[Senate Prints 116-61]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


            
116th Congress}                                         { S. Prt.

  2d Session  }        COMMITTEE PRINT   	        { 116-61  

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

                                 OF THE

                     COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

                          UNITED STATES SENATE


                               DURING THE

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             Second Session

                   January 3, 2020 to January 3, 2021

                                     
[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                    
45-167 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
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming               CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio                    TIM KAINE, Virginia
RAND PAUL, Kentucky                  EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
TODD YOUNG, Indiana                  JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
TED CRUZ, Texas                      CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
DAVID PERDUE, Georgia
              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, Second Session

Wednesday, January 15, 2020

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

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



Thursday, May 21, 2020

  Summary of Action Taken by the Committee.......................     9

  Meeting Transcript.............................................    11



Wednesday, July 29, 2020

  Summary of Action Taken by the Committee.......................    71

  Meeting Transcript.............................................    72



Tuesday, September 22, 2020

  Summary of Action Taken by the Committee.......................    85

  Meeting Transcript.............................................    86
  

 
                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                      WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 15, 2020

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

                Summary of Action Taken by the Committee

                              LEGISLATION

  H.R. 5430, United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement Implementation Act, 
        greed to by voice vote

                              NOMINATIONS

  The Honorable Todd C. Chapman, of Texas, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Federative Republic of Brazi, agreed to by voice 
        vote

  Mr. John Hennessey-Niland, of Illinois, 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 Palau, agreed to by voice vote

  Ms. Dorothy Shea, of North Carolina, a Career Member of the Senior 
        Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Lebanese Republic, agreed to by voice vote

  Dr. Donald Wright, of Virginia, a Career Member of the Senior 
        Executive Service, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and 
        Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the United 
        Republic of Tanzania, agreed to by voice vote

                           Meeting Transcript

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:42 a.m., in 
Room S-116, The Capitol, Hon. James Risch, chairman of the 
committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Risch [presiding], Johnson, Gardner, 
Romney, Graham, Barrasso, Portman, Young, Menendez, Cardin, 
Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, Kaine, and Merkley.

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

    The Chairman.  The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will 
come to order. Thank you for all coming, at least the 12 of you 
who did.
    We have on the agenda today one piece of legislation, and 
then we have four nominees that are hopefully non-controversial 
and are already Foreign Service Officers or close thereto. I am 
pleased today that we are taking up H.R. 5430, the U.S.-Mexico-
Canada Agreement Implementation Act. After months of discussion 
between members of Congress and the administration, this bill 
was finally implemented, the USMCA.
    This bill was referred to 7 committees in the Senate, and 
it is now time for our part to advance this important piece of 
legislation. Frankly, I do not know how this works. It is 
unamendable, and it is supposed to be a markup, but you cannot 
mark it up.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman.  So I guess we could hold it or not, but in 
any event, we are where we are.
    Free and fair trade is vital for every State in the 
country. Idaho's agricultural economy obviously is one of those 
that benefits from it. We have got a $2 billion food and ag 
export industry. Canada and Mexico account for about 50 percent 
of that. USMCA will provide our farmers and ranchers with a 
trade agreement that opens markets and will provide a much-
needed certainty. While opening new pathways for commodities, 
like dairy products, it also maintains important relationships 
and channels that many of our commodities have already built.
    Before I turn to Senator Menendez, I want to say just a 
word about the classified briefing we were supposed to have 
this morning. No one is more disappointed than I am that we 
cannot have it. We had an Intelligence Committee meeting 
yesterday. Senator Rubio and I sit on that and are conduits 
between this committee and that committee, and obviously I 
cannot go into detail there. But I am anxious to have it 
because I think after sitting through that, there are details 
that are important obviously that, it appears to me, have down-
graded from compartmented to merely top secret, which means you 
will have access to that top secret information. The 
compartmented stuff obviously stays such.
    But there are important factors there, and this whole 
incident was such that the oversight of this committee on that 
incident is important. The oversight of the Intelligence 
Committee is really important. Both obviously are important for 
our input into the construction and the execution of foreign 
policy. And so I am as anxious as you are to have all of you 
hear that, and I commit to you I will continue to press that, 
to get that.
    Senator Cardin.  Mr. Chairman, could I just ask you to 
yield for one moment on that point?
    The Chairman.  Senator Cardin? You may.
    Senator Cardin.  And Senator Kaine has been really a 
champion on this issue for our congressional responsibility. We 
miss Senator Flake and his role that he played in the last 
Congress. I am very disappointed that the briefing has been 
postponed because the urgency of this issue is now. We have a 
privileged resolution that will be on the floor shortly, and it 
would have been extremely helpful to have this discussion in a 
classified or a closed setting before that debate takes place. 
We are going to move forward. I hope Senator Kaine will move 
forward on his resolution as soon as he is able to do that. But 
I think it is disappointing that the committee of jurisdiction 
is not having the opportunity to hear directly from the 
individuals who have the--can answer some of our questions on 
authorization before we take a vote on that.
    You know, yesterday at our Democratic caucus, we heard from 
our historian, and the analogies between Vietnam and the use by 
President Johnson of force is so relevant to our discussions 
here. And it is just--this is the committee of jurisdiction. 
The Foreign Relations Committee was misled in the 1970s. I 
think it is important that we have those opportunities to talk 
to members of the administration. This is so fundamental, we 
are going to act whether we hear from them or not, and it would 
be better if we had that opportunity before the debate. And I 
am extremely disappointed that we are not moving forward.
    The Chairman.  I share your disappointment.
    Senator Young.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Yeah, Senator Young?
    Senator Young.  Could I be recognized just briefly?
    The Chairman.  Yeah, Senator Menendez has got the next----
    Senator Young.  Oh, I am sorry. I did not expect to say 
anything. You just mentioned top secret SCI, and this may be a 
question for the counsel. But, look, I mean, I was--I was a 
low-level Marine Corps officer, and I had a top secret 
compartmented information clearance for information that I 
needed to know about. And I understand the sensitivity of this 
information. But hypothetically, sometime at some point, our 
Article I powers will be broadly recognized by the executive 
and legislative branch in a particular scenario. At that point, 
would the Foreign Relations Committee have our intel status 
upgraded to SCI, because otherwise, we never have access to the 
goods that are necessary in order to make an informed decision 
about whether or not to declare war or to authorize force ever.
    The Chairman.  Mm-hmm. Just so you know, this is beyond my 
pay grade. I do not make the rules on this. These have--these 
have been around long before I have. We have access to top 
secret SCI information, which----
    Senator Young.  Well, and I am not--we need to change the 
law then if that is not the case. We need to change the law and 
make sure there is certitude that we will all have our 
clearances upgraded, top secret/SCI, so that we can make 
informed decisions.
    The Chairman.  And I think you have that. The problem is 
the compartmented information.
    Senator Young.  Right.
    The Chairman.  The compartmented information----
    Senator Young.  But you have access to it.
    The Chairman.  The Gang of Eight has access to it. The 
Intelligence Committee has access to it eventually. They do not 
get it at--it is a matter of timing between the Gang of Eight 
and the Intelligence Committee. But that is un-compartmented 
information, which is--which is--first of all, it is minimal 
stuff, except that it is very sensitive.
    Senator Young.  Sources and methods, very simple, yes.
    The Chairman.  Anyway, again, I don't--I am not going to 
debate it with you because I do not----
    Senator Young.  Oh, I am not debating it. It is a question 
for the counsel. Evidently, we do not know in this room.
    The Chairman.  All right. It is Senator Menendez's turn.

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

    Senator Menendez.  Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of 
all, on this point, let me just say that I join Senator Cardin 
in saying we are deeply disappointed, as I expressed to you 
when you called me. I appreciate the courtesy of getting the 
heads up. But we are deeply disappointed that this briefing is 
not taking place because sometimes the question of urgency and 
timeliness is critical. It is not just a question of 
information, but also information in a timely fashion.
    Not only do we have Senator Kaine's pending resolution on 
the floor, which I think is incredibly important, but we have 
unfolding events as it relates to Iran. And the one committee 
in the entire U.S. Senate that has jurisdiction over the 
authorization of the use of military force is the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee. And I have been both the chairman 
when we passed an AUMF, and I have opposed others at different 
times. So with regards to the timing, I would just urge the 
chair, and he told me that he was going to argue for it to be 
done as quickly as possible. I would just urge the chair that 
we get the briefing as soon as possible, number one.
    The Chairman.  Yes.
    Senator Menendez.  Number two is I share the concerns that 
Senator Young and others have said. This is a longstanding 
issue. I have been an advocate of upgrading the access for 
members across the board, at least when there are issues of war 
and peace that are pending, the potential threats, because the 
most important vote that any member of Congress will ever make, 
which is about war and peace and life and death, be fully 
informed. And it is a problem.
    It is a problem that the ranking members of this committee, 
unlike Armed Services, does not have a role on the Intelligence 
Committee, which Armed Services does. So my dear friend and 
colleague, Jack Reed, gets to sit ex officio on Intelligence.
    The Chairman.  Yes.
    Senator Menendez.  But we who have to cast votes on AUMFs 
do not, and that does not matter who it is at any given time. 
If the roles changed, I would make the same argument. So I hope 
we can speak to our respective leaderships. I have spoken to 
mine and made the case very strongly that we need to upgrade 
members' intelligence access, particularly--even if it is not 
all the time, but when there are moments of national urgency. 
And secondly, I think the ranking member, whoever it is at any 
given time, should be on this committee.
    The chairman happens to be there only because he happens to 
be a member of the Intelligence Committee, but not because he 
is ex officio as a result of this committee. I would argue that 
the chair and ranking member need to be ex officio so that, 
therefore, at least we could have access to it on behalf of 
each side. And then to the extent that we could synthesize 
appropriately for members if they cannot get access, that would 
be helpful. So I would just urge that we have the meeting as 
soon as possible.
    Let me just go to the agenda for a moment. I support all 
the items on the agenda. I offered significant remarks in the 
Finance Committee on the trade bill. I just want to abbreviate 
them very briefly, and then I look forward to casting votes.
    When I was back in the House of Representatives, I took a 
strong stand against NAFTA because it lacked robust enforceable 
rules to protect workers and ensure that American families 
actually benefit from trade. And for most of the last year, I 
thought that USMCA would repeat those mistakes. But thanks to 
the work of congressional Democrats, USMCA includes upgraded 
rules to protect workers across the continent.
    The Brown-Wyden labor enforcement framework provides, for 
the first time in any trade agreement, a mechanism to quickly 
address labor violations at specific factories where workers' 
rights are infringed. Because of these improvements, I will 
support the agreement. However, I am disappointed that USMCA 
lacks strong intellectual property protections that promote 
innovative jobs in New Jersey and across the country. Future 
trade agreements must do more to protect American innovation.
    I also know that this bill gives the administration 
significant new authority with little oversight or direction 
from Congress. That is why I plan to introduce a bill in the 
coming weeks to establish an inspector general for the U.S. 
Trade Representative. Nearly every other Cabinet-level agency 
has a statutory inspector general to increase transparency, 
make government more accountable, and crack down on waste, 
fraud, and abuse. It is time USTR had one as well.
    Let me recognize three key elements of H.R. 5430 relevant 
to this committee. First, the bill includes the appointment of 
five new labor attaches to our embassy and consulates in 
Mexico. These attaches will help the U.S. monitor Mexico's 
compliance with USMCA's labor obligations. The bill also 
includes the creation of a new U.S. labor board comprised of 
independent experts that will monitor labor conditions in 
Mexico, and a new forced labor task force that will strengthen 
U.S. cooperation with Mexico to address the continued 
challenges posed by human trafficking, an issue that our 
committee has prioritized in recent years.
    And finally, this act includes a $1.5 billion general 
capital increase for the North America Development Bank. As we 
all know, the NAD Bank is a unique development agency that 
supports infrastructure and environmental progress along the 
U.S.-Mexico border. I am pleased to see this capital increase 
was included.
    With reference to the nominees, I support all 4 
ambassadorial nominees on the agenda--three are experienced 
career Foreign Service officers--as well as Dr. Donald Wright, 
a physician and member of the Senior Executive Service at the 
Department of Health and Human Services. And with that, I ask 
that my entire statement be included in the record.
    The Chairman.  It will be.
    [The information referred to follows:]


             Prepared Statement of Senator Robert Menendez

    Mr. Chairman, I support all of the items on the agenda. In 
particular, I am pleased that we are marking up H.R.5430, the United 
States-Mexico-Canada Agreement Implementation Act. Given that free 
trade deals like USMCA are, in fact, international agreements and 
several of the provisions of USMCA and the implementation act impact 
our jurisdiction, it is important that our committee has an opportunity 
to consider this bill.
    I have already offered remarks in the Finance Committee and I will 
not repeat them in their entirety, but I would just note the following:
    Back when I served in the House of Representatives, I took a strong 
stand against NAFTA because it lacked robust, enforceable rules to 
protect workers and ensure that American families actually benefit from 
trade.
    And for most of last year it seemed that USMCA would repeat these 
same mistakes. But now, thanks to the work of Congressional Democrats, 
USMCA includes upgraded rules to protect workers across the continent. 
The Brown-Wyden labor enforcement framework provides--for the first 
time in any trade agreement--a mechanism to quickly address labor 
violations at specific factories where workers' rights are infringed. 
Because of these improvements, I am supporting this agreement.
    However, I am disappointed that USMCA lacks strong intellectual 
property protections that promote innovative jobs in New Jersey and 
across the country. Future trade agreements must do more to promote 
American innovation.
    I also note that this bill gives the administration significant new 
authority with little oversight or direction from Congress. That's why 
I plan to introduce a bill in the coming weeks to establish an 
inspector general for the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). Nearly 
every other cabinet-level agency has a statutory inspector general to 
increase transparency, make government more accountable, and crack down 
on waste, fraud, and abuse. It's time USTR had one as well.
    I now want to recognize three key elements of H.R. 5430 relevant to 
this committee. First, the bill includes the appointment of 5 new labor 
attaches to our Embassy and Consulates in Mexico. These attaches will 
help the U.S. monitor Mexico's compliance with USMCA's labor 
obligations.
    The bill also includes the creation of a new U.S Labor Board 
comprised of independent experts that will monitor labor conditions in 
Mexico and a new Forced Labor Task Force that will strengthen U.S. 
cooperation with Mexico to address the continued challenges posed by 
human trafficking--an issue that our committee has prioritized in 
recent years.
    Additionally, this act includes a $1.5 billion general capital 
increase for the North American Development Bank. As we all know, the 
NAD Bank is a unique development agency that supports infrastructure 
and environmental projects along the U.S.-Mexico border. I'm pleased to 
see this capital increase was included.
    Finally, though trade negotiations always require the United States 
to be aggressive and unwavering in the defense of our national 
interests and the interests of our citizens, we should not normalize 
the manner in which the USMCA negotiations occurred. Labeling our 
neighbors as national security threats, insulting their leaders, and 
imposing tariffs against our closest economic partners is neither 
normal nor acceptable.
    This agreement comes in spite of such grandstanding, not because of 
it. The manner in which the administration carried out these 
negotiations injured our standing in Canada and Mexico, and it will 
take years to repair the damage.


