimately will be a pyrrhic victory for both of us. You 
will get a vote today. We will pass DASKA, but with New START 
in it, it may never see the light of day on the floor.
    Senator Young.  Right. Right.
    Senator Menendez.  And that would be unfortunate both to 
take a very clear position against Russia and also for those of 
us who support New START, having a real opportunity to express 
ourselves on that as well. So I would urge my colleague to 
withdraw his amendment. I know Senator Markey has a similar 
effort. I think Senator Merkley has one. You have my full 
commitment to work with you. I will urge the chairman to do it 
as expeditiously as possible and to prioritize it. But I would 
ask you to forbear at this time because otherwise I am 
concerned that we will not be able to get the sanctions bill on 
the floor, and that we will lose an enormous opportunity as we 
go into next year. And I agree with Senator Graham. I have no 
doubt that the Russians have a game plan they will seek to 
execute. And the question is, can we execute in a way that 
seeks to circumvent them.
    The Chairman.  Senator Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen.  Well, Mr. Chairman and Senator Young, I 
am also co-sponsor of this amendment and support the effort 100 
percent. I think we can extend New START. It gives us the 
ability to continue to verify what Russia is doing while we 
have the potential to expand to include China, to include other 
weapons. So I think it makes imminent sense to do that. I do 
share the concern, though, that if we include in the DASKAA 
bill, that it puts in peril passing that bill or getting it to 
the floor. So I will not vote to put the amendment on the bill 
today, even though I support the effort 100 percent.
    Senator Young.  Is it the chairman's assessment that, you 
know, that this is going to be considered? I mean, I have been 
around----
    The Chairman.  Yeah, this is--yeah, this is an important 
issue.
    Senator Young  [continuing]. Capitol Hill long enough to 
know that, you know, even with good-faith efforts of 
conscientious and honorable chairmen like yourself, sometimes 
things get, you know, caught up, especially in election years.
    The Chairman.  Flattery will get you everywhere, Senator. 
Where do you want to go?
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Young.  Yeah.
    Senator Menendez.  Can I just say on that, you know, I will 
say, the chairman and I have had our disagreements at times, 
but----
    The Chairman.  That is an understatement.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Menendez.  But I will say that when the chairman 
has given me his word, he has kept it.
    Senator Young.  Right.
    Senator Menendez.  And this markup is an example----
    Senator Kaine.  And, Mr. Chair, if I could--and the 
chairman made a similar commitment to me on my NATO bill and 
did what he said he would do. So the timing was not right when 
I tried to add it as an amendment, but we ended up taking it 
up----
    The Chairman.  And, you know, that----
    Senator Young.  All right. I withdraw the amendment.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Rubio.  He offered me 10 acres in Idaho, and I----
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Young.  I just wanted folks to dig in a little bit 
on this because----
    The Chairman.  Look----
    Senator Menendez.  I thank the gentleman.
    The Chairman.  This underscores where we are with this 
committee. The stuff we deal with here is really, really 
important.
    Senator Young.  Yeah.
    The Chairman.  We have disagreements from time to time on 
them, and even like on this bill. I mean, I agree overall with 
the bill--with what the bill is trying to do. I have some 
disagreements with--look, we can all work together to try to do 
this. I appreciate you withdrawing it. And, again, I will 
commit to get to it as soon as we can. Thank you very much.
    Senator Young.  Thank you. Thank you.
    The Chairman.  Any other amendments? Senator Merkley?
    Senator Merkley.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have two 
amendments, Merkley Number 3, and I appreciate Senator Young 
having been a partner in this in his role as chair of the 
Multilateral Subcommittee. This amendment highlights Russian 
obstruction at the U.N. Security Council. Russia has blocked 
multilateral action time and again on issues like Syria, 
Ukraine, Venezuela. They have violated the U.N. agreements on 
North Korea. So this simply highlights that. It mandates a 
report that lay out these examples of Russian obstruction, and 
looks at the benefits and disadvantages of U.N. Security 
Council governance and suggestions for how it might change. I 
think it is a useful spotlight to put in the context of this 
bill, and I would be happy with a voice vote if the chairman 
would entertain that.
