[Senate Prints 117-29]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




117th Congress      }					{     S. Prt.
                              COMMITTEE PRINT                     
 2d Session         }                                   {     117-29
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     


                           BUSINESS MEETINGS

                                 OF THE

                     COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
                          UNITED STATES SENATE


                               DURING THE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             First Session

                   January 3, 2021 to January 3, 2022

                             Second Session

                   January 3, 2022 to January 3, 2023


                                     


                  [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]




         Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
      
      
                     Available via World Wide Web:
                        http://www.govinfo.gov              
                        
                               ______
                                 

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

52-685 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2023












                COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS          
               One Hundred Seventeenth Congress          

            ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey, Chairman          

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland             JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire            MARCO RUBIO, Florida
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware           RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut          MITT ROMNEY, Utah
TIM KAINE, Virginia                      ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts          RAND PAUL, Kentucky
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                     TODD YOUNG, Indiana
CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey               JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii                     TED CRUZ, Texas
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland               MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota
                                         BILL HAGERTY, Tennessee

                Damian Murphy, Staff Director          
       Christopher M. Socha, Republican 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

                     117th CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION

Monday, January 25, 2021

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

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



Thursday, February 4, 2021

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

  Meeting Transcript.............................................     5



Thursday, March 11, 2021

  Summary of Action Taken by the Committee.......................    25

  Meeting Transcript.............................................    25



Wednesday, March 24, 2021

  Summary of Action Taken by the Committee.......................    37

  Meeting Transcript.............................................    38



Thursday, April 15, 2021

  Summary of Action Taken by the Committee.......................    49

  Meeting Transcript.............................................    49



Wednesday, April 21, 2021

  Summary of Action Taken by the Committee.......................    53

  Meeting Transcript.............................................    54



Tuesday, May 25, 2021

  Summary of Action Taken by the Committee.......................   109

  Meeting Transcript.............................................   109



Tuesday, June 22, 2021

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

  Meeting Transcript.............................................   121



Thursday, June 24, 2021

  Summary of Action Taken by the Committee.......................   135

  Meeting Transcript.............................................   136



                                 (iii)

Wednesday, July 28, 2021

  Summary of Action Taken by the Committee.......................   165

  Meeting Transcript.............................................   166



Wednesday, August 4, 2021 -- a.m.

  Summary of Action Taken by the Committee.......................   189

  Meeting Transcript.............................................   190



Wednesday, August 4, 2021 -- p.m.

  Summary of Action Taken by the Committee.......................   251

  Meeting Transcript.............................................   251



Tuesday, October 19, 2021

  Summary of Action Taken by the Committee.......................   255

  Meeting Transcript.............................................   256



Wednesday, November 3, 2021

  Summary of Action Taken by the Committee.......................   263

  Meeting Transcript.............................................   264



Wednesday, December 15, 2021

  Summary of Action Taken by the Committee.......................   285

  Meeting Transcript.............................................   286

                     117th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION

Wednesday, January 12, 2022

  Summary of Action Taken by the Committee.......................   291

  Meeting Transcript.............................................   292



Tuesday, March 8, 2022

  Summary of Action Taken by the Committee.......................   297

  Meeting Transcript.............................................   298



Wednesday, March 23, 2022

  Summary of Action Taken by the Committee.......................   307

  Meeting Transcript.............................................   309



Tuesday, March 29, 2022

  Summary of Action Taken by the Committee.......................   317

  Meeting Transcript.............................................   318



Wednesday, May 4, 2022

  Summary of Action Taken by the Committee.......................   349

  Meeting Transcript.............................................   350



Wednesday, May 18, 2022

  Summary of Action Taken by the Committee.......................   359

  Meeting Transcript.............................................   360



Thursday, May 26, 2022

  Summary of Action Taken by the Committee.......................   365

  Meeting Transcript.............................................   365



Thursday, June 9, 2022

  Summary of Action Taken by the Committee.......................   369

  Meeting Transcript.............................................   371



Thursday, June 23, 2022

  Summary of Action Taken by the Committee.......................   387

  Meeting Transcript.............................................   388



Tuesday, July 19, 2022

  Summary of Action Taken by the Committee.......................   401

  Meeting Transcript.............................................   403



Wednesday, August 3, 2022

  Summary of Action Taken by the Committee.......................   423

  Meeting Transcript.............................................   424



Wednesday, September 14, 2022

  Summary of Action Taken by the Committee.......................   427

  Meeting Transcript.............................................   428



Wednesday, December 7, 2022

  Summary of Action Taken by the Committee.......................   463

  Meeting Transcript.............................................   465
  



      