    With that, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again for 
exercising our committee's leadership on this legislation.
    There are, in addition, four ambassadorial nominees on the 
agenda today--three experienced career Foreign Service 
Officers, as well as Dr. Donald Wright, a physician and a 
member of the Senior Executive Service at the Department of 
Health and Human Services. I support advancing all four 
nominations, and hope that this year we can expect more 
nominees of this caliber.
    The Chairman.  Thank you very much. And with that, Senator 
Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen.  I would like----
    The Chairman.  We have got other committees meeting at 
10:00, so I do not, you know----
    Senator Shaheen.  Right. I will be very brief. I just want 
to be clear. I want to go back to the briefing conversation 
because I did not initially understand that what you were 
saying is that the briefing was canceled because there was 
information that----
    The Chairman.  No.
    Senator Shaheen [continuing]. People did not want us to 
have access to?
    The Chairman.  No, that has nothing to do with it.
    Senator Shaheen.  Okay.
    The Chairman.  It was just strictly a scheduling problem--
--
    Senator Shaheen.  Okay.
    The Chairman  [continuing]. Which was a legitimate 
assertion. Okay. With that, I will--let us take up the four 
foreign nominees first before we lose anybody. I would--the 
four foreign nominees have been identified by the ranking 
member. Is there a motion to----
    Senator Kaine.  Motion to consider en bloc.
    The Chairman.  It has been moved to be considered en bloc 
and passed.
    Senator Menendez.  Second.
    The Chairman.  It has been moved and seconded.
    All those that--any debate?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  There being none, all those in favor, 
signify by saying aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed, nay.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it.
    With that, we will move to the piece of legislation that we 
have, H.R. 5430. I would entertain a motion to adopt.
    Senator Menendez.  So moved.
    The Chairman.  Is there a second?
    Voice. Second.
    The Chairman.  It has been moved and seconded that we 
adopt. Is there debate?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  Hearing none, it is so ordered.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed, nay.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it, and it has been adopted.
    I would ask unanimous consent staff be authorized to make 
technical and conforming changes.
    Without objection, it is so ordered.
    With that, the meeting----
    Senator Coons.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  I am sorry.
    Senator Coons.  I just briefly want to say thank you for 
holding this. I hope we will continue to meet and move 
legislation in the comings weeks.
    The Chairman.  We have got a little thing that is going to 
distract for a bit.
    Senator Coons.  I know.
    The Chairman.  But I am going to do my best to do what we 
can.
    The committee is adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 9:56 a.m., the meeting was adjourned.]


                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                         THURSDAY, MAY 21, 2020

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

                Summary of Action Taken by the Committee

                              NOMINATIONS

  Mr. Michael Pack, of Maryland, to be Chief Executive Officer of the 
        Broadcasting Board of Governors for the term of three years, 
        agreed to by roll call vote 12-10

          Ayes: Risch, Rubio, Johnson, Gardner, Romney, Graham, 
        Barrasso, Portman, Paul, Young, Cruz, Purdue

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

Pack Motions Made in Open Session
     Motion to establish order of business for the meeting as follows: 
        S. 3667, the Consular and Administrative Authorities Act, and 
        the COVID amendments filed for that bill, other important 
        national security and foreign policy legislative items on the 
        agenda, and to postpone consideration of the nomination of 
        Michael Pack, not agreed to by roll call vote 10-12

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

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

     Cardin motion to go into closed session, agreed to by voice vote

     Coons motion to postpone the vote on Michael Pack until Pack 
        corrects errors on the documents he provided the committee, not 
        agreed to by roll call vote 10-12

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

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

     Menendez motion to postpone the vote on Pack until Pack corrects 
        his tax filings and provides evidence to the committee he has 
        done so, not agreed to by roll call vote 10-12

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

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

     Kaine motion to postpone the vote on Pack until he and the 
        committee meet in a closed hearing, not agreed to by voice vote

     Murphy motion to postpone the vote on Pack until the committee 
        holds a new hearing on his nomination, not agreed to by voice 
        vote

     Menendez motion to postpone the vote on Pack until the DC AG 
        completes its investigation on Pack, not agreed to by roll call 
        vote 10-12

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

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

     Merkley motion to postpone the vote on Pack until the committee 
        receives a determination whether he is subject to other 
        investigations, not agreed to by roll call vote 10-12

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

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

     Menendez motion to postpone the vote on Pack until Pack provides 
        the committee information about a contract between Claremont 
        Institute and Pack's film company, not agreed to by roll call 
        vote 10-12

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

          Nays: Risch, Rubio, Johnson, Gardner, Romney, Graham, 
        Barrasso, Portman, Paul, Young, Cruz, Purdue

     Booker motion to express the sense of the committee that if there 
        are known factual errors submitted by a nominee, the nominee 
        should correct the record, ruled out of order

                              LEGISLATION:

  S. 3667, Consular and Administrative Support Act of 2020, not voted 
        on

  S. 238, Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism Act, with 
        an amendment, agreed to en bloc to by voice vote

     Substitute amendment, agreed to en bloc to by voice vote

  S. 712, Robert Levinson Hostage Recovery and Hostage Taking 
        Accountability Act, with amendments, agreed to en bloc to by 
        voice vote

     Title amendment, agreed to en bloc to by voice vote


     Revised substitute amendment, agreed to en bloc to by voice vote

  S. 2743, A bill to establish the China Censorship Monitor and Action 
        Group, and for other purposes, with an amendment, not voted on

  S. 2953, Ensuring a Durable Afghanistan Peace Act of 2019, with 
        amendments, not voted on

  S. 3176, United States-Israel Security Assistance Authorization Act 
        of 2020, with an amendment, agreed to en bloc to by voice vote

     Manager's amendment, agreed to en bloc to by voice vote

  H.R. 192, Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Partnership Act, with an 
        amendment, agreed to en bloc to by voice vote

     Substitute amendment, agreed to en bloc to by voice vote

  H.R. 4331, Tibetan Policy and Support Act of 2019, with an amendment, 
        not voted on

  S. Res. 567, Commending career professionals at the Department of 
        State for their extensive efforts to repatriate United States 
        Citizens and legal permanent residents during the COVID-19 
        pandemic, agreed to en bloc to by voice vote

  S. Res. 148, A resolution supporting efforts by the Government of 
        Colombia to pursue peace and regional stability, with 
        amendments, agreed to en bloc to by voice vote

     Preamble amendment, agreed to en bloc to by voice vote

     Resolving clause amendment, agreed to en bloc to by voice vote

  S. Res. 215, A resolution calling for greater religious and political 
        freedoms in Cuba, and for other purposes, with amendments, not 
        voted on

  S. Res. 392, A resolution recognizing the importance of the Young 
        Southeast Asian Leadership Initiative to the relationship 
        between the United States and the member states of the 
        Association of Southeast Asian Nations and to advancing the 
        policy of the United States in the Indo-Pacific region, with 
        amendments, agreed to en bloc to by voice vote

     Preamble amendment, agreed to en bloc to by voice vote

     Resolving clause amendment, agreed to en bloc to by voice vote

  S. Res. 406, A resolution recognizing that for 50 years, the 
        Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and its ten 
        members, Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, 
        the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam, have worked 
        with the United States toward stability, prosperity, and peace 
        in Southeast Asia, and expressing the sense of the Senate that 
        the United States will continue to remain a strong, reliable, 
        and active partner in the ASEAN region, with amendments, agreed 
        to en bloc to by voice vote (Merkley to be added as a 
        cosponsor)

     Preamble amendment, agreed to en bloc to by voice vote

     Resolving clause amendment, agreed to en bloc to by voice vote

  S. Res. 454, A resolution calling for the immediate release of Cuban 
        democracy activist Jose Daniel Ferrer and commending the 
        efforts of Jose Daniel Ferrer to promote human rights and 
        fundamental freedoms in Cuba, with amendments, agreed to en 
        bloc to by voice vote

     Preamble amendment, agreed to en bloc to by voice vote

     Resolving clause amendment, agreed to en bloc to by voice vote

  S. Res. 502, A resolution recognizing the 75th anniversary of the 
        amphibious landing on the Japanese island of Iwo Jima during 
        World War II and the raisings of the flag of the United States 
        on Mount Suribachi, agreed to en bloc to by voice vote

  S. Res. 511, A resolution supporting the role of the United States in 
        helping save the lives of children and protecting the health of 
        people in developing countries with vaccines and immunization 
        through GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance, with amendments, agreed to 
        en bloc to by voice vote (Merkley to be added as a cosponsor)

     Preamble amendment, agreed to en bloc to by voice vote

     Resolving clause amendment, agreed to en bloc to by voice vote

  S. Res. 523, A resolution recognizing the 199th anniversary of the 
        independence of Greece and celebrating democracy in Greece and 
        the United States, agreed to en bloc to by voice vote

  S. Res. 525, A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the 
        United States should continue to support the people of 
        Nicaragua in their peaceful efforts to promote the restoration 
        of democracy and the defense of human rights, and use the tools 
        under United States law to increase political and economic 
        pressure on the Government of Daniel Ortega, with amendments, 
        agreed to en bloc to by voice vote

     Cardin 1st degree amendment #1, agreed to en bloc to by voice 
        vote

     Cardin 1st degree amendment #2, agreed to en bloc to by voice 
        vote

  S. Res. 533, A resolution supporting the goals of International 
        Women's Day, with amendments, agreed to en bloc to by voice 
        vote (Merkley to be added as a cosponsor)

     Preamble amendment, agreed to en bloc to by voice vote

     Resolving clause amendment, agreed to en bloc to by voice vote

  S. Res. 542, A resolution commemorating the 75th anniversary of the 
        liberation of the Dachau concentration camp during World War 
        II, with amendments, agreed to en bloc to by voice vote

     Revised preamble amendment, agreed to en bloc to by voice vote

     Resolving clause amendment, agreed to en bloc to by voice vote

                           Meeting Transcript

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:33 a.m., in 
Room R-325, Kennedy Caucus Room, The Capitol, Hon. James E. 
Risch, chairman of the committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Risch [presiding], Rubio, Johnson, 
Gardner, Romney, Barrasso, Portman, Paul, Young, Cruz, Perdue, 
Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, Kaine, Merkley, and 
Booker.

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

    The Chairman. Senate Foreign Relations Committee will come 
to order.
    Good morning, everyone. We have some business to conduct 
today pursuant to notice, and I will note for the record that I 
have received a number of pieces of correspondence from the 
minority members of the committee and I want to address a few 
things there before we move forward.
    First of all, some members have raised the question of the 
health of the committee. But I would tell you that your 
chairman is as concerned as anyone with the COVID situation.
    As a result of that, we consulted very, very, very closely 
with the Attending Physician's Office. As we all know, the 
Attending Physician's Office has cleared a handful of rooms for 
us to meet in. This is one of them.
    I have seen a number of you in other committee meetings in 
similar situations. I want to commend the attending physician 
for the work that he has done and we are following scrupulously 
the attending physician's recommendations.
    Secondly, a question was raised about the notice of this 
meeting. I have reviewed carefully Rule 3(d) as I did prior to 
noticing the meeting.
    Under Rule 3(d) there is a ruling of the chair that the 
meeting has been properly noticed. Some of you have asked that 
there be a video--not some of you. All of the Democrats have 
asked that there be a video link to this meeting.
    Ordinarily, we would be holding this business meeting in 
Room 116. As we all know, Room 116 is not connected to video 
but--nor is it connected to audio, to streaming.
    But in the spirit of compromise, I have authorized this 
meeting to be audio streamed.
    Next, you have raised the fact that on the eve of the last 
meeting before I postponed it we received a letter from the 
attorney general of the District of Columbia claiming an 
investigation regarding Mr. Pack's nomination or Mr. Pack's 
company.
    Having had significant experience with this on the Ethics 
Committee where the Justice Department has asked us to stand 
down, I am going to do the same thing that we have done in the 
Ethics Committee, and that is if the United States attorney 
general and Department of Justice ask us to stand down we will 
do so.
    That has not happened here. The attorney general of the 
District of Columbia will be given access to the public 
documents that are there.
    As far as documents that are not public, I will confer with 
the--with counsel and make a ruling as far as those documents 
are concerned.
    I note that this is a particularly partisan matter. We are 
going to consider the nomination of Michael Pack, which has 
been pending for just shy of two years, and the chairman 
believes it is time to move forward on this.
    The hallmarks of this committee have always been civility, 
kindness, understanding, and tolerance. We would ask us to 
double down on that hallmark as we go forward with this.
    With that, the matter before the committee is the 
nomination of Michael Pack.
    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Please do not interrupt right now, sir.
    Senator Menendez. Well, Mr. Chairman, I have always----
    The Chairman. Senator, I am not going to----
    Senator Menendez [continuing]. I have always seen the 
ranking member be able to give an opening statement at any----
    The Chairman [continuing]. I am going to call on you in 
just a moment, Senator.
    Senator Menendez [continuing]. Oh, okay.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Right now I am going to entertain a motion to----
    Senator Barrasso. So moved.
    The Chairman [continuing]. Send Mr. Pack out to be 
confirmed. It has been moved by Senator Barrasso.
    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Chairman?
    The statement of a ranking member comes before any action 
of the committee. This is unprecedented. I have never, ever, 
when I was chairman or any other previous chairman, Democrat or 
Republican, silenced a ranking member before the committee's 
action.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
    Is there a second to Senator Barrasso's motion?
    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, I must object strenuously.
    The Chairman. Motion has been--the motion has been made and 
seconded.
    Senator Menendez. What one sows, one sees----
    The Chairman. Senator Menendez, you have the floor.