    The Chairman.  Is there further discussion?
    Senator Menendez.  Strongly supportive of Senator Merkley's 
amendment.
    The Chairman.  Is there a motion to adopt?
    Senator Menendez.  So moved.
    Senator Rubio.  Second.
    The Chairman.  It has been moved and seconded to adopt 
Merkley 3.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed, nay.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it. Merkley 3 has been 
adopted.
    Senator Merkley.  Mr. Chairman, I have one more amendment 
if it is appropriate to continue?
    The Chairman.  Senator Merkley?
    Senator Merkley.  So this is Merkley Number 4, and it is an 
amendment that adds a statement of policy on Russia's egregious 
violations on LGBTI human rights in Chechnya. It is a 
straightforward message that the targeting of the LGBT 
community through extrajudicial killings, abductions, torture, 
and other human rights violations is absolutely unacceptable. 
This should be non-controversial for us to call on Russia to 
investigate the abuses, hold perpetrators accountable, protect 
victims, and stop persecuting the activists who assist those 
victims.
    The Chairman.  Is there further debate?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  Senator, would you care to make a motion to 
amend Merkley 4? Motion to adopt?
    Senator Merkley.  Yes, I move to adopt.
    The Chairman.  Second?
    Senator Rubio.  Second.
    The Chairman.  It has been moved and seconded that we adopt 
Merkley 4.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed, nay.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it. Merkley 4 has been 
amended.
    Further amendments?
    Senator Romney.  Can we get Markey and Merkley to change 
one of their names so it is more clear?
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Markey.  This goes back to the Markey/Moakley 
problem----
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman.  With that, Senator Markey, you have an 
amendment.
    Senator Markey.  Thank you.
    Senator Rubio.  At least make them change their seats.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Markey.  It is a--just to follow on with Senator 
Young, I think it is a--I have an amendment in the same area of 
concern, the START Treaty, the arms race, which is underway 
between the United States and Russia, and our need is really to 
have a hearing and begin to deal with the issue. We are the 
most important committee on this issue. It is clearly going to, 
as it spins out of control, cost trillions of dollars if we do 
not try to get a hold of it here at the beginning of it. It is 
always better to start out where you where you are going to be 
forced to wind up anyway. So I am a hearing a markup, a 
discussion, a deliberation of what the role of China is going 
to be. We probably want to handle that at this time. I think it 
would be very, very good for the committee and for the country. 
So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the commitment that you made 
to Senator Young, and I will withdraw my amendments, which I 
have pending here, so we are awaiting that process to unfold.
    The Chairman.  Thank you, Senator Markey. Further 
amendments?
    Senator Menendez.  Move adoption of the bill.
    The Chairman.  It has been moved that we adopt Senate Bill 
482 and send it out with affirmative action. Is there debate?
    Senator Rubio.  Can I say something?
    The Chairman.  Yeah.
    Senator Rubio.  Mr. Chairman, members, this whole Russia 
thing angers me so much. We have this guy sitting over there 
who basically decided I am going to get these people to fight 
each other and be angry at each other all day. And, frankly, it 
is hard to argue that he has not achieved it. On this very day, 
there is a proceeding in the House, whose genesis really begins 
from all the efforts. In the reverse, you have voices out there 
that basically accuse anyone who does not agree with them of 
being part of a deep state that seeks to undermine the U.S. 
government. If Vladimir Putin's goal was to get us to divide 
each other, fight each other, hate each other, and simply 
weaken us from the inside out, it is hard to argue that he was 
not successful. And there should be no doubt that that is 
exactly what he undertook and they continue to undertake to the 
present day.