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

 
                  BUSINESS MEETINGS OF THE U.S. SENATE

                     COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

                    DURING THE FIRST SESSION OF THE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

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


                                     


                            BUSINESS MEETING

                               ----------                              


                        MONDAY, JANUARY 25, 2021

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

                Summary of Action Taken by the Committee

                               NOMINATION

  The Honorable Antony John Blinken, of New York, to be Secretary of 
        State--agreed to by roll call vote 15-3

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

          Nays: Barrasso, Paul, Cruz (proxy)

                           Meeting Transcript

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 6:04 p.m., in 
Room SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. James Risch, 
Chairman of the committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Risch [presiding], Johnson, Romney, 
Barrasso, Portman, Paul, Young, Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, 
Murphy, Kaine, Merkley, and Booker.

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

    The Chairman. The Foreign Relations Committee of the United 
States Senate will come to order. We have a quorum.
    And this evening, we meet to consider one item of business. 
This is a business meeting as opposed to a hearing. And the one 
item of business that we have is to consider the nomination of 
Antony Blinken to be Secretary of State, whether the matter 
should go to the floor or not. So with that, Senator Menendez, 
do you have anything?

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

    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, very briefly. First of all, 
thank you for working with me to put Mr. Blinken in the 
position to be reported out to the Senate. I hope we will take 
him up tomorrow. He is highly qualified. He is well prepared to 
be the next Secretary of State. He is well known to us at the 
committee. He has previously been confirmed by the Senate to be 
the deputy secretary of state. He served as the staff director 
of this Committee on Foreign Relations.
    I believe he is the right person to repair and restore our 
alliances, to reinvigorate the relationship between the State 
Department and Congress. And we heard that in his testimony 
last year, his willingness to cross both sides of the aisle to 
engage with Members and to make commitments to continue to be 
engaged. Throughout almost 5 hours of testimony last week, he 
displayed both his extensive knowledge and his thoughtfulness. 
And as I said last week on the floor, the American people 
expect, and the Constitution requires, that we provide advice 
and consent to ensure that our top national security officials 
are confirmed in a timely manner.
    The Office of the Secretary of State is one of the most 
important national security positions of the Government. It is 
fourth in the presidential line of succession. It cannot be 
left vacant. So I look forward to hopefully getting a positive 
vote for Mr. Blinken today from both sides.
    The world is on fire right now. We have pressing crises in 
every region and hemisphere and with the COVID-19 pandemic 
taking more lives every day. Just last week, we received a word 
of a horrific massacre in Ethiopia along the Sudanese border, 
which threatens the stability of Africa's second-most populous 
country. There will be more calamities like this, more 
emergencies that call for U.S. leadership, engagement, and 
response. We cannot allow the State Department to be rudderless 
because the truth is, without U.S. leadership, China and Russia 
will act to fill that vacuum.
    I ask and urge my colleagues to support the nomination.
    The Chairman. Do you have a motion, Senator?
    Senator Menendez. I so move his nomination be reported 
favorably to the Senate.
    The Chairman. Is there a second?
    Senator Kaine. Second.
    The Chairman. The motion has been made and seconded. Is 
there further discussion on the motion? Senator Paul?
    Senator Paul. Mr. Chairman, I will vote against Mr. Blinken 
to be Secretary of State, primarily because he has been in 
favor of every military intervention in the Middle East over 
the last 20 years: the Iraq War, the Libyan war. His complaint 
about the Syrian war was not that we were involved, but that we 
did not get enough involved to actually win the war, so he was 
actually for more involvement to get to regime change. 
Initially, he was also in favor of the Yemen war as well. It 
has also come to my attention that during his executive 
directorship at the University of Penn Biden Center, that the 
University of Pennsylvania received $77 million from Chinese 
donors, including $22 million from anonymous donors. I think it 
would be irresponsible to vote for somebody until we knew 
exactly who those anonymous donors were and how much of that 
flowed through to the Biden Center at Penn. So I will oppose 
Mr. Blinken's nomination.
    One further reason would be that when he has been asked 
about an authorization of use of force, he has said, well, 
yeah, it would be nice if we narrowed the focus, but we really 
do not need it. So his opinion is the same as both Republican 
and Democrat administrations. They do not really need an AUMF 
to fight war, whether it is Somalia, Libya, Syria. You know, 
they do not believe they need any further authorization. They 
can use the 2001. Many on the other side have objected to this, 
and I think a consistent vote today, if you object to a broad 
interpretation of an AUMF that means anything, would be to vote 
against Mr. Blinken's nomination. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Paul. Is there further 
discussion?
    Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, just very briefly. I 
appreciate Senator Paul's longstanding views on the question of 
intervention and the use of force by the United States 
Government in different parts of the world. I will not debate 
that with him. It is a principled view he has. On the second 
point, though, I want to say for the record, there is no 
factual basis for the allegations that Chinese money went to 
the Penn Biden Center. As I understand it, there was no funding 
from China or Chinese nationals to the Penn Biden Center. In 
fact, a university spokesman confirmed that the Penn Biden 
Center did not receive any gifts from China. And so I think 
that--I appreciate the gentleman's concerns about use of force. 
On this issue, I think the facts and the record state quite 
differently.
    The Chairman. Is there further debate? Further comments? 
Further discussion?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, the question before the committee is 
shall we send Mr. Blinken's nomination to the floor of the 
United States Senate with an affirmative recommendation.
    The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
    The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Johnson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
    Senator Romney. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Graham?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Young?
    Senator Young. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cruz?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Menendez?
    Senator Menendez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    Senator Menendez. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    Senator Booker. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 15; the nays are 3.
    The Chairman. The motion has passed. The nomination will be 
referred to the floor of the United States Senate.
    Is there any further matter to come before the committee at 
this time?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, the committee will stand adjourned.