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

    Senator Menendez. Amazing.
    I have two preliminary matters that I want to address.
    As an initial matter, I ask for unanimous consent to enter 
into the record of this meeting a number of items related to 
the nomination of Michael Pack.
    These materials include letters from all of the Democratic 
members of the committee to you, Mr. Chairman, letters to 
former White House Acting Chief of Staff Mulvaney, and current 
Chief of Staff Meadows concerning Mr. Pack, letters between Mr. 
Pack and myself, my QFRs to Pack and his responses, and other 
items.
    I have a hard copy of each item with me. But in light of 
the current precaution to the COVID-19, I would be pleased to 
submit these documents electronically to the chief.
    So I ask unanimous consent that they be included.
    The Chairman. It will be included.


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


    Senator Menendez. Secondly, I am deeply troubled by the 
fact, and our discussions with the parliamentarian the Rules 
Committee indicate a totally different set of circumstances, 
that this business meeting is available to the American people 
and the rest of the world only through audio.
    Every other committee that I have been on and that I have 
observed is conducting its hearings and/or its meetings with 
video as well as audio stream.
    If you are deaf an audio stream does nothing for you, at 
the end of the day. Violates the Americans with Disabilities 
Act. Violates the rules, from my perspective.
    I am even more troubled by the fact that you have blocked a 
video live stream despite multiple requests for video, 
including all 10 members of the minority.
    For a committee that promotes transparency, good 
governance, the rule of law around the world, open societies, 
it is ironic. It is ironic that you, as chairman, are 
preventing the public from viewing this meeting.
    So, certainly, it is unprecedented.
    Now, Mr. Chairman, we are facing an unprecedented crisis. 
We are in the midst of a global pandemic which has taken more 
than 80,000 American lives, threatens to take tens of thousands 
more.
    Across the world, millions of people may die. The 
international community is banding together to find solutions 
to this deadly virus.
    It is in times like these that senators from both parties 
have put their political differences aside to come together to 
pursue our best interests to help give our government the tools 
it needs to best serve Americans and present a United Front to 
the world, and this committee has played a central role in 
these moments.
    In this moment we should be utilizing all of our collective 
resources to marshal a strong and effective response on behalf 
of the American people.
    We should be holding hearings on how to craft a bipartisan 
response that will save lives and help restart the economy in 
this country and around the world.
    We should be working together to craft bipartisan 
legislation that will ensure that the United States Government 
is appropriately organized and sufficiently funded to impact 
the global response to COVID.
    But that is not what we are doing. This committee had not 
held any COVID-related hearings and despite my repeated 
requests there has been no meaningful committee consideration 
of COVID legislation.
    Committee Democrats have put forward a strong and 
comprehensive vision. We had hoped to work with you on the 
COVID-19 International Response and Recovery Act.
    Since that was not possible, we introduced the bill three 
weeks ago and urged you multiple times, Mr. Chairman, to 
include it in this markup.
    Beyond not even allowing it on the agenda, we understand 
that you may not even be willing to allow a COVID-related 
debate and amendment process at today's meeting.
    Mr. Chairman, it is, simply, not right. The only way the 
committee can meet the challenge of COVID is if you lead in a 
bipartisan way, and we are eager for you to do so.
    To the extent we were in normal circumstances, the 
legislative agenda would be a good one. These are solid 
bipartisan bills and I have been asking for many of them to be 
taken up for over a year.
    I would also urge you to take up Senator Young and Van 
Hollen's New START legislation. Senator Young, as we recall, 
agreed to withdraw his bill as an amendment to another piece of 
legislation at the last business meeting six months ago after 
you committed to marking it up at a future business meeting, 
and I hope that you will honor that commitment.
    Similarly, Senator Cardin has been seeking a markup of his 
bipartisan legislation. I want to work with you and him to make 
that happen at the next business meeting, and I know that there 
are many others on this committee with priorities who wish to 
see a more active legislative agenda.
    Now, I understand that it is your intention to pass most of 
these items on today's agenda en bloc and that you may not 
consider any other piece of legislation that have amendments.
    To me, that is simply unacceptable. To sit idle for six 
months and then, effectively, tell members of this committee 
they cannot offer amendments to legislation, that is not an 
approach that we can abide by.
    Finally, Mr. Chairman, in this moment where we should be 
coming together to fight COVID, we are, unfortunately, being 
driven apart by your handling of the Michael Pack nomination.
    Under both Republicans and Democrats this committee 
operated under the principle of comity. That means we did 
things together. We found common ground and we resolved 
problems through bipartisanship.
    This does mean we--does not mean that we voted the same way 
on everything. But the chairman respected the role and rights 
of the minority party.
    This is the third time that you have broken comity in this 
Congress. The first two times we urged you step back from the 
brink and we tried to reach an accommodation that kept the 
spirit of comity alive even if only on life support.
    When I was the chairman of this committee, at the request 
of then Ranking Member Corker, I did not move my own State 
Department authorization bill.
    At the request of the ranking member and despite pressure 
from a Democratic White House, I did move nominees who I 
believed were qualified and who I strongly supported.
    I respected the committee and upheld comity, and I 
respected the Senate as an independent and coequal branch of 
government. And I was not alone.
    On a bipartisan basis, Democrats and Republicans alike 
carried on the best traditions of this committee. Corker, 
Kerry, Biden, Lugar, and so on, they all respected comity and 
they did it because it was right.
    They did it because it was effective and they did it 
because when we worked together American foreign policy is 
stronger.
    But now, Mr. Chairman, you are ending that bipartisan 
legacy. You did nothing to defend historical bipartisan 
committee or Senate prerogatives when Michael Pack broke his 
commitment to me and refused to engage in good faith on serious 
vetting issues.
    You failed to even respond to the concerns of the entire 
Democratic membership of the committee when all 10 of us 
objected to noticing Pack and asked for a second hearing or a 
closed discussion.
    And now you have put him up for a vote a second time with 
only two days notice despite the continued objection of all 
Democratic members and some shocking new developments in the 
Pack saga.
    At your request, Mr. Chairman, I met with Michael Pack last 
year. He may not have been my chosen nominee, but in the 
interests of ensuring leadership at critical agencies last fall 
I cleared him to advance in the nominations process.
    However, on the eve of his hearings last year new 
problematic information came to light concerning his taxes and 
other serious background issues.
    In the spirit of cooperation, I felt it would be unfair to 
raise such issues publicly until he had an opportunity to 
address them privately.
    So at his hearing I asked for his commitment to providing 
prompt and complete responses on those issues. At the time, he 
promised to do so. But in the end, he never engaged with the 
committee in good faith.
    His responses to my questions were perfunctory and self-
serving. He refused to provide any of the requested 
documentation that could have verified those responses if they 
were actually truthful.
    So what do we know about Mr. Pack? Let us start with the 
issues that my staff and I have been raising with you, with Mr. 
Pack, and the White House for the last eight months.
    We know that for years he misrepresented the relationship 
between his nonprofit organization and his for profit company 
to the IRS.
    His film company received millions in grants from his 
nonprofit. Yet, he repeatedly told the IRS that there was no 
relationship between them when in fact he ran them both.
    Mr. Pack admitted that he gave false information to the 
IRS. But he has refused to correct his past filings. Even after 
acknowledging this he still wrote in his questionnaire to this 
committee that his tax returns are complete and accurate when 
he knew that was not the case. In other words, he lied to the 
committee.
    Mr. Pack has also refused to provide basic information that 
would shed light on whether the transactions between the 
nonprofit and his business were above board, claiming that they 
were too sensitive for members of this committee to see.
    Really? These agreements between two sides of Mr. Pack's 
business interests are so sensitive that the United States 
senators cleared to review the most sensitive classified 
information cannot see them?
    Colleagues, I am at a loss here. These are some of the most 
basic questions that we ask of all nominees and the minimum 
standard we use to ask them to meet.
    Provide accurate information to the IRS. Provide accurate 
information to the committee. Do not lie. Is there a reason 
that Mr. Pack does not need to meet the basic standards of 
everyone--every other nominee before this committee?
    I know there was a time that my colleagues used to care 
about tax issues. I have seen--I have been here long enough to 
see many nominees, very qualified individuals, be disqualified 
by virtue of tax issues, including the former majority leader 
of the United States Senate.
    But we seem to not care about these tax issues at all. And 
I am not just speaking about the tax issue. There are a range 
of other serious background problems that implicate Mr. Pack's 
fitness to serve. But I fear that you and the White House have 
looked the other way.
    So that brings us up to May 7th when you first noticed Mr. 
Pack for a committee vote over our strenuous objection. So it 
was a notice that broke comity. We did not agree.
    But it is not the end of this adventure. You scheduled the 
original vote on May 14th. Had we taken that vote, and we came 
within hours of doing so, it would have likely been before 
members of this committee knew that Mr. Pack is under 
investigation by the attorney general for the District of 
Columbia for the very same allegations of self-dealing and 
self-enrichment that I have been highlighting for you since 
last year.
    Just think about that. You almost had the members of the 
committee voting on a nominee only to learn hours later that he 
is under investigation and subject to subpoena issued by the 
lead law enforcement agency in the very jurisdiction in which 
the Senate sits.
    And not only is the D.C. attorney general's office 
investigating Mr. Pack, it has reached out to ask us for the 
committee's assistance.
    I have made it absolutely clear, publicly and in 
communications with you and the Senate legal counsel, that we 
need to cooperate with this request, this committee and the 
Senate as a whole.
    We owe it to the American people to be transparent and 
promote the rule of law.
    So I was stunned and saddened to see that before the Senate 
legal counsel even had an opportunity to respond to provide us 
guidance and before we had an opportunity to jointly engage the 
D.C. attorney general and learn more about the investigation, 
you rescheduled the vote on Pack and you did so with only two 
days notice.
    So I have to ask what could possibly be so urgent about Mr. 
Pack that this single nomination that we are so desperate to 
move him forward.
    You have stated that your standard for nominees with 
serious vetting problems, nominees that would have previously 
never been submitted to the Senate or received a committee 
vote, is to gather all of the information and then get it to 
the public and let the chips fall where they may.
    But we have not even lived up to your own standard. We 
simply do not have all the information on Pack.
    So I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle why are 
we doing this. Why are we voting on a nominee who has not been 
honest with the committee? Why are we voting on a nominee who 
has not been honest with the United States Government?
    Why are we voting on a nominee who is the subject of an 
investigation for unlawful self-enrichment? Is this really the 
person you want running a U.S. Government agency with a budget 
of almost a billion dollars?
    And what does this say to the American people? How can they 
trust this committee and what should they have faith in that 
Mr. Pack will not use taxpayer dollars for his own benefit?
    At this point, let me raise one conspiracy theory circling 
around the internet, a conspiracy theory that, sadly, may very 
well be repeated at this meeting.
    It goes something like this. The chairman had no choice but 
to schedule a vote on Mr. Pack because the pending 
investigation is, ``politically motivated,'' as evidenced by a 
letter from me to the D.C. attorney general, and that the D.C. 
attorney general is only investigating Mr. Pack because I asked 
him to do so.
    So, colleagues, please, I did write to the attorney 
general. I did so eight months after Mr. Pack's suspect 
business practices were exposed. Not by me but by the so-called 
mainstream media CNBC. Hardly a liberal bastion.
    I did so eight months after Mr. Pack committed publicly to 
answer my questions about these allegations and then promptly 
refused to do so.
    I did so eight months after repeatedly asking you and the 
White House to address these allegations. Absolutely I wrote a 
letter to the D.C. attorney general, the lead law enforcement 
official in the very jurisdiction in which the Senate sits.
    In that letter, I explained my concerns over what I had 
been trying to get to the bottom of. Not because of politics 
but because the chairman and the ranking member of this 
committee have a duty to ensure nominees are fit for office, 
not to rubber stamp them regardless of whatever baggage they 
bring to the table.
    And I got a response from Mr. Racine. Let me quote from it:


          Based on public reporting and publicly available 
        materials, my office was already aware of issues 
        similar to those discussed in your letter and we share 
        your concerns. We currently have an open investigation 
        into these concerns under our Nonprofit Corporations 
        Act authority.


    So the D.C. attorney general was already conducting their 
investigation, already aware of Mr. Pack's legal problems 
before receiving my letter, and he already had an open 
investigation into Mr. Pack prior to my letter.
    So, Mr. Chairman, that is what I did and I am happy to 
answer any questions about it. But now let us ask what did you 
do.
    I think the committee would benefit from a better 
understanding of what specific steps you took to address this 
issue of Mr. Pack's other unresolved background problems.
    What steps did you take to require Mr. Pack to correct his 
false statements to the committee? What steps did you require 
Mr. Pack to correct his false statements to the IRS and provide 
the U.S. Government with legally required disclosures?
    What steps did you take to ensure that we were not moving 
forward with a nominee who has violated the law?
    We have a constitutional duty. If advise and consent means 
anything, at a minimum, at rock bottom it means ensuring that 
people we confirm are suitable for that public service and if 
they are not we do not move forward.
    So before concluding, I must note that the fact that this 
committee is about to vote on a nominee under investigation is 
not the only highly disturbing development of the week.
    As we have seen, Secretary Pompeo has taken the drastic and 
likely self-interested step of causing the firing of the State 
Department inspector general.
    This committee needs to be addressing that matter on an 
urgent basis.
    So, Mr. Chairman, to get this business meeting moving in a 
bipartisan direction and to ensure that the meeting does not 
end before we take up the business of the American people, I 
think we need an order of business for this meeting that 
reflects the priorities of the American people.
    Accordingly, I move that we establish an order of business 
for this meeting as follows, that the committee, first, take up 
and vote S. 3667, the Consular and Administrative Authorities 
Act, and the COVID amendments filed for that bill, that we turn 
to the other important national security and foreign policy 
legislative items in the agenda, and that the consideration of 
the nomination of Michael Pack be postponed.
    I so move it.
    The Chairman. Is there a second?
    Senator Coons. Second.
    The Chairman. It has been moved and seconded that the 
ranking member order the meeting according to his wishes. I 
will be opposing the motion. The clerk will call the roll, 
please.
    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?
    The Chairman. No, by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Graham?
    Senator Graham. No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso. No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Portman?
    Senator Portman. No.
    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. Perdue?
    Senator Perdue. No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Menendez?
    Senator Menendez. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Ms. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Udall?
    Senator Menendez. Aye, by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Markey?
    Senator Menendez. Aye, by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Booker?
    Senator Booker. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 10 and the nays are 
12.
    The Chairman. Motion has failed.
    Is there further debate?
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Yes, Senator Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I am going to move in one moment that we go into a closed 
session. Let me give my reasons first.
    Mr. Pack is a Maryland resident. I think the issues that 
have been raised by Senator Menendez we need to have a 
discussion among ourselves.
    This committee works in a historic bipartisan manner. I 
think it would be extremely healthy for us to have a private 
discussion before we act on this nominee as it relates to this 
nominee and the process that is being used that has the 
Democrats really so upset.
    I think for the sake of this nominee and for the sake of 
the comity of this committee it would be useful for us to have 
that discussion.
    And, therefore, Mr. Chairman, I move that pursuant to our 
House rules we go into a closed session.
    The Chairman. Would you accept a unanimous consent request 
to do that, Senator Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Sure.
    The Chairman. Senator has asked unanimous consent that we 
go into a closed session.
    Is there objection?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Hearing none, it is to be so ordered. The 
media will be escorted, respectfully, from the room. The audio 
feed will be turned off. We will proceed into a closed session.