    And part of it, on the one hand, I think it is now pretty 
clear after a number of investigations, including the special 
counsel, on the one hand, the President is not a Russian agent. 
He did not coordinate with the Russians, anything of that 
nature. And, frankly, I am not even sure the Russians thought 
he was going to win. I think much of this effort was probably 
designed to weaken who they thought was going to win. The flip 
side of it is Vladimir Putin is not a Republican. He is not. 
And he will do to us as Republicans what he has done to 
everybody else.
    And if he does to us what he has done all over the world, 
we should be very concerned, whether it is what they have done 
to a British politician, where they basically took control of 
his computer and planted child pornography, turned him over to 
authorities. The guy was arrested. Luckily, they discovered 
that it was an implant. But you can imagine what that--that 
would disqualify an American public figure if they did that 
here. They have coopted people, frankly, who are unwitting in 
many cases and do not realize that they are helping in some 
cases spread the narrative that they want.
    So all of that is to say I am going to support this bill 
because I think it is important in a time of such division that 
we make clear that we are united when it comes to standing up 
against these aggressions. I have concerns about this bill 
because I do think as it heads towards the floor, we have to 
think whether we want to make enemies out of the countries we 
want to be rallying to our cause and taking on this sort of 
action. And we might because this sanctions companies that 
impact Europeans.
    I think that--I also think this will be a divided vote, 
which in many ways, once again, plays right into the hands that 
Putin wants, which is this argument that--you know, if you vote 
against this bill, you are not some Russian asset or pro-Putin. 
You just have concerns about it. And I think it is important 
not to participate in that. So I am going to support the bill. 
I do have concerns about the breadth and scope of some of the 
mandatory sanctions as well, which I think would guarantee a 
veto.
    And now a shameless plug, I actually think the DETER bill, 
which is not in the jurisdiction of this committee, that 
actually says this is what is going to happen if you do this in 
the future, is, in my personal view, a better approach because 
it actually imposes a cost benefit analysis on Vladimir Putin, 
who is, above all else, a cost benefit decision-maker. And so 
all--I just wanted to say that, and I thank you for the time to 
be able to do that.
    The Chairman.  Thank you, Senator. Further debate? Senator 
Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen.  Well, I just want to respond a little bit 
to Senator Rubio because I appreciate what you are saying, but 
the fact is that the benefit of living in America in our 
democracy, unlike the Russians, is that we can disagree on what 
we think is the appropriate approach. And that is what our 
democracy is about. And if we were in Russia, we would all be 
voting in lockstep.
    Senator Menendez.  Or we would be imprisoned.
    Senator Shaheen.  Yeah. No, you are right. Well, you may be 
imprisoned.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Shaheen.  But I just--I do not think we should get 
put off course by thinking that we cannot disagree and not be 
consistent with what our democracy is all about.
    The Chairman.  Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Rubio.  Can I just briefly respond? I do not 
disagree at all. I think that is absolutely true. I think it is 
one of the great challenges of this is that our strength is 
also what he is exploiting as our weakness, the openness of our 
system.
    Senator Shaheen.  Yeah. No----
    Senator Rubio.  And we are struggling with that. What does 
the First Amendment mean online? What is the separation between 
political speech and furthered by foreign power? He has figured 
that out. The Chinese have figured it out, and other 
authoritarians have figured it out. It is a tremendous 
challenge to be an open democratic country at a time when 
authoritarians are using our openness against us. And I do 
think the answer is to abandon our openness, but it is to be 
conscious that not everything that on the internet is true. Not 
every message that is out there is accurate, and to just be 
aware every single day that we are in the midst not of just an 
effort to interfere in elections.
    This is informational warfare is designed to divide a 
country and weaken it from the inside out. And even as we 
disagree, we should be aware that we are in the crosshairs of 
an effort to do that. And I just think that can never be said 
enough.
    Senator Shaheen.  I agree.
    Senator Cruz.  Did you say not everything on the internet 
is true?