    [Whereupon, at 6:10 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]



                               ----------                              




                            BUSINESS MEETING

                               ----------                              


                       THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2021

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

                Summary of Action Taken by the Committee

                               NOMINATION

  The Honorable Linda Thomas-Greenfield, of Louisiana, to be the 
        Representative of the United States of America to the United 
        Nations, with the rank and status of Ambassador Extraordinary 
        and Plenipotentiary, and the Representative of the United 
        States of America in the Security Council of the United Nations 
        and the Representative of the United States of America to the 
        Sessions of the General Assembly of the United Nations during 
        her tenure of service as Representative of the United States of 
        America to the United Nations--agreed to by roll call vote 18-4

          Ayes: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, Kaine, 
        Markey, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen, Risch, Johnson 
        (proxy), Romney, Portman (proxy), Paul (proxy), Young, Rounds

          Nays: Rubio (proxy), Barrasso, Cruz, Hagerty

                           Meeting Transcript

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., in 
Room SR-325, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert 
Menendez, Chairman of the committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Menendez [presiding], Cardin, Shaheen, 
Coons, Murphy, Kaine, Markey, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van 
Hollen, Risch, Romney, Barrasso, Young, Cruz, Rounds, and 
Hagerty.

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

    The Chairman. This business meeting of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee will come to order. Welcome everybody.
    First, I want to thank Senator Risch for working with us to 
get to this point so that we can consider the nomination of the 
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Linda Thomas-Greenfield. 
And I appreciate his work with us in this regard, and I look 
forward to working with him in common cause in the bipartisan 
tradition that the committee has had for a very long time.
    Let me welcome two--well, four new Members to the 
committee. Senator Schatz and Senator Van Hollen, we look 
forward to your participation and insights and experience, and 
Senator Booker is extremely thrilled that you have been added 
to the committee so he is not at the end of the roster. And let 
me also welcome Senator Rounds and Senator Hagerty, who served 
our country in Japan. We appreciate you bringing your 
experiences and expertise to the committee as well, and we look 
forward to working with you.
    I want to first recognize Chairman Risch for his 
stewardship of the committee during the last Congress, and I 
look forward to an opportunity in the near future to discuss 
our priorities for the 117th Congress and to hear yours. And 
today I will simply note how honored I am to once again have 
the opportunity to have the gavel as the Chairman.
    Today we will consider the nomination of Ambassador Linda 
Thomas-Greenfield to be the U.S. Representative to the United 
Nations and to the Security Council and General Assembly of the 
U.N. Senator Risch, as I said, I want to thank you again for 
helping us put on Ambassador Greenfield's hearing last week and 
this business meeting today.
    It is an understatement to say that Ambassador Thomas-
Greenfield is eminently qualified for the position of U.S. 
representative to the United Nations. For over 35 years, she 
has served this country faithfully and ably under both 
Democratic and Republican Administrations: Ambassador to 
Liberia, director general of the Foreign Service, Assistant 
Secretary of State for African Affairs. Her record of service 
in the senior and Senate-confirmed positions of the State 
Department has been extraordinary. Our country is lucky that 
the Ambassador has agreed to return to public service. We face 
an array of formidable challenges, both around the world and at 
the United Nations, that demands someone with her skills and 
commitment to democracy, good governance, human rights, and 
anti-corruption efforts.
    Let me briefly address the issue of the Ambassador's speech 
to Savannah State University, which was the focus of much 
questioning last week. She was invited by the oldest historical 
black college and university in Georgia, a college with which 
she had a longstanding relationship. She accepted because of 
her commitment to diversity, a subject that has long been close 
to my own heart and that I pressed her on when she was the 
director general. We heard important remarks from our 
colleague, Senator Booker, one of only 11 African-American 
Senators in our Nation's history, about the importance of HBCUs 
in producing African-American leaders.
    Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield spoke at Savannah State to 
encourage young black and brown Americans, who are 
underrepresented in our Foreign Service, to take their 
considerable talents and consider careers in U.S. national 
security, and especially to enter our Foreign Service so they 
can help spread American values around the world. While she 
acknowledged regret over the speech, particularly given the 
involvement of the Confucius Institute, Ambassador Thomas-
Greenfield has a long history of expressed opposition to 
China's use of debt trap tactics in Africa and elsewhere and 
its increasingly malign presence in world governance bodies. 
She has also spoken plainly about China's authoritarian 
ambitions and open hostility to universal human rights and 
democratic values, and has committed to confronting them every 
step of the way, including at the United Nations.
    Last week I went over some examples from her storied career 
as it relates to China specifically and entered a long list 
into the record, leaving no question where she stands. I have 
no doubt that Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield is someone who is 
clear eyed about the challenges we face from China's 
Government, about regaining U.S. leverage and influence on the 
Security Council, about re-engaging our allies and holding Iran 
accountable, and about standing up when Israel is subjected to 
biased attacks. And I have no doubt that upon confirmation, she 
will skillfully and forcefully represent the United States. She 
has my full support, and I urge my colleagues to support her 
nomination.
    With that, let me recognize the distinguished Ranking 
Member for his comments. Senator Risch?