 [Members Begin Closed Session discussion on the nomination of Michael 
        Pack to Be CEO of the Broadcasting Board of Governors.]


                [Committee reconvened in Open Session.]



    The Chairman. We have been rejoined electronically. We have 
completed our closed session.
    And, Senator Coons, you have a motion to make, as I 
understand. Is that correct?
    Senator Coons. I do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I move that we postpone this committee's vote on the 
nomination of Michael Pack until he corrects the statements 
that he has made to this committee.
    As we have all discussed, there are several years in his 
submitted nonprofit tax filings where he has admitted errors, 
and I think that is a longstanding tradition and practice of 
this committee that we do not advance confirmation votes on 
nominees where we know that they have failed to meet some of 
the most basic vetting requirements.
    I ask for the yeas and nays.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Is there a second motion?
    Senator Menendez. Second.
    The Chairman. The motion has been duly made and seconded 
that we postpone the vote. I will be voting no, of course.
    The clerk will call the roll, please.
    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?
    The Chairman. No, by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Graham?
    Senator Graham. No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso. No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Portman?
    Senator Portman. No.
    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. Perdue?
    Senator Perdue. No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Menendez?
    Senator Menendez. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Ms. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Udall?
    Senator Menendez. Aye, by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Markey?
    Senator Menendez. Aye, by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Booker?
    Senator Booker. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 10. The nays are 12.
    The Chairman. The motion has failed.
    Is there further debate on the nomination?
    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Senator Menendez?
    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, before I make the following 
motion, I just want to preface it.
    The reason I am about to make this motion, which is to 
postpone the committee's vote on the nomination of Michael Pack 
until Mr. Pack corrects his tax filings with the IRS and 
provides evidence of such to the committee is that from all of 
the documents that we have reviewed it appears that Mr. Pack 
transferred nearly $4.3 million from his nonprofit that he 
totally controls to his for-profit company, which he totally 
controls.
    The result of that creates the real possibility of tax 
consequences and liabilities as well as misfilings with the 
IRS. As such, it seems to me that he should correct, as we have 
asked him, to correct his tax filings with the IRS and provide 
evidence as such to this committee.
    So I move that the committee postpone the vote on the 
nomination of Michael Pack until he corrects his tax filings 
with the IRS and provides evidence of such to the committee.
    Senator Booker. Second.
    The Chairman. There has been a motion made and a second.
    The motion is the same as the motion made by Senator Coons 
but for different reasons. I am going to allow a vote on this 
one. But we are not going to just keep spinning the wheels.
    So with that, 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?
    The Chairman. No, by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Graham?
    Senator Graham. No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso. No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Portman?
    Senator Portman. No.
    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. Perdue?
    Senator Perdue. No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Menendez?
    Senator Menendez. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Ms. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Udall?
    Senator Menendez. Aye, by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Markey?
    Senator Menendez. Aye, by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Booker?
    Senator Booker. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 10 and the nays are 
12.
    The Chairman. Yeas are 10. Noes are 12. The motion has 
failed.
    Is there further debate?
    Senator Kaine. Mr. Chair?
    The Chairman. Who is seeking--oh, Senator Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. Mr. Chair, I am going to make a motion and 
ask for a voice vote on it. I would move that the vote on the 
nomination be postponed until we can have a closed hearing and 
ask Mr. Pack about these matters directly.
    They were not known to the committee when he was before us. 
No one has had the chance to have a direct interaction with 
him.
    They are sensitive matters and I think the--it would be 
respectful to him but necessary for the committee to allow us 
to now enquire into them.
    And that is my motion and I would be glad to take a voice 
vote on it.
    The Chairman. Is there a second?
    Senator Menendez. Second.
    The Chairman. A motion has been made and all--and duly 
seconded. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed, nay.
    [Chorus of nays.]
    The Chairman. The nays have it. The motion has failed.
    Further debate?
    Senator Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    I am going to make a similar but slightly different motion. 
Given the fact that the promises made in that open hearing to 
Senator Menendez were not fulfilled, that he has not produced 
any of those documents and that these allegations are serious 
and, frankly, very much germane to the job in which Mr. Pack is 
going to take--he is going to be controlling millions of 
dollars that can be awarded to outside for-profit film 
companies--it seems as if this should be something we should 
also have the chance to talk to him about in an open hearing.
    He did not get asked these questions in his hearing before 
us in large part because of a promise he made to deal 
forthrightly with the committee, in particular with the ranking 
member afterwards.
    And so I would make a motion, and a voice vote is fine as 
well, to postpone the committee vote on Mr. Pack and move for a 
new hearing--a public hearing, in this case--so that the 
committee can examine these questions and information that has 
come to light on his fitness for confirmation.
    The Chairman. Is there a second to the motion?
    Voice. Second.
    The Chairman. Been moved and seconded.
    All those in favor signify by saying aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed, nay.
    [Chorus of nays.]
    The Chairman. Noes have it. The motion has failed.
    Further debate?
    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, I move to postpone the 
committee vote on the nomination of Michael Pack until the D.C. 
attorney general completes its investigation into Mr. Pack, and 
I ask for a recorded vote.
    The Chairman. Is there a second?
    Senator Booker. Second.
    The Chairman. Again, this is, by my count, fourth or fifth 
motion to postpone. Very similar reasons on each one.
    I am going to allow a vote but this is not going to go on 
very long. The clerk will call the roll, please, on the motion.
    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?
    The Chairman. No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Graham?
    Senator Graham. No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso. No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Portman?
    Senator Portman. No.
    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. Perdue?
    Senator Perdue. No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Menendez?
    Senator Menendez. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Ms. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Udall?
    Senator Menendez. Aye, by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Menendez. Aye, by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Markey?
    Senator Menendez. I am sorry. I heard another name.
    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.  Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 10 and the nays are 
12.
    The Chairman. Nays are 12. Ayes are 10. The motion has 
failed.
    Is there further debate?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. There being no further debate, the question--
    Senator Merkley. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Who seeks--Senator Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. Mr. Chairman, I move to postpone the 
committee vote on Michael Pack until we receive determination 
from other relevant jurisdictions as to whether he is subject 
to other investigations.
    This could be relevant in California, in Maryland, or any 
other federal entities and it is important to have that 
information before we proceed.
    The Chairman. Is there a second?
    Senator Menendez. Second.
    The Chairman. This is the last motion I am going to accept 
on postponing it. The motions are getting dilatory. I want to 
give everybody the opportunity to have it but this is, by my 
count, fifth or sixth motion we have had in this regard.
    So given that, this will be the last motion to postpone. 
Everybody vote appropriately.
    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?
    The Chairman. No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Graham?
    Senator Graham. No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso. No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Portman?
    Senator Portman. No.
    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. Perdue?
    Senator Perdue. No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Menendez?
    Senator Menendez. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Ms. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Udall?
    Senator Menendez. Aye, by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Markey?
    Senator Menendez. Aye, by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Booker?
    Senator Booker. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 10. The nays are 12.
    The Chairman. Roll call is nays 12, ayes are 10. The motion 
has failed.
    Is there further debate?
    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Senator Menendez?
    Senator Menendez. I have one more motion to postpone the 
committee vote--these postponements are for different reasons, 
I would note to the chair--on the nomination of Mr. Pack until 
he provides information regarding the contract between the 
nonprofit Claremont Institute and Mr. Pack's for-profit film 
company, Manifold Production.
    The Chairman. I am going to rule the motion out of order as 
dilatory. We have had--
    Senator Menendez. Under what basis is the motion out of 
order, Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. The motion is out of order because it is 
dilatory. We have had six or eight motions on that.
    So is there further debate?
    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, there 
has been no motion that specifically asks that the postponement 
of the nomination be contingent upon the nominee providing 
contract information between the Claremont Institute and his 
for-profit company, Manifold Production.
    The Chairman. Senator, I will allow one more vote so long 
as everyone who wants this postponement will state their 
reasons and we can vote for them all on one--all at one time.
    This is the last vote we are going to have as it is--it is 
dilatory.
    Senator Rubio. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Senator Rubio?
    Senator Rubio. Perhaps it is a question as a parliamentary 
inquiry of the clerk. Can we--is there a count now of how many 
votes we have taken on a motion to postpone?
    The Chairman. I do not have a complete--Clerk, do you have 
a--
    The Clerk.  Seven.
    Senator Rubio. I am sorry?
    The Clerk.  Seven.
    The Chairman. Seven motions. Okay. Last one.
    Anybody who wants to get on the motion and add reasons for 
postponement please say so.
    Senator Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. Mr. Chairman, I mean, I think this is a 
fairly extraordinary precedent that you are setting here. You 
are suggesting that seven motions that have taken a grand total 
of 15 minutes are dilatory in nature and now robs from rank and 
file members the ability to make future motions on a nomination 
to head an agency that controls a $750 million budget.
    Just because they fail does not mean that they are 
necessarily dilatory or out of order. What is to then stop the 
chairman from preventing our ability to call amendments on 
legislation if a series of our amendments fail and postpone the 
passage of the legislation?
    I mean, had we been here for four hours maybe I could 
understand a decision by the chair to order motions ceased 
because of the dilatory nature.
    But by my count this has taken about 15 to 20 minutes, and 
I do not know, as a rank and file member who wants the ability 
to offer motions and amendments I just really worry and I want 
to put on the record my concerns about the precedent that is 
being set.
    I understand that you do not like these motions. But I do 
not think you can suggest that they are dilatory, given the 
amount of time that they have taken.
    The Chairman. Well, Senator, you should note, first of all, 
there has been seven.
    Secondly, all seek the same relief, and thirdly, the vote 
has been exactly the same on all of them.
    Now, I think it is--I think it is fair that people have 
their say. Senators made a motion to delay the vote, and I am 
giving anyone the opportunity to give their reasons on in 
addition to those.
    But, look, I want to be fair on this and seven is certainly 
fair. But--
    Senator Murphy. I understand. But the decision by the chair 
to shut down the ability of members of this committee to offer 
motions or amendments and to rule them out of order, I just--as 
someone who sits down at the bottom of the--of the dais here, 
whether it is a Republican or a Democratic chair making that 
decision, I think it is an unnecessary one and one that comes 
with a dangerous precedent, moving forward.
    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, I understand there is a 
motion pending and I think I would second it.
    The Chairman. There is a motion.
    Senator Menendez. I would like to speak to it for a moment 
and just simply say I would just say to my colleagues I know 
there is a degree of silence here.
    But understand that whatever precedents you set here, if a 
majority changes, and someday it will, they are going to follow 
those precedents. Do you really want that?
    Do you remember a time when you might have been in the 
minority? Do you really want that? Do you really want not to be 
able to make motions? Do you really want not to offer 
amendments? Do you really want no comity?
    Do you really want, at the end of the day, hearings to be 
noticed and nominees to be noticed without the agreement of 
whoever your ranking member is at a given time?
    That is what you are setting the foundation for here. And 
so, you know, the one thing I definitely have about me that is 
a Republican trait is my elephant memory for good and for bad.
    Senator Romney. Mr. Chairman?
    Senator Menendez. So I hope--I hope, at the end of the day, 
you think about what precedent you are setting here in terms of 
the future, and it really is incumbent upon all of us to try to 
preserve it.
    I have worked my--you know, incredibly hard to try to 
preserve it. But when it seems that there is an issue for which 
comity can no longer be observed, we break comity.
    Well, then that is not comity. It is not comity while we, 
in fact, you know, it is to our advantage and then break it 
when it is not to our advantage.
    So I will just urge members to remember that. In fact, you 
are setting the foundation, whether it is on votes, on motions, 
on amendments, on how we conduct these hearings, and when we 
hold a hearing what is the agenda. You are setting that--
    The Chairman. Senator Romney?
    Senator Romney. Mr. Chairman, comity works both ways, and 
when people raise the same issue again and again and again and 
again, with the certain knowledge of the same outcome again and 
again and again, it is clear that the intent is not to engage 
one another across an aisle and looking for a common solution 
but it is, instead, to try and delay for some other purpose.
    Comity respects the integrity of one another, the integrity 
of the people's time and their interests. It is clear that 
the--a number of people have looked at these issues and have 
reached their own conclusion and that is why they are voting 
the way they are.
    And so continuing to bring up issues that could be packaged 
together with objections for proceeding to a vote, that is a 
very appropriate to bring. But putting the objections together 
so that we could vote at one time would be the kind of comity 
that is associated with any body, I would think.
    So I fully support encouraging anybody who has a reason to 
delay this vote further to bring that forward so that in this--
you have indicated this final vote that we will be able to make 
that determination.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Romney.
    Also, on the matter of comity, let me state in the record, 
and I think I have said this publicly and I am going to say it 
again, the first time I met with the ranking member we talked 
about how to run the committee and to do it with comity and to 
try to get along.
    I was informed by the ranking member that his view of 
comity was that anytime that I wanted to put something on the 
agenda that he had the opportunity veto it.
    I indicated I would not agree to that. This is my fortieth 
year in a Senate, including both state and federal. Never heard 
of the fact that the ranking member could actually run the 
committee by taking something off of the agenda.
    But I told him I would work with him and I have done so. 
But occasionally you get to one where, as chairman, you 
exercise the prerogative and that is how I am going to do this 
as long as I am chairman of the committee.
    And I want to work with the minority but, on the other 
hand, I think the chairman has the ability to set the agenda 
and to put things on the agenda that the chairman deems 
appropriate, or else the chairman is not the chairman.
    Senator Cruz. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. So in any event--I want to get to you.
    Senator Cruz?
    Senator Cruz. Mr. Chairman, several of the members from the 
other side of the aisle have suggested that not allowing them 
to make an infinite number of dilatory motions is the same 
thing as denying amendments on substantive legislation.
    And just for a point of clarification, those are completely 
and utterly different. If we were taking up legislation, I 
would strongly support any member's right to offer amendments, 
even if I disagreed with the amendments--that you have a right 
to offer an amendment and have it voted, and assuming they were 
substantively different amendments to continue offering 
amendments and get a vote on that.
    In this case, we have had now eight votes on the identical 
motion--delay the vote. We understand now that the Democratic 
members of this committee want to delay the vote.
    We voted on that eight separate times. A number of people 
around this table have tried cases in a court of law. If you 
stood up in a court of law and made the same damn motion eight 
times in a row and it was rejected eight times in a row, and if 
you kept doing it you would be held in contempt.
    And so I think the chair is entirely right. I also think 
this is a standard that would be applied on both sides.
    If a Republican member of this committee decided to file an 
amendment to carve Ronald Reagan into Mount Rushmore and that 
was voted down and that Republican member kept filing the same 
motion 42 times, I have every confidence the chairman at some 
point would say, this is dilatory. Your motion has been voted 
on. It has been rejected. Let us move on.
    And so I commend the chairman for moving on.
    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, one final remark since my--
you invoked me in a comment.
    The Chairman. Senator Shaheen----
    Senator Menendez. I am sorry.
    The Chairman [continuing]. Asked to be recognized.
    Senator Shaheen. Well, Senator Cruz, I appreciate your 
willingness to stand up for everyone being able to make motions 
to amend, and I think that is an important tenet for all of us 
to support.
    I think, though, what is going on here is something more 
than just filing motions to be dilatory. I mean, the reason we 
are trying to express our concerns about Michael Pack is 
because we think it is setting a really dangerous precedent for 
this committee because as I interpret what we are doing today, 
and, as I said, I am not--I was not opposed to him.
    I was planning to vote for him until the investigative 
issues came up. And I think that sets a serious precedent that 
what we are saying now is we--any nominee for a position within 
government can have serious issues that are being investigated 
that are unresolved, and we are going to go ahead and move them 
regardless of what those issues are.
    That is not a precedent that I want to support, and I think 
that is why you are hearing from all of us, that we have 
concerns about this.