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Rubio.  Some things are more true than others.
    The Chairman.  Senator Kaine?
    Senator Kaine.  Mr. Chair, just briefly, one of the things 
that I think that is important about this bill is the title, 
Defending American Security from Kremlin Aggression Act. It is 
not just about defending American security because our allies 
look at us, and they say if you will not defend yourselves, 
then you clearly cannot be counted on to defend us. If they see 
us taking vigorous action to defend ourselves, they will have 
more confidence that we will be there to be partners with them 
as well. So we send a strong message, not just about our self-
protection, but we send a message to allies that we are more 
likely to be there for them as well. I strongly support the 
bill.
    The Chairman.  Thank you, Senator Kaine. Further debate?
    Senator Coons.  Mr. Chairman, I will just briefly add that 
I am grateful for the folks that worked so hard to come to a 
measured and balanced outcome today. I strongly support the 
bill. I, too, think that in classified briefings, in open 
briefings about what Russia, China and nonstate actors are 
doing, we need to show a unified response, and we need to 
engage vigorously in this debate and work together in this 
committee to advance that.
    Senator Romney.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Senator Romney?
    Senator Romney.  I would also note that I strongly support 
the bill. I do not think it is perfect. I would love to see it 
improved in various ways as it moves to the floor. But to me, 
it is exacting as it can be on Russians with limited impact on 
our allies and ourselves and our businesses as possible. I 
would like it to be prospective in the sense that it deters 
Russia from taking further malevolent activity as opposed to 
simply punishing them for the many awful things done in the 
past. And I would like it to be clear as to what the offramps 
are, how they could remediate or remove sanctions in the event 
they correct certain behaviors.
    But all that said, at a time like this, I cannot imagine 
doing anything besides expressing as clearly as we possibly can 
that we are not happy with what Russia is doing here or with 
our allies around the world, and the malevolent activity on 
their part will be addressed by this Nation.
    The Chairman.  Thank you, sir. Further debate?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  There being no further debate, the 
question--has there been a motion?
    Senator Menendez.  I moved it.
    The Chairman.  Moved and seconded that we adopt Senate Bill 
482.
    The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Rubio.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Johnson?
    The Chairman.  No by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Gardner?
    Senator Gardner.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Romney?
    Senator Romney.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Graham?
    Senator Graham.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Isakson?
    The Chairman.  No by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Portman?
    The Chairman.  Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Paul?
    The Chairman.  No by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Young?
    Senator Young.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Cruz?
    Senator Cruz.  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 Coons.  Aye.
    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 Markey.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley.  Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Booker?
    Senator Menendez.  Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk.  The Chairman?
    The Chairman.  No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 17; the noes are 5.
    The Chairman.  The measure has been adopted.
    With that, that completes our work. Let us see. Hold it. I 
have a request from Senator Isakson to insert a statement in 
the record concerning his views on extending the New START 
Treaty. It will be entered in the record.
    [The information referred to above is located at the end of 
this transcript.]
    The Chairman.  This completes our--oh, Senator Cruz. I am 
sorry.
    Senator Cruz.  Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say quickly I 
want to echo the comments that Senator Romney and Senator Rubio 
made, which is that I have got real concerns with the bill that 
we just voted on, that it is overbroad and it potentially harms 
U.S. companies in a way that does not make sense. But there 
were many statements made around the table that that bill is 
going to continue to be worked on before it moves to the floor. 
And so taking those representations at face value, I was 
willing to vote yes to move it forward, but I think we need to 
improve the bill significantly before it actually is passed 
into law.
    The Chairman.  Fair enough, Senator. I think a lot of 
people share that view.
    I ask unanimous consent that staff be authorized to make 
technical and conforming changes.
    Without objection, it is so ordered.
    With that, the committee will stand adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 10:35 a.m., the meeting was adjourned.]

              Additional Material Submitted for the Record

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                                  [all]