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

    Senator Risch. Thank you, Senator Menendez, and thank you 
for those kind remarks at the beginning. I want to address for 
a moment Ms. Greenfield's nomination before we vote here.
    First of all, let me say that I have absolutely no 
disagreement with you that she is eminently qualified. She has 
an outstanding, long record of statecraft and service in the 
Department. I think that--I really do not think that that is 
the issue. I mean, she is--she impresses me both when I met 
with her individually and I think when she appeared before the 
committee. She is a very kind person and a gentle person. 
Generally, we like somebody a little tougher than that actually 
over at the U.N., but I think she will be able to hold her own 
in that regard.
    The main objection to her from those who are objecting 
comes from the speech that she made to the Confucius Institute. 
I said at the hearing, and I have not changed my position, in 
that I am not willing to allow one speech to define a person's 
career, and I think, Senator Menendez, you underlined and 
underscored the many speeches she has made other than that 
were--that were very different than that. So given that that, I 
am willing to set that aside. And, most importantly, she came 
here, unlike a lot of people do, and she acknowledged the 
mistake. She acknowledged that she wished she had not given 
that speech, and if she had it to do it over again, she would 
not do it.
    The only other thing I would point out is her strength 
certainly is on the African continent, which is, no question, a 
big issue for us as we go forward. I think her qualifications 
are a little lighter on China and on the Middle East, which we 
all know is critical at the U.N.
    Let me let me just say that I think that the takeaway I 
have from the speech at the Confucius Institute is not as much 
what she said because she has acknowledged that it was an 
error. But probably if there is a silver lining in this--
Congress ought to take a look at this--we do not allow foreign 
governments to infect our political candidates by contributing 
to their--to their campaigns, yet we do allow tens of millions 
of dollars of foreign governments' money, including the notably 
the Chinese, to infiltrate these institutions of higher 
learning, which are absolutely critical to our culture and the 
continuation of our culture. And she was paid $1,500 for this 
speech, and she acknowledges that the speech that she gave was 
softer on China and ignored the horrible record that China has 
on human rights and many other things.
    So I think probably as a body, Congress ought to take a 
look at this type of payment by foreign governments into the 
colleges and universities. I mean the question is, what are 
they getting for this? Well, it certainly is not a contribution 
they are making out of the goodness of their heart, and it 
certainly is not a contribution that they are making to 
purchase technology or license technology or something like 
that, and I think what we see here with that speech that she 
gave is the result of it. So maybe if there is a silver lining 
that has come out of this, it underlines the malign influence 
that this cash infiltration into our universities has.
    In any event, I am going to support her nomination. I think 
she has got an outstanding record. She is a good person, maybe 
too good a person for this job, as I said, because the people 
she is going to have to wrestle with up there are not 
necessarily good people sometimes, but we will all wish her 
well. We will all stand behind her in discussing the issues. We 
have very little daylight between us on issues such as Turkey 
and those kinds of things, with the exception, of course, of 
Iran. She is carrying the position of the current 
Administration on Iran, which we are going to get to, I am 
sure, which we do have differences on.
    But in any event, I am going to vote for the nomination, 
and with that, I will yield the floor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Well, I thank the Ranking Member, and we will 
look forward to working with you about--and I know Senator 
Portman and others worked on the Confucius Institute report, 
and we look forward to working with you on that. And I would 
just say she is a--I saw a little steel when she was challenged 
in her hearing, so I think she has a velvet glove and an iron 
will. So is there any other comments? Senator Cruz?
    Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congratulations on 