    It is not--I mean, I am not trying to be obstructionist. I 
have worked with the chairman and the ranking member in other 
capacities and we worked very well together.
    But I think it is important for us because of this 
legitimate concern that we make the point that this is not a 
position that I think we want the committee to be in.
    So, you know, I am not trying to be dilatory. But I do 
think it is important to say I do not believe that we should 
vote for a nominee of either party as long as they are under 
investigation.
    I can tell you, on the Ethics Committee I do not think we 
would recommend that, and so I just--I think that is why you 
are hearing the concern that each of us are expressing today.
    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, two final points on this.
    The Chairman. Senator Menendez?
    Senator Menendez. To my dear friend, the senator from Utah, 
while the motions have had the same end results required, they 
have been offered for different reasons, and the reasons they 
are not lumped together is just like when we have amendments.
    You could have five, six, seven amendments to a specific 
piece of legislation and you will not necessarily amalgamate 
them all and offer them all together.
    Why? Because you might find comity with somebody on one of 
the elements of what you are trying to amend but if you put all 
the other ones that they are not willing to support, then you 
lose.
    So very often what we have seen in the amendment process, 
for example, is to the same piece of legislation a series of 
amendments.
    And you, hopefully, attract a colleague who might disagree 
with you in general but on an amendment. These motions 
specifically each call for the same result but a different 
reason.
    Postponement until you get this, until you get a second 
hearing. Postponement until you get documentation. Postponement 
until an investigation is over.
    Now, it did not attract any support but they were all for 
different reasons. And the same thing in the amendment process. 
You could say your amendments are being dilatory.
    But, in fact, you are breaking up your amendments because 
you might find somebody who accepts one of your amendments but 
dispels the other four. So I would just--just to return to 
them.
    And the final point, I never told you, Mr. Chairman, that I 
had a veto. You came to me and, in good faith, we spoke about 
how the committee process had worked and I asked you very 
simply, are you going to observe comity.
    And you said, well, what does that mean, and I explained 
exactly how it happened since I got on this committee through 
Democratic and Republican chairmen.
    And you said, does that mean the minority has a veto. I 
said, no, it does not mean we have a veto. It means we work 
together to come to a solution as to how we are going to 
proceed on any piece of legislation or nominee even if we do 
not agree on the final result of that. That is not a veto. That 
is a process in work.
    So I have a different recollection. I never said we had a 
veto. You interpreted the reality of such a process to be a 
veto.
    But as I pointed out at the very beginning of this hearing, 
I did not even put my own state reauthorization bill because 
Bob Corker did not want to agree to put it on the agenda.
    I did not put up Obama nominees who I thought were 
qualified because he would not agree because I did not want to 
break comity. That is what comity was all about.
    Now, you might want to call that a veto. If that was a 
veto, then I guess I accepted a veto. I accepted comity.
    And so this now has broken down where in fact when there is 
an insistence to move either a piece of legislation forward 
before it can be worked on to a point that it be at least 
acceptable for amendments--or a nominee before the information 
is fully there, that then we say sorry, your opinion does not 
matter.
    Well, that is not what I did when I was chairman. That is 
not what other chairmen did. I understand that that is what you 
want to do. That is what you want to do.
    But we set a precedent for the future. I think it is a 
precedent none of us really want.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator. I do not --
    Senator Johnson. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Before you do that, let me respond briefly, 
Senator Johnson.
    I do not--I do not view this as being comparable to motions 
to amend. If you make a motion to amend and you have a specific 
amendment, the result of a yea or nay vote on that is very 
different. That is, at the end of the day, you may have a bill 
that is altered by the amendment process.
    On a motion to put off the vote and postpone the vote, the 
result is exactly the same on every single motion.
    So, again, this is our eighth one. Anybody who wants to 
postpone for any possible reason this will be your chance when 
you vote.
    Senator Johnson?
    Senator Johnson. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I think you 
have shown a great deal of patience in this discussion.
    The minority's views are well known. They have laid out all 
the reasons. They have put them on the record.
    Again, this is the eighth vote. The result is obvious. We 
know what it is going to be. But I do not want to address the 
point of precedent because I do not want to accept the fact 
that we are setting precedents here.
    There is a unique set of circumstances and we are going to 
vote. It is a unique nominee. We are going to vote. We are not 
setting any precedents here other than the fact that at some 
point in time, once the result is just obvious, you move on. 
You do not keep the process going on ad infinitum when you end 
up knowing what the result is.
    So we are not setting any precedents here. We are going to 
vote on a unique set of circumstances and a unique nominee, and 
I would suggest we get on and get it done and let us vote.
    The Chairman. Okay. On the final vote, Senator Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I cannot agree with my colleague who says no precedents are 
being set. We are examining the question on whether promised 
documents were delivered and they have not been, and we are 
saying it is okay to go forward if the committee affirms this 
nominee.
    We have a nominee under investigation for potentially 
criminal conduct. This vote does set a precedent that the 
majority of this committee may be saying, if they vote in the 
affirmative, that is okay.
    We have other key pieces that have been raised in these 
different amendments. Each of those is a serious and separate 
issue that would be addressed separately.
    If the vote was that he needed to correct his tax filings 
before we considered him, that is different than whether or not 
he needs to provide key documents. It is a different path that 
is being laid out with each of these amendments.
    But no one can accurately say that this is not setting new 
ground for this committee that will affect the future.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    On the final motion to postpone, 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?
    Senator Graham. No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso. No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Portman?
    Senator Portman. No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul. No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Young?
    Senator Young. No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Cruz?
    Senator Cruz. No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Perdue?
    Senator Perdue. No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Menendez?
    Senator Menendez. I am sorry. What is the present vote 
being taken on?
    The Chairman. The motion is to postpone the vote.
    Senator Menendez. Oh. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Ms. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Udall?
    Senator Menendez. Aye, by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Markey?
    Senator Menendez. Aye, by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Booker?
    Senator Booker. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 10. The nays are 12.
    The Chairman. The roll call is 12----
    Senator Booker. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Senator Booker?
    Senator Booker. Thank you for recognizing.
    I want to say, at the top, I do not have a motion to 
postpone but I would like to make a motion. You know, this is 
one of my favorite experiences as a senator because this is the 
committee where we have just tremendous bipartisan work and I 
am really proud of a lot of the work I have done.
    And I know I am the least in seniority here and I have just 
been grateful for the relationships I have deepened with 
members on both sides of the aisle, and this is a very 
disappointing moment for me because I do think that there is a 
precedent being set.
    And I am wondering if maybe, as a default or at least as a 
consolation, to the good faith comments by the minority, some 
of my members here have expressed that they were prepared to 
vote for this person but for the controversy, and I think it is 
hard to say that this is not a controversy.
    Many of us have been involved in nonprofits. The fact 
pattern here, to me, is disturbing at the very least and 
suspect at the very least, and I do not think it actually is 
modeling the ethics of people on both sides of the aisle.
    But there is something deeper that I do think is a bit of 
precedent setting is the fact that when this nominee submitted 
for the record statements that we now see were untrue, whether 
they were intentionally untrue or not intentionally untrue, I 
know Senator Menendez and others have asked him to correct the 
record and he has refused to do that.
    That seems to me to be disrespecting this entire committee. 
If there is something that is factually untrue in the record 
that he submitted, he should be asked to correct the record.
    And so that is problematic to me and I think, again, there 
is a lot of just goodwill on this committee.
    So correct me if I am wrong. I do not have as much 
experience on this committee as others. But can we--can I 
propose a motion that at least we, as a team here, as a 
committee, say it is the sense of the committee that this 
nominee before their vote on the floor of the Senate simply 
corrects the record out of a matter of respect to this body and 
who we are? That we should have a truthful accounting in the 
responses that he gave?
    The Chairman. Is this a motion to postpone, Senator?
    Senator Booker. Sir, it is not a motion to postpone.
    The Chairman. What is it?
    Senator Booker. It is a motion to offer the sense of this 
committee that if there are factual--known factual errors in 
the record that he, in the responses to committee questions 
that he simply corrects the record before he--before the vote 
takes place on the Senate floor.
    The Chairman. Senator, I am going to consider that a motion 
to postpone. We have had eight motions to postpone and I am 
just not prepared to take another motion at some point in time.
    Senator Booker. Mr. Chairman, if I may--if I may just 
sincerely, in my hope that this----
    The Chairman. I do not question your good faith.
    Senator Booker. If I could finish my statement. I know you 
do not----
    The Chairman. Please.
    Senator Booker [continuing]. Question my integrity, sir. I 
know you are incredibly respectful to me always.
    It is not a motion to postpone. It is just a sense of this 
committee, in no way having any binding nature. But perhaps we 
could speak into the annals of history and just say this 
committee believes that people should respond honestly, 
truthfully, and fully to the questions asked by this committee.
    That should be something that is not controversial, in no 
way binding you are moving this to the floor of the Senate.
    But cannot we as a committee find that comity that we agree 
that it is just the sense of this committee that people should 
be responding truthfully and accurately if there is a known 
error in the record that they submitted?
    If not, we will see this pass, voted on the Senate floor, 
but someone purposefully did not fill out their responses with 
truth and integrity.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
    And with all due respect, and I say that as well as I can, 
I am going to consider it simply a motion to again put this off 
and we have done that eight times.
    There has been every possible reason given and I am just 
not going to take any more motions on it. I am going to declare 
it out of order.
    But it is time we got to a vote on this.
    Senator Booker. And then may I just conclude, for my record 
at least, for my own just sense of fellowship here around this 
table that I am not at all asking for this vote to be 
postponed.
    The Chairman. That is good.
    Senator Booker. I want to say clearly for the record, the 
vote will go forward. I am not, for the record, asking for this 
vote to be postponed.
    I am simply asking for an affirmation of sentiment that the 
people around this table, as a nod to the comity and the 
goodwill of this body, that we just believe people should 
respond truthfully and accurately when a nominee answers a 
QFR's questions for the record.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator. You have made your 
record.
    Is there--is there--
    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, on--Mr. Chairman, on 
Senator----
    The Chairman. Please, Senator. Do not interrupt me when I 
am speaking.
    Senator Menendez [continuing]. I am trying to attract your 
attention in order to be recognized.
    The Chairman. You are recognized.
    Senator Menendez. Thank you.
    Senator Booker's motion is not to postpone. It is to 
condition the reporting out of the nominee and that that 
condition be if the majority decides to vote out the nominee 
that it be conditioned, the recommendation to the Senate is 
that it not proceed to a floor vote until the appropriate 
documentation and changes have been made.
    That is not a postponement of the moment. That is a 
conditioning. I think it is totally appropriate.
    The Chairman. I hear your argument, Senator. I am going to 
use the prerogative of the chair to declare that it is indeed a 
motion to postpone.
    Is there further debate?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. There being no further debate, the question 
before the committee is shall Michael Pack be sent to the floor 
with a recommendation that he be confirmed.
    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. 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. Perdue?
    Senator Perdue. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Menendez?
    Senator Menendez. No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. No.
    The Clerk.  Ms. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons. No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Udall?
    Senator Menendez. No, by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Markey?
    Senator Menendez. No, by proxy.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Booker?
    Senator Booker. No.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Aye.
    The Clerk.  Mr. Chairman, yeas are 12. The nays are 10.
    The Chairman. The motion has passed on a vote of 12 to 10, 
and Mr. Pack will be sent to the floor. I will sign the 
document.
    We have before us an en banc package of 15 bills that have 
been agreed to. I am, certainly, willing to send them out. If 
anyone has an objection they should so state and we will 
adjourn the meeting.
    Otherwise, I would entertain a motion to send the en banc 
package out and as amended--by the amendments that have been 
identified in that list.
    So this was a bipartisan agreement, long negotiated, and 
because of the fact that we have had the COVID issue, that is 
why the list is so long. But I will certainly entertain a 
motion.
    But, again, we may be too far aground to take it.
    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Senator Menendez?
    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, my question goes to how do 
you intend to deal with all of the pieces of legislation that 
are not in proposed en bloc grouping?
    The Chairman. Well, we will get to them as soon as we can, 
Senator.
    Senator Menendez. You do not intend to pursue them today 
even though you have listed them?
    The Chairman. No, these are the ones that are agreed to. 
There are others. The staffs have gone back and forth and 
reached an agreement on these 15.
    The others there was no agreement on. We have a vote 
starting in about one minute. So I do not intend to take them 
up today. But I do intend to have a business meeting as soon as 
we can to take these up.
    I know you have legislation. Others have legislation. We 
have got some really important things. I am anxious to get to a 
discussion of the COVID situation. It is right in our 
wheelhouse, it being a global problem.
    But we just cannot do it today, Senator.
    Senator Menendez. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would just say I 
see that you noticed them so I understand the en bloc ones. But 
it was my assumption, and other members who prepared 
amendments, that they were going to move forward with calling 
up the non-en bloc pieces of legislation and then letting 
members offer an amendment and then creating final votes on 
that.
    So even though you noticed it you are not going to proceed 
with them today?
    The Chairman. Well, we are out of time, Senator. Number 
one.
    Number two, it is--
    Senator Menendez. Well, could we after the votes?
    The Chairman. It is not my intent to block any amendments. 
I want people to have the opportunity to call up their 
amendments, to debate the amendments, and vote on the 
amendments.
    But these 15 have no amendments and other than amendments 
that have been agreed to, and so I have this here.
    But, look, I will proceed how you want. But we are out of 
time, since we do have to--
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, if I could just--
    The Chairman. Senator Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. And I am in support of the 15 and I am glad 
we can move them forward. I am very disappointed there are some 
others that we are not going to be able to move where I think 
there is broad consensus, and if we had more committee time we 
would be able to get them done today.
    It has been a long time since we have had a business 
meeting. I wanted to have some discussions in regards to some 
of the issues that are not on the agenda, and I have talked to 
you about that.
    I just think now it is going to be at least two weeks 
before we have another business meeting. We are not going to be 
in next week.
    Some of these issues are very timely such as what is going 
on in Afghanistan and what is going on in Cuba. These are not 
inconsequential areas of concern.
    I would just ask the chairman to consider a time that we 
can have another business meeting and not be subjected to one 
member blocking us from being able to take up a bill, where 
even when we take up the bill for one member not being in total 
accord usually by the end of the business meeting we have total 
consensus, and we are not going to be able to do that today 
because of lack of time.
    The Chairman. I share your--I share your frustration.
    Senator Shaheen. We lost a quorum.
    Senator Cardin. What happened to the Republicans?
    The Chairman. I have 12 members in the room right now. The 
motion is to--is there a motion to adopt the en banc--
    Senator Kaine. Mr. Chair, if I could--this is Senator 
Kaine.
    The Chairman. Yeah?
    Senator Kaine. Could you specify? I came prepared to talk 
about 20 bills today. So I don't know which are the ones that 
are in the en banc list. So if you could just--if you could 
just read the bill numbers.
    The Chairman. I will. I will, and I appreciate that. And I 
am not trying to pull anything here. I want--I want everybody 
to have an understanding.
    This was circulated amongst the staff in negotiations.
    It is Senate Bill 238, Senate Bill 712, Senate Bill 3176, 
H.R. 192, Senate Res. 567, Senate Res. 148, Senate Res. 392, 
Senate Res. 406, Senate Res. 454, Senate Res. 502, Senate Res. 
511, Senate Res. 523, Senate Res. 525, Senate Res. 533, and 
Senate Res. 542.
    Senator Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. Mr. Chairman, I would ask to be added as a 
co-sponsor of the resolution supporting the Southeast Asia 
nations, supporting the U.S. role in the Vaccine Alliance, and 
supporting the goals of International Women's Day.
    The Chairman. I am sorry, Senator. I did not understand. 
Are you asking for a unanimous consent or a co-sponsor?
    Senator Merkley. Yes, I am asking unanimous consent to be 
added as a co-sponsor of those three items.
    The Chairman. If there is no objection, you will be added.
    Senator Merkley. Thank you.
    The Chairman. All right. Has there been a motion made, 
Clerk, on the--to adopt the --
    The Clerk.  So moved.
    The Chairman. It has been moved. Is there a second?
    Senator Portman. Second.
    The Chairman. Is there a second?
    Voice. Second.
    Anybody object to moving forward on the en banc list with 
amendments?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. There being none, all in favor signify by 
saying aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Oppose, nay.
    The ayes have it. The en banc list has been adopted. The 
committee is adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 12:04 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