becoming Mr. Chairman.
    I intend to vote against this nominee. I have been growing 
increasingly concerned over the last 2 weeks by what appears to 
be a concerted, coordinated pivot towards China by the new 
Biden administration. We have been seeing nominee after nominee 
embracing China more closely. We have seen multiple nominees 
refuse to answer whether they would keep Huawei or other listed 
companies on the entities list. One after the other, the 
nominees are all refusing to answer that.
    With Ms. Thomas-Greenfield, her at the Confucius Institute, 
I think, raises very serious concerns. Now, we saw her come 
before this committee and apologize for speaking to the 
Confucius Institute, say it was a mistake, say she was 
horrified by what she saw. I think there are several 
observations that are important. Number one, this speech was 
not something given decades ago with the innocence of youth. 
This speech was given in October of 2019, just over a year ago. 
Several of the defenders of this nomination have spoken of the 
wonderful virtues of Savannah State and historically black 
college and universities. Unquestionably, historically black 
colleges and universities play a pivotal role in our country, 
and speaking at Savannah State or any other university is a 
terrific thing. But she did not go speak at Savannah State or 
any other university. She went to a Confucius Institute.
    And as the Members of this committee know, Confucius 
Institutes are controlled and are paid for by the communist 
Government of China. They engage in rampant espionage and 
propaganda paid for by China, and there are multiple Members of 
this committee, Republicans and Democrats, with whom I have 
worked to pass legislation that has shut down dozens of 
Confucius Institutes across this country. And so to go and 
speak at a Confucius Institute--I ask each Member of the 
committee, would you speak at a Confucius Institute? I do not 
think there is a Member of this committee that would. It is not 
complicated to know that this is an organ of the Chinese 
communist government.
    In explaining what she said, she also suggested--I know 
that she used this phrase, but her answer suggested that, well, 
she went to speak truth to power. I wish that were the case. I 
would actually feel quite encouraged if that had been what she 
had done, but we have the transcript of the speech she gave, 
and that transcript is not speaking truth to power. The speech 
she gave does not have one single critical word about China. By 
the way, she did not give a speech about historically black 
colleges universities. She was talking about China to the 
Confucius Institute. She knew who she was talking to. And the 
text of the speech, I do not believe it would have read 
differently if the Confucius Institute had written it, because 
the text of the speech, not only does she not call out China's 
genocide, not only does she not call out the murder, the 
torture, the lies, not only does she not call out the debt 
traps and captivity that China is using in Africa and 
throughout the developing world, but she praises China's Belt 
and Road Initiative. This committee has worked together on the 
Build Act, which this committee moved forward, which was 
designed to combat the Belt and Road Initiative. Her speech 
praises the Belt and Road Initiative and says that America 
needs to follow China's example.
    I would also note that her speech was not a one-off. I put 
out a whole series of remarks that Ms. Thomas-Greenfield has 
made over the decades repeatedly apologizing for China, saying 
we are not competing with China, which she said multiple times. 
At another time, she said that she viewed her role as ``to 
ensure that they have the capacity to strike and negotiate 
better deals with the Chinese.'' And I ask the Members of this 
committee, at a time when China, I believe, poses the single 
greatest geopolitical threat to the United States over the next 
century, we need a U.N. Ambassador who will stand up to China, 
to China's pervasive influence at the United Nations. And given 
her record, I have no confidence that this nominee would do so.
    Now, for those who are listening and watching and 
wondering, well, is the speech really as described, I would 
encourage folks, read for yourself. The text of the speech--
and, Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that the 
transcript of Ms. Thomas-Greenfield's October 25th, 2019 
remarks at Savannah State's Confucius Institute be entered into 
the record.
    The Chairman. Without objection.

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

    Senator Cruz. So I would encourage folks, read the speech 
for yourself and ask yourself this: would you be proud to see 
the representative for the United States of America giving that 
speech at the United Nations? I do not think the answer is yes, 
and I think confirming this nominee is a mistake.
    Senator Coons. Mr. Chair?
    The Chairman. Senator Coons?
    Senator Coons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the 
opportunity to speak somewhat in rebuttal of the comments by my 
colleague from Texas. For those who might have just heard a 
call to read the speech or watch the speech, I urge you to also 
listen to her testimony, and listen to the testimony of now 
Secretary of State Blinken, and listen to recent remarks and 
speeches by President Biden.
    The situation we are in as a Nation is this: you can reach 
back and find speeches, comments, addresses by presidents, 
CEOs, Senators, and diplomats of both parties over decades 
saying positive and complimentary things about China and its 
future. And if we want to play a game where we reach back and 
pull out and point to something that was done here or there 
that is positive about China, we can play Punch and Judy almost 
indefinitely on a partisan basis.
    Why I am supporting Linda Thomas-Greenfield for U.N. 
Ambassador is she knows personally from service across the 
continent of Africa the impact of the Belt and Road Initiative, 
the impact of debt trap diplomacy, which she spoke to in her 
confirmation hearing. And it is my hope that Members of this 
committee, Republican and Democrat, can find the clarity of 
purpose to recognize that if we do not achieve bipartisan 
consensus--I agree with what my colleague said, and with what 
she said, and with what the Administration has been saying, 
which is China is the greatest challenge to this Nation of this 
century.
    I believe the path forward to addressing that challenge is 
by recognizing we have to develop a sustainable, bipartisan 
strategy, not endlessly pick at each other by pulling out of a 
pile things that were mis-said days or months or years ago, 
because, frankly, there is no end to that strategy and no 
positive purpose. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Senator Kaine. Mr. Chair?
    The Chairman. Senator Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. Mr. Chair, a procedural suggestion that I 
make respectfully. There is an Armed Services hearing going 
right now about a really important topic, the murder of Vanessa 
Guillen at Fort Hood, and a HELP Committee hearing on the 
nomination of Marty Walsh to be Labor Secretary. And many of 
the Members around the table are involved in one or the other. 
Might I suggest that we allow a vote, but then certainly allow 
Members who want to speak on the nomination continue to be 
heard once the vote is taken?
    The Chairman. I have no objection to that. The Ranking 
Member has no objection to that. We will allow--and I will stay 
as long as anyone who wishes to make a comments. I know that 
Senator Shaheen wants to do this. So at this point, therefore, 
I will entertain a motion to approve the nomination by voice 
vote. Is there a second?
    Senator Shaheen. Second.
    Voice. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Yes?
    Voice. I ask for a recorded vote.
    The Chairman. A recorded has been asked for. The clerk will 
call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    Senator Markey. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    Senator Booker. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schatz?
    Senator Schatz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Senator Van Hollen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    Senator Risch. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
    Senator Romney. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Young?
    Senator Young. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cruz?
    Senator Cruz. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rounds?
    Senator Rounds. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hagerty?
    Senator Hagerty. No.
    The Chairman. The clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 18; the noes are 4.
    The Chairman. The nomination is approved and sent to the 
Senate for its full consideration.
    With that, I am happy to entertain--I know Senator Shaheen 
had her hand up.
    Senator Shaheen. I just wanted to make one brief comment 
about Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield. She is an African-
American woman who has risen to the highest ranks in the State 
Department. She has served in very difficult conflict areas 
around the world, including Africa and many other posts. She is 
absolutely tough enough to be United Nations Ambassador.
    The Chairman. Senator Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, I also just want to 
underscore the qualifications here. We are talking about a 
person who has made a career in foreign service and in public 
service. As Senator Shaheen pointed out, she has broad 
experience in the African desk as well as being an Ambassador 
to Liberia. She served in Switzerland, Pakistan, Kenya, Gambia, 
Nigeria, Jamaica. She brings broad experience to this position, 
but it is her commitment to the values that make America the 
great Nation it is--her commitment to human rights and to use 
diplomacy and engage our colleagues, her colleagues around the 
world, with American values--that I think make her uniquely 
suited to be our U.N. Ambassador. So I just really wanted to 
underscore how I think it is just so important that President 
Biden has nominated a person with broad foreign policy 
experience and a service--foreign service to this incredibly 
important position.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cardin. Let me just 
briefly, and then unless there is anything else, we will 
adjourn, a couple of items for the record. Number one, she was 
invited by Savannah State University, and that is who she 
accepted the invitation. And secondly, she was given her 
honorarium, the $1,500, by Savannah State University, not by 
the Confucius Institute. And as I had said previously, she has 
a history, which I have included in the record, going back to 
2007, of expressing concern over China's rapidly-increasing 
lending to poor nations in Africa, where she also encouraged 
African governments to understand why it is important to their 
dealings with the Chinese to make sure that human rights and 
political freedoms and press freedoms are preserved and 
pursued; that the Chinese did not have the values of good 
governance and transparency; that, in fact, she asked about 
China's presence in African 2013, and she said our own values 
on human rights is so much better than what they are getting 
from the outside by the Chinese; and the list goes on. and I 
will have it again included for the record.
    [The information referred to is located at the end of this 
transcript.]