              Additional Material Submitted for the Record

            Responses to Questions for the Record Submitted 
               to Michael Pack by Senator Robert Menendez

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, JULY 29, 2020

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

                Summary of Action Taken by the Committee

                              Nominations

  Ms. Natalie E. Brown, of Nebraska, 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 Uganda, agreed to by voice vote

  Mr. Jason Myung-Ik Chung, of Virginia, to be United States Director 
        of the Asian Development Bank, with the rank of Ambassador, 
        agreed to by voice vote

  Ms. Sandra E. Clark, of Maryland, a Career Member of the Senior 
        Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to Burkina Faso, agreed to by voice vote

  Mr. Ramsey Coats Day, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Administrator 
        of the United States Agency for International Development, 
        agreed to by voice vote

  The Honorable J. Steven Dowd, of Florida, to be United States 
        Director of the European Bank for Reconstruction and 
        Development, agreed to by voice vote

  Mr. William Ellison Grayson, of California, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Republic of Estonia, agreed to by voice vote

  Mr. Joseph Manso, of New York, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign 
        Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, for the rank of 
        Ambassador during his tenure of service as United States 
        Representative to the Organization for the Prohibition of 
        Chemical Weapons, agreed to by voice vote

  Ms. Jenny A. McGee, of Texas, to be an Associate Administrator of the 
        United States Agency for International Development, agreed to 
        by voice vote

  The Honorable Richard M. Mills, Jr., of Texas, a Career Member of the 
        Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be the 
        Deputy Representative of the United States of America to the 
        United Nations, with the rank and status of Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary and the Deputy Representative 
        of the United States of America in the Security Council of the 
        United Nations; and to be Representative of the United States 
        of America to the Sessions of the General Assembly of the 
        United Nations, during his tenure of service as Deputy 
        Representative of the United States of America to the United 
        Nations, agreed to by voice vote

  Mr. Henry T. Wooster, 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 Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, agreed to by voice 
        vote

  Mr. William W. Popp, of Missouri, a Career Member of the Senior 
        Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Republic of Guatemala, agreed to by voice vote

  The Honorable Aldona Z. Wos, of North Carolina, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to Canada, agreed to by voice vote

  The Honorable C.J. Mahoney, of Kansas, to be Legal Adviser of the 
        Department of State, agreed to by voice vote

  Ms. Leora Rosenberg Levy, of Connecticut, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Republic of Chile, agreed to by voice vote 
        (Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Udall, Kaine, Merkley to be 
        recorded as no)

  The Honorable Carlos Trujillo, of Florida, to be an Assistant 
        Secretary of State (Western Hemisphere Affairs), agreed to by 
        voice vote (Udall and Merkley to be recorded as no)

  Ms. Lisa S. Kenna, of Vermont, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and 
        Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic 
        of Peru, agreed to by voice vote (Cardin to be recorded as no)

  The Honorable Marshall Billingslea, of Virginia, to be Under 
        Secretary of 
        State for Arms Control and International Security, agreed to by 
        roll call
        vote 11-10-1

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

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

          Present: Paul (proxy)

                               FSO LISTS

  Shefali Agrawal, et al., dated June 29, 2020 (PN 2067), agreed to by 
        voice vote

  Anna Mae G. Akers, et al., dated June 29, 2020 (PN 2068), agreed to 
        by voice vote

  Jonathan Paul Ackley, et al., dated June 29, 2020 (PN 2069), agreed 
        to by voice vote

  Jeffrey Thomas Albanese, et al., dated June 29, 2020 (PN 2070), 
        agreed to by voice vote

  Deanna Scott, et al., dated June 29, 2020 (PN 2073), agreed to by 
        voice vote

  Erin Elizabeth McKee, et al., dated June 29, 2020 (PN 2071), agreed 
        to by voice vote

  Lawrence J. Sacks, et al., dated June 29, 2020 (PN 2072), agreed to 
        by voice vote

                           Meeting Transcript

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:07 a.m., in 
Room SR-325, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. James Risch, 
chairman of the committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Risch [presiding], Rubio, Johnson, 
Gardner, Romney, Graham, Barrasso, Portman, Paul, Young, 
Perdue, Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Udall, Murphy, Kaine, 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 have a business committee meeting to consider 
numerous nominees, and we will proceed to--we have heard them 
all. We are going to proceed to vote on them as quickly as we 
can, as most people have other business to do. So with that, 
Senator Menendez?

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

    Senator Menendez.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to 
be brief. We all know why we are here today at an in-person 
business meeting in the middle of a pandemic, an in-person 
business meeting that has no urgency, an in- person meeting 
where we do not have clear answers whether any senators or 
staff should be in quarantine due to exposure to Robert 
O'Brien, who recently tested positive for COVID-19.
    We are here because Secretary Pompeo pressured you to move 
certain nominees over our objections, objections that go to the 
core of whether we are a co-equal branch of government or 
simply a doormat for the Secretary and the President. I don't 
plan to repeat the objections that I expressed at last week's 
hearings, although I want to ask unanimous consent to include 
my statements from those hearings in the record for this 
business meeting. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  They will be included.
    [The information referred to follows:]


                   nominations hearing--july 21, 2020

              Opening Statement by Senator Robert Menendez

          Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to each of the nominees 
        and their families.
          Mr. Chairman, I first want to thank you for listening to the 
        Democratic members on the importance of rebalancing the 
        committee agenda. We urged you to shift away from a 
        nominations-only approach and to rejuvenate the committee's 
        policy and oversight focus. The fact that that you finally 
        appear to have secured Secretary Pompeo's testimony, in 
        particular, is a solid step in the right direction.
                            today's hearing
          But at the same time I must share my deep disappointment over 
        today's hearing, including that you noticed it unilaterally and 
        over the objection of the committee Minority. Today's hearing 
        represents the evisceration of critical committee oversight 
        efforts and a related and continuing pattern of rubber stamping 
        Trump administration nominees. On both fronts, the committee is 
        caving to the executive branch and moving forward without 
        transparency, accountability, or regard for our constitutional 
        system of checks and balances.
          Let me explain. It is no secret that the President and his 
        Secretary of State recoil from scrutiny. They claim to act on 
        behalf of the American people, yet they fight against any 
        congressional or public scrutiny of their actions.
          This is obviously unacceptable. In response and as a last 
        resort, committee Democrats urged you not to move forward with 
        nominations for positions connected to blatant State Department 
        stonewalling. This was particularly the case with the Legal 
        Adviser and Western Hemisphere positions, as the administration 
        has been particularly obstructionist in those areas.
          Let me give just a few examples: The Department is blocking 
        us from examining the firing of the State Department Inspector 
        General--the very same inspector general who was investigating 
        Secretary Pompeo at the time of his firing. The Department has 
        refused to come clean concerning Saudi Arabia's brutal murder 
        of Jamal Khashoggi. The administration is withholding key 
        witnesses in a joint SFRC and House investigation into the 
        Trump administration's political targeting of career State 
        Department employees. And, the administration continues to hide 
        the controversial instruments it negotiated with Mexico and the 
        Northern Triangle countries.
          This is dangerous. Bad things happen when there is no 
        transparency--no accountability--no oversight. We have seen it 
        time and again with this administration. Yet Mr. Chairman, by 
        moving forward with this hearing--and I understand it was under 
        significant pressure from Secretary Pompeo. You eliminated any 
        incentive the Department had to engage and undermined the 
        committee's ability to pursue the public interest--to shine a 
        light on the darkest, most disturbing corners of the Trump 
        foreign policy and Pompeo State Department.
          Mr. Chairman, a separate but related problem is the refusal 
        of the administration and some nominees to cooperate on vetting 
        matters. This problem is front and center with Mr. Billingslea.
          He has simply not come clean about his involvement in Bush-
        era torture programs, claiming over and over again that he 
        never advocated for torture. The problem is that's just not 
        true. The evidence shows that Mr. Billingslea was a strong 
        advocate for hooding, 20-hour interrogations, forced grooming, 
        sleep deprivation, removal of clothing, face and stomach slaps, 
        and use of dogs in interrogations.
          We should not be moving forward with Mr. Billingslea's 
        nomination. Period. The stain of torture combined with his 
        credibility gap should be disqualifying. But even if you 
        disagree, Mr. Chairman, at minimum, we should not be moving 
        forward until he truthfully acknowledges his actions. But he is 
        here before us today. So what incentive does he have left to 
        come clean with us?
          And it is not just Mr. Billingslea. We have seen it multiple 
        times over the last two years. Michael Pack, Darrell Issa, Doug 
        Manchester and so on.
          So Mr. Chairman, I am deeply dismayed at what this hearing 
        represents. If we are truly a coequal branch of government, we 
        have to act like it. On behalf of the American people, we have 
        to rebalance our relationship with the executive branch, 
        regardless of which party is in the White House. Our relevance 
        depends on it, and I hope we can work together to make it 
        happen.
                  serving in the trump administration
          Finally, a word to the nominees--in particular Ambassadors 
        Mahoney and Trujillo--I am a huge believer in public service 
        and have the greatest respect for our career diplomatic and 
        development professionals. I also believe that service as a 
        political appointee is a noble calling and essential to our 
        system.
          Until this moment, I would have never questioned anyone's 
        decision to serve in a political capacity in any 
        administration--Democratic or Republican--but I'm honestly 
        perplexed as to why you're pursuing these nominations.
          They're great jobs under normal circumstances--but NOTHING 
        about this moment and this administration is normal. We have a 
        President that seeks to divide us domestically, that attacks 
        our allies and coddles our enemies, and we have a Secretary of 
        State that enables him.
          And this is not the beginning of the administration--we all 
        now know its ugliness--its incompetence--and its lawlessness--
        Charlottesville, Khashoggi, the Ukraine scandal, and more 
        recently, Lafayette Square, Portland, Oregon, and reportedly a 
        Trump green light for Uighur concentration camps--there is NO 
        bottom.
          I do not understand why you're signing on to a second tour. I 
        can't imagine you're proud of this; so why do you want to own 
        it?
          Isn't it past time for the senior political leadership in 
        this country to stand up and say ``ENOUGH. THIS IS NOT RIGHT. I 
        DON'T WANT TO BE PART OF IT?''
          We have to ask ourselves that question, and I ask that you 
        reflect on it urgently.
          Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                               __________
                               