    The Chairman. So I would just say that she has a very clear 
record of challenging China, of believing that China is a 
threat to our interests. And the last point I would make, we do 
have to compete with China. It is not enough just to confront 
China. We have to compete with China. So when China shows up at 
these African nations in Latin America and elsewhere and we do 
not, well, there is going to be a challenge to that. So we have 
to work together to find a way of how do we, yes, challenge 
China, but also compete with it.
    With that, if there are no further comments, this meeting 
is adjourned.


    [Whereupon, at 10:28 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]

              Additional Material Submitted for the Record


                    China-U.S.-Africa Relationships


                A Speech by Hon. Linda Thomas-Greenfield


DELIVERED AT SAVANNAH STATE UNIVERSITY, OCTOBER 25, 2019--SUBMITTED FOR 
                       THE RECORD BY SENATOR CRUZ

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]





               Response to Comments Made by Senator Cruz


             SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY CHAIRMAN MENENDEZ

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]





                              ----------                              





                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                        THURSDAY, MARCH 11, 2021

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

                Summary of Action Taken by the Committee

                              NOMINATIONS

  The Honorable Wendy Sherman, of Maryland, to be the Deputy Secretary 
        of the United States Department of State--agreed to by roll 
        call vote (14-8)

          Ayes: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, Kaine, 
        Markey, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen, Romney, Portman, 
        Rounds

          Nays: Risch, Rubio (proxy), Johnson, Paul (proxy), Young, 
        Barrasso (proxy), Cruz, Hagerty

  The Honorable Brian McKeon, of the District of Columbia, to be the 
        Deputy Secretary of the United States Department of State for 
        Management and Resources--agreed to by voice vote

                           Meeting Transcript

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:33 a.m., in 
Room SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert Menendez, 
Chairman of the committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Menendez [presiding], Cardin, Shaheen, 
Coons, Murphy, Kaine, Markey, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van 
Hollen, Risch, Johnson, Romney, Portman, Young, Cruz, Rounds, 
and Hagerty.

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

    The Chairman. The business meeting of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee will come to order. Today we will consider 
the nominations of Ambassador Wendy Sherman to be the Deputy 
Secretary of State and the nomination of Brian