                   nominations hearing--july 23, 2020

              Opening Statement by Senator Robert Menendez

          Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
          Mr. Chairman, this is another in a series of committee 
        hearings that you have noticed unilaterally and over Democratic 
        objections.
          Earlier this week, I mentioned more than sixty oversight 
        requests I sent to Secretary Pompeo, requests that have almost 
        entirely gone unanswered. After four years, this 
        administration's policy on oversight requests is crystal clear: 
        a complete rejection of Congress' constitutional authority in 
        foreign affairs and corresponding responsibility to conduct 
        oversight. Unless they absolutely have to engage with us, they 
        will not.
          The only way to change that dynamic is if we stick up for 
        ourselves, if we don't let ourselves be bullied by the 
        President and Secretary of State. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, 
        that is not happening.
          Ms. Kenna, a senior aide to Secretary Pompeo and one of the 
        nominees on today's panel, is a case in point. Chairman Engel 
        and I have joint outstanding requests to interview Ms. Kenna in 
        relation to two separate and corrosive episodes: The first 
        relates to the political targeting of career employees at State 
        by Trump appointees, and the second concerns the firing of the 
        State Department Inspector General while he had an active 
        investigation into Secretary Pompeo.
          The Department is stonewalling as usual--they will not 
        authorize Ms. Kenna to sit for an interview. So, as a last 
        resort, we urged you not to move forward with a nominations 
        hearing for her.
          Now I sympathize with Ms. Kenna--the Department has but her 
        in a terrible position. But why should we move forward with a 
        nominee when the Department of State is refusing to authorize 
        her to speak with Congress on critical oversight matters?
          The stonewalling is particularly egregious here given that 
        the Secretary of State is seeking to hide his own possible 
        wrongdoing in connection with the firing of Steve Linick. This 
        undermines our role and our ability to do our jobs on behalf of 
        the American people, and it should not have happened regardless 
        of how much pressure the Secretary has put on you.
          I need to make one last point before I turn to some country-
        specific issues. Mr. Chairman, you have frequently indicated 
        that my objections to your handling of certain nominations are 
        related to political or policy differences. I am honestly not 
        sure what you mean by that.
          Is asking for an interview with Ms. Kenna to find out what 
        she knows about the firing of the State Department Inspector 
        General a political or policy difference? Is urging Michael 
        Pack to acknowledge and fix his false statements to the 
        committee and the IRS a political or policy difference? Is 
        asking for more information concerning allegations that Doug 
        Manchester engaged in blatantly sexist behavior and created a 
        hostile work environment for female employees a political or 
        policy difference?
          Of course not. The only thing that is political here is that 
        you have chosen to gloss over all of these matters, on behalf 
        of the administration, you have simply chosen to look the other 
        way and rubber-stamp the nominations. That is political.
                                 canada
          We are reviewing the nomination for Canada at a particularly 
        turbulent time in U.S.-Canada relations. The Trump 
        administration's approach has included the levying of tariffs 
        due to supposed national security considerations, a half-baked 
        attempt to block the export of protective masks during the 
        pandemic, and the occasional insult hurled by a White House 
        senior advisor at Prime Minister Trudeau.
          Mr. Chairman, I think we can agree that these are the tactics 
        we aim at an economic adversary, not one of our top trading 
        partners. This is how we treat our enemies, not an ally whose 
        sons and daughters have fought and died alongside American 
        soldiers in multiple theaters over the last century.
          Amidst this chaos, there have been some positive advances.
          Thanks to Democratic leadership, we were able to include 
        stronger provisions on labor and environmental standards in the 
        new U.S.-Canada-Mexico Free Trade Agreement--provisions that 
        will directly benefit American workers and families.
          So, I hope to hear a new approach from our nominee on how we 
        can actually strengthen our alliance and economic partnership 
        with Canada
                               guatemala
          I'm pleased that, at my request, the nominee for Guatemala 
        was added to this panel. The challenges in Guatemala require 
        steady leadership, but again, I have been deeply troubled by 
        the President's policies. For a year, the administration 
        suspended foreign assistance to Guatemala, the very funding we 
        need to advance our national interests and address the violence 
        and poverty forcing people to flee their country.
          We've coerced the Guatemalan Government into a supposed Safe 
        Third Country agreement so that we can transfer asylum seekers 
        from the U.S. to pursue protection in Guatemala--an agreement 
        that endangers the lives of vulnerable people and appears to 
        conflict with U.S. law. And, we've deported dozens of COVID-
        positive individuals back to Guatemala during the pandemic and 
        threatened Guatemalan officials with visa sanctions if they 
        refuse the flights.
          It is disturbing, yet hardly surprising that Guatemalan 
        President said in May, ``I don't believe the U.S. is an ally to 
        Guatemala because they don't treat us like one.''
                                  peru
          Aside from the oversight matters I mentioned, I'm also 
        pleased we are reviewing a nomination for Peru--a close 
        diplomatic, economic, and security partner in addressing the 
        political and humanitarian crisis in Venezuela, even as they 
        have experienced their own political turmoil in the last two 
        years and struggled with COVID-19.
          Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                               __________


    Senator Menendez.  I did not run for office to fight over 
nominations. I do not believe any of us did. I ran for office 
because I believe in service. Because I want what is best for 
the Government, for our country, and for the American people. 
And I know that all of you share those motivations regardless 
of whether we agree on specific outcomes. Along with so many of 
you, I fervently support a highly-functioning and robust State 
Department led by qualified and suitable Senate-confirmed 
officials, a State Department that is capable and empowered to 
project American diplomacy and to advance our national security 
interests. But I am also realistic. I understand that this 
vision is incompatible with this President and his 
administration, and that the committee has been unwilling to 
advance this vision during the 116th Congress.
    While I look forward to supporting a majority of the 
nominations on today's agenda, I must conclude by noting with 
regret that today's meeting, and particularly the inclusion of 
Mr. Billingslea, does not do justice to the Senate, the 
Constitution, or the American people, and it sets another 
precedent for the running of this committee without regard to 
comity or the views of the minority.
    The Chairman.  With that, we will proceed to the agenda. 
The first one I am going to call up is the nomination of C.J. 
Mahoney to be legal adviser of the State Department. Is there a 
motion to favorably report Mr. Mahoney's nomination?
    Senator Portman.  So move.
    The Chairman.  Senator Portman has moved.
    Senator Paul.  Second.
    The Chairman.  Senator Paul has seconded. Is there debate?
    Senator Menendez.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Senator Menendez.
    Senator Menendez.  Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for 
the Office of Legal Adviser, and I am also impressed by Mr. 
Mahoney's legal resume. And while he does not seem to have the 
experience in the area central to his portfolio at State, I 
suspect that, if confirmed, he will be a quick study. 
Unfortunately, there have been real problems with the Office of 
Legal Adviser. The administration has refused to provide 
responses on issues and controversies where there is no legal 
or policy basis to block Congress from those responses or 
documents.
    If confirmed, I expect that Mr. Mahoney will live up to the 
affirmative answers that he gave to me at his hearing, in which 
he agreed to make himself available to members of the committee 
and staff to answer questions and engage on matters of 
substance in an open and timely fashion. With that expectation 
and the expectation that we will receive certain documents 
before his confirmation vote on the Senate floor, I intend to 
vote yes for him today.
    The Chairman.  Is there further debate?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  There being no further debate, all those in 
favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed, nay.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it. Mr. Mahoney will be 
advanced.
    We will now take up the nomination of Ms. Leora Levy to be 
ambassador to Chile. Is there debate?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  I guess we need a motion. Is there a motion 
to advance?
    Senator Rubio.  So move.
    The Chairman.  Senator Rubio has moved. Is there a second?
    Senator Paul.  Second.
    The Chairman.  Second would be Senator Paul. Is there 
debate?
    Senator Menendez.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Senator Menendez.
    Senator Menendez.  Mr. Chairman, I cannot support Ms. 
Levy's nomination to be the ambassador to the Republic of 
Chile. During her confirmation hearing, Ms. Levy explained that 
her incredibly divisive partisan attacks, in which she 
questioned whether--she said that the Democratic Party was 
destroying her way of life and posted things on her social 
media sites that were absolutely false, absolutely false, 
things which she admitted was false. She described these 
attacks as in the heat of the moment of a political campaign, 
saying that sometimes elbows are thrown, although I don't think 
she was a candidate for anything. And yet, given the 
opportunity, she was unable to apologize for the insults she 
hurled.
    There is nothing in Ms. Levy's background or performance 
that demonstrates to me she has the necessary diplomatic skills 
or depth of knowledge to lead the U.S. embassy in Santiago 
through the heat of the moment, if so required. I don't have 
confidence that in times of crisis or political tension, Ms. 
Levy will be a consensus builder and faithfully represent 
Americans of all political views. Therefore, I will be voting 
no.
    The Chairman.  There being no further debate, all those in 
favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed, nay.
    [Chorus of noes.]
    The Chairman.  Ayes have it, and--
    Voice. I would like to be recorded as no.
    The Chairman.  You may. Anyone else wanted to be recorded 
as--everybody on the Democrat side will be recorded as no 
except for Senator Murphy. Thank you.
    I will now take up the nomination of Mr. Billingslea to be 
Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International 
Security.
    Is there a motion to advance Mr. Billingslea's nomination?
    Senator Johnson.  So move.
    The Chairman.  Senator Johnson has made the motion. Is 
there a second to that motion?
    Senator Gardner.  Second.
    The Chairman.  Senator Gardner has seconded the motion. Is 
there debate?
    Senator Menendez.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Senator Menendez.
    Senator Menendez.  Mr. Chairman, it has been very clear for 
those who have attended his hearings that I oppose Mr. 
Billingslea's nomination. I oppose his nomination for various 
reasons. One, he has not been honest with this committee. He 
seems to believe that if he can just keep dissembling, if he 
keeps repeating the same falsehood again and again, that he can 
obscure his role in promoting torture and rewrite the 
historical record, but he cannot. His words are there in black 
and white. He wrote that he saw no legal or policy problems 
with threatening to transfer detainees to a third country where 
they would fear torture or death, 20-hour interrogations, 
forcibly shaving a detainee's hair or beard, keeping detainees 
awake for up to 4 days in succession, stripping detainees 
naked, using military working guards to frighten detainees 
during interrogation.
    He said he saw no problems, despite being told by Judge 
Advocate Generals from the Navy, Marine Corps, and Army, that 
there were serious legal and policy problems, and despite being 
told by professional interrogators from the FBI and NCIS that 
these methods were ineffective and abusive. He wrote, among 
other things, about which I cannot get into here because DOD 
refuses to declassify those memos, but I can tell you this: 
they are disturbing, and they do not reflect well on Mr. 
Billingslea.
    But let me read you the words of some of the people who 
worked with Mr. Billingslea at the time or who were involved in 
the SASC investigation of detainee abuse. The former Judge 
Advocate General of the United States Army, retired U.S. Army 
Major General Thomas J. Romig, wrote to the committee that, 
``Billingslea not only failed to stand up for what was right, 
but he also went out of his way to advocate for using abusive 
interrogation techniques against detainees in our custody, 
despite being told that his positions were wrong, 
counterproductive, and unlawful by a group of senior military 
lawyers with over 100 collective years of military experience 
and nearly that many years of military law experience.'' The 
former lead staffer on the bipartisan SASC report, Joe Bryan, 
was so surprised by Mr. Billingslea's statement at his last 
nomination hearing, that he ``never supported torture or 
anything resembling torture,'' that Mr. Bryan wrote to the 
committee the very next day stating, ``The record established 
in the SASC investigation does not support that assessment.''
    The deputy assistant director of counterterrorism for the 
Navy Criminal Investigative Service, Mark Fallon, wrote that, 
``In my direct experience, Mr. Billingslea was the single 
biggest bureaucratic obstacle at the Pentagon, short of the 
Department of Defense's senior-most leaders, to stopping the 
use of enhanced interrogation techniques. He was a vocal 
advocate for the use of the techniques and the claim that 
torture worked. And while he may not have intended that the 
abusive techniques then be employed at Ghraib and elsewhere, 
that is exactly what happened as a direct result of him pushing 
for their use at Guantanamo. In all the years since, despite 
having mutual friends and contacts, I have never once heard any 
suggestion that Mr. Billingslea has since had a change of 
heart.''
    Now, on that last point, Mr. Billingslea could have told 
this committee that he made a mistake. He could have said that 
he was young and relatively inexperienced at the time, that the 
country was at war, that he wrote something
    that he now regrets. But Mr. Billingslea has said none of 
that, and I will tell you why, because he still does not think 
that he did anything wrong. I believe that he would today be 
recommending using all of those torture techniques--stripping, 
slapping, sleep deprivation, dogs, and more--if someone told 
him they were legal.
    Since 1863, when President Lincoln promulgated General 
Order Number 100, America has been an example to the world on 
how to treat detainees. The actions of Mr. Billingslea and 
those who thought like him destroyed that reputation, frayed 
our relations with allies, and put our troops at risk. And that 
is why, Mr. Chairman, I am going to vote no on his nomination.
    The Chairman.  Further debate?
    [No response.]
    Senator Menendez.  Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry, if 
I may?
    The Chairman.  You may.
    Senator Menendez.  As we cast this vote, what is the 
requirement under the committee rules for reporting Mr. 
Billingslea out in terms of the majority presence that has to 
be in the room?
    The Chairman.  The rules, Senator, as you know, are quite 
clear. It has to be a majority of the committee present, and 
that a majority of those present must vote in favor.
    So all those in favor?
    Senator Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen.  Mr. Chairman, I request a roll call vote.
    The Chairman.  A roll call 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?
    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.  Present by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Young?
    Senator Young. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cruz?
    The Chairman.  Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perdue?
    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 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 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 will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 11; the noes are 10. 
There is 1 present.
    The Chairman.  The motion has been passed, and I will 
have--move to Mr. Trujillo to be assistant secretary of state 
for western hemisphere affairs. Is there--is there a motion to 
adopt?
    Senator Rubio. So move.
    The Chairman.  Senator Rubio has moved that Mr. Trujillo's 
nomination will be reported favorably to the floor. Is there a 
second to that?
    Senator Johnson.  Second.
    The Chairman.  Senator Johnson seconded. Is there debate?
    Senator Menendez.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Senator Menendez.
    Senator Menendez.  Mr. Chairman, Ambassador Trujillo has 
been nominated to serve as the assistant secretary of the 
western hemisphere at a time of much turbulence, and so it is 
an important position. Now, I have made numerous requests that 
the Department has refused to answer, including requests for 
agreements signed with foreign governments within the Western 
Hemisphere. The administration refused to comply, even though, 
in this case, your office, Mr. Chairman, supports our request. 
I also have enduring concerns about Mr. Trujillo's actions as 
our ambassador to the OAS, including launching a questionable 
investigation that targeted a U.S. citizen employee of the OAS 
and has left him facing dismissal pending an appeal.
    I am going to support Ambassador Trujillo's nomination for 
the time being. However, if the Department does not comply with 
our request for oversight and Mr. Trujillo doesn't answer the 
additional questions about his actions which he agreed to at 
his confirmation hearing, then I will not only seek to oppose 
his nomination on the floor. I also will insist that the 
regular order be held in order for his nomination to proceed.
    Senator Cardin.  Mr. Chairman? Over here.
    The Chairman.  Oh, sorry. Senator Cardin.
    Senator Cardin.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I take a slightly 
different tack than the ranking member. I am going to support 
Mr. Trujillo's nomination today because I do think he has been 
very forthcoming on representing us at the OAS. I have had good 
conversations. He has done some--I think some aggressive action 
to include parliamentarians in the work of the OAS. But I am 
very troubled by recent accounts that I have learned on a 
personnel issue, and I will withhold judgment as to whether I 
will support him on the floor or not, pending a conversation I 
hope that will be arranged for me to talk with him about this 
issue prior to the floor vote. So with that in mind, I will 
support his nomination today, but I am going to withhold my 
judgment pending that conversation.
    The Chairman.  Fair enough, sir. Senator Rubio.
    Senator Rubio.  To the ranking member, the points that he 
made, I cannot speak to the first matter about the transparency 
from the State Department on the contracts with foreign 
governments and so forth. I would hope they will respond since 
this committee has oversight over matters such as those. And it 
has been a long practice and tradition to use nominations as 
leverage to get answers to questions. We have all done it, so I 
will not speak to that matter.
    On the second point, my understanding, and I know my 
understanding as I have spoken to Ambassador Trujillo about the 
issue with the inspector general in the OAS, is that he has 
answered questions and is willing to answer additional 
questions. My understanding of the facts there are that there 
was--as he was headed to some meeting in Central America, there 
were a number of leaks that were finding its way into the 
press, and he simply requested of the Organization of American 
States that they investigate those leaks. He did not--I have 
seen email correspondence on the matter. I have seen other 
things that have been provided to the minority.
    He did not request an investigation on any specific 
individual. That OAS inspector general investigation ultimately 
uncovered, allegedly, a U.S. citizen working for the OAS, who 
the inspector general's office holds responsible for that. So 
it seems to me obviously that, at least based on the facts we 
have before us today, that he simply followed the process of 
using the inspector general's office for that investigation. 
But obviously, you know, if there are more questions to be 
answered in that regard, I believe he would be forthcoming 
because I think it is important we get this position done. And 
it is a post that needs to be filled, and I think he has 
shown--at the OAS, he has certainly reinvigorated our presence 
and our mission there. So I hope we can resolve this matter and 
have him confirmed on that second point.
    On the first point obviously about the unanswered 
questions, I would just urge the State Department to fix that 
as soon as they can so we can get this post filled. Thank you.
    The Chairman.  Thank you. Is there further debate on Mr. 
Trujillo?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The motion before the committee is to report 
his nomination favorably.
    All those in favor? [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  All those opposed?
    [Chorus of noes.]
    The Chairman.  Did you want to be recorded? Senator Udall 
will be recorded. Senator Merkley will be recorded.
    The motion has been adopted, and he will be reported to the 
floor.
    Next, we have the nomination of Lisa Kenna to be ambassador 
to Peru. Is there a motion to report her nomination favorably?
    Senator Johnson.  So move.
    The Chairman.  Senator Johnson moved that she be reported 
favorably. Is there a second?
    Senator Romney.  Second.
    The Chairman.  Senator Romney has seconded that nomination. 
Is there debate on the--on the motion?
    Senator Menendez.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Senator Menendez.
    Senator Menendez.  Mr. Chairman, I want to be clear that my 
support today for Ms. Kenna is contingent on her fulfilling a 
commitment she made to me at her nominations hearing to comply 
with outstanding requests that I, along with Chairman Engel, 
have had to interview her about political retaliation at the 
State Department and events surrounding the removal of 
Inspector General Linick. Again, this interview should have 
taken place before her nomination hearing and before this 
business meeting. But because I believe in fairness to 
nominees, particularly career nominees, and because I will, for 
the moment, attribute the delay to the State Department and not 
Ms. Kenna, I am willing to give her the vote with the 
expectation that she will fulfill her commitment and sit for an 
interview--I believe the day is supposed to be August 7th--and 
before her nomination advances to the floor.
    If that does not happen for whatever reason, then it should 
go without saying that my view of her nomination is likely to 
change, and my insistence on following the regular order on the 
floor will attach.
    The Chairman.  Is there further debate?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  There being no further debate, 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 motion----
    Senator Cardin.  Mr. Chairman, can I be recorded as no?
    The Chairman.  Yes, Senator Cardin will be recorded as a 
no. Anyone else?
    Yes, Senator----
    Senator Perdue. Mr. Chairman, I would like to change my 
vote by proxy for Marshall Billingslea to----
    The Chairman.  Your microphone is not--Senator Perdue, I do 
not believe----
    Senator Perdue. Sorry, Mr. Chairman. I would like to change 
my vote, ``yes by proxy,'' to ``yes in person'' for 
Billingslea.
    The Chairman.  Is there objection to his request?
    Senator Graham. Mr. Chairman, I would like to do the same 
thing.
    The Chairman.  Are there objections to those?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  There being none, it is so ordered.
    Our last item on the agenda is our en banc list. We have 12 
nominations.
    There are 11 on the script in front of me, but Ms. Wos has 
been added to that per negotiations with the minority. But in 
addition to that, we have six foreign service officer lists--
seven foreign service officer lists, which have been published 
in the notice. Is there a motion to send all those to the floor 
with the recommendation?
    Senator Johnson.  So move.
    The Chairman.  Senator Johnson has moved.
    Senator Menendez.  Second.
    The Chairman.  Senator Menendez has seconded that motion. 
Is there debate?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  There being none, all those in favor, 
signify by saying aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed, nay.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it. That completes the 
business meeting this morning. Thank you all for attending.
    Senator Gardner.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Yes, sir?
    Senator Gardner.  I just want to thank Margaret MacLeod, my 
Pearson Fellow, who has done an incredible job this year. This 
is her last hearing. It has been kind of a wild year, so just 
all the people that work in our offices, our fellows, the 
staff, have put up with all the COVID-19 questions and 
challenges of hearings. Just thanks to all of them, but 
particularly to Margaret.
    [Applause.]
    The Chairman.  It has been an interesting time. Thank you, 
Senator Gardner.

    [Whereupon, at 9:29 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]


                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                      TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2020

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

                Summary of Action Taken by the Committee

                              NOMINATIONS

  Mr. Erik Paul Bethel, of Florida, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and 
        Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic 
        of Panama, agreed to by voice vote

  Mr. Edward A. Burrier, of the District of Columbia, to be Deputy 
        Chief Executive Officer of the United States International 
        Development Finance Corporation, agreed to by voice vote

  Lieutenant General Keith W. Dayton, United States Army, Retired, of 
        Washington, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary 
        of the United States of America to Ukraine, agreed to by voice 
        vote

  Mr. William A. Douglass, of Florida, to be Ambassador Extraordinary 
        and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the 
        Commonwealth of The Bahamas, agreed to by voice vote

  Ms. Julie D. Fisher, of Tennessee, 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 Belarus, agreed to by voice vote 
        (Murphy recorded as no)

  Ms. Melanie Harris Higgins, of Georgia, 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 Burundi, agreed to by voice vote

  Ms. Jeanne Marie Maloney, 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 Kingdom of Eswatini, agreed to by voice vote

  Mr. Michael A. McCarthy, 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 Liberia, agreed to by voice vote

  Mr. Johnathan Pratt, 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 Djibouti, agreed to by voice vote

  The Honorable Manisha Singh, of Florida, 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. James Broward Story, of South Carolina, 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 Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, agreed to by 
        voice vote

  Ms. Barbera Hale Thornhill, of California, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Republic of Singapore, agreed to by voice vote 
        (Menendez, Cardin, and Booker recorded as no)

  Mr. Thomas Laszlo Vajda, of Arizona, 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 Union of Burma, agreed to by voice vote

  The Honorable Kenneth R. Weinstein, of the District of Columbia, to 
        be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United 
        States of America to Japan, agreed to by voice vote

  Mr. Alex Nelson Wong, of New Jersey, to be Alternate Representative 
        of the United States of America for Special Political Affairs 
        in the United Nations with the rank of Ambassador, and to be an 
        Alternate Representative of the United States of America to the 
        Sessions of the General Assembly of the United Nations during 
        his tenure of service as Alternate Representative of the United 
        States of America for Special Political Affairs in the United 
        Nations, agreed to by voice vote

                           Meeting Transcript

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:42 a.m. in Room 
SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. James E. Risch, 
chairman of the committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Risch, Rubio, Gardner, Romney, Barrasso, 
Portman, Cruz, Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Kaine, and Booker.

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

    The Chairman.  The United States Senate Committee on 
Foreign Relations will come to order.
    Today we have before the committee 15 nominees, from whom 
we have heard, and we are going to vote momentarily.
    Senator Menendez, do you have any comments?

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

    Senator Menendez.  Yes, Mr. Chairman. I am going to be 
brief, though.
    There are a number of qualified career nominees before us 
today, and I strongly support their nominations.
    There are also a number of political nominees here today, 
some of whom have qualifications and experience for the jobs 
that they have been nominated for.
    Each of the nominees, however, before us today was the 
product of a work period in which the chair implemented a 
unilateral agenda without any input from the committee 
minority. I have already spoken about the chairman's 
elimination of comity, so today I will only remind colleagues 
of the chairman's path is a new precedent for the committee and 
that future chairmen and chairwomen of both parties will 
follow.
    I also express my hope that the committee return to a 
robust legislative agenda. The committee is most relevant when 
we are moving legislation that matters to the American people 
and to help shape U.S. foreign policy. But we are not having 
any legislative markups, and I urge the chair to reverse that 
dynamic, be focused on legislation, work with us to reestablish 
the committee's relevance.
    And I would note for the record that even though we 
disagree on the process, we are half of the members attending 
to provide a quorum.
    The Chairman.  Well, thank you, Senator.
    I will not belabor this. It is the same old fight we have 
had since I became chairman, and as I indicated, I would work 
with you every way I could.
    What I do disagree with you on is you said I put together a 
unilateral agenda without any input from the minority, and with 
that I disagree. I did put together the agenda. We did ask for 
input. We disagreed, and as I told you previously, the chairman 
has got to make decisions and I did. We are where we are on 
that.
    As far as a legislative agenda, obviously we have got to 
get the important business of standing up a government ahead of 
everything. And so I have given that priority, will continue to 
give it priority. The faster we can move these, the sooner we 
can go to the legislative agenda because there are a number of 
things on there which are bipartisan and deserve our considered 
judgment.
    With that, what I intend to do--well, what I would request 
the committee to do is we have 15 nominees, and if we could 
have a motion to adopt them and do it by a voice vote, anyone 
who wanted to vote no on any of them, we would record as voting 
no. If a member insists that we pull one down for a vote on 
that particular nominee, I will be happy to do that also.
    So with that, is there a motion to----
    Senator Barrasso.  So moved.
    The Chairman.  Senator Barrasso has moved that we adopt the 
15 nominees, which have been noticed. I am not going to read 
them. They are already in the record.
    Is there a second to that motion?
    Senator Portman. Second.
    The Chairman.  It has been moved and seconded that we 
proceed in that fashion.
    Are there any requests before I call for the vote? Senator 
Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    I am not requesting a separate vote on Julie Fisher, but I 
would like to be recorded in the negative, and I will intend to 
oppose this nomination for the time being if it proceeds to the 
floor.
    And the reason is this. We cut off full diplomatic 
relations with Belarus because of President Lukashenko's moves 
to clamp down on democracy and human rights and freedom of the 
press. Obviously, we are at a dire moment of crisis today, but 
it is a curious moment for the United States to reestablish 
full diplomatic relations with a government right now that is 
in the middle of a brutal crackdown on protesters in the 
streets.
    Now, that is not to say there is not a reason to have U.S. 
personnel at a high level being able to sort of witness what is 
happening on the ground, but in the absence of any broader 
policy towards Belarus today, in the absence of congressional 
action to require sanctions, the appointment of a special 
envoy, better coordination with our European partners who are 
leading, despite the United States' relative silence with 
respect to the democratic movement, this action of essentially 
rewarding Lukashenko with the reestablishment of an ambassador 
to that country in the middle of a crisis by itself I think is 
a very, very unwise move.
    And so I would simply like to be recorded in the negative. 
I will oppose this nomination moving forward on the floor in 
the absence of some set of broader policies including, I would 
argue, the appointment of a special envoy. I think in Ukraine, 
this one-two punch of having an ambassador and an envoy whose 
job every single day was to try to work with our allies and 
partners to unwind the crisis on the ground, I think it worked 
very well there. I think it could also work well here. So once 
again, for today's purposes, just please record me in the 
negative.
    The Chairman.  We will do so, Senator.
    And, first of all, I want to make sure that everyone 
understands that as far as our view on Belarus, I do not think 
there is a lot of daylight between ourselves and our parties on 
what is happening in Belarus. It is an awful situation. And I 
would hope no one would interpret having an ambassador go there 
to try to coordinate our help for the Belarusian people as a 
reward for Lukashenko. I do not think anybody wants to reward 
Lukashenko for anything. He needs to be gone.
    So the State Department has made the decision that the best 
way to help the Belarusian people is to have an ambassador 
there. It is certainly not an ambassador to help the person who 
purports to be the head of the country. So Lukashenko does not 
deserve any help of any kind. Like I say, I do not think there 
is any daylight between us.
    But we will record you as voting no, Senator, for the 
reasons you have stated.
    Senator Menendez.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Yes.
    Senator Menendez.  I ask to be recorded no on Ms. 
Thornhill.
    The Chairman.  On Fisher?
    Senator Menendez.  Thornhill.
    The Chairman.  On Thornhill.
    Senator Cardin.  Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman.  Senator Cardin?
    Senator Cardin.  I would also like to be recorded no on 
Thornhill.
    The Chairman.  Senator Cardin will be recorded no on 
Thornhill.
    Senator Booker?
    Senator Booker. I would like to be recorded as a no on 
Thornhill as well.
    The Chairman.  You will, Senator.
    Senator Booker. Thank you, sir.
    The Chairman.  Any others?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  If not, the motion before us is to adopt 
these 15 nominations which are both career and political 
nominations. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman.  Opposed, nay.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman.  The ayes have it. The motion has passed, and 
those who have requested to be recorded in the negative will be 
recorded as such.

    [Whereupon, at 9:50 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                                  [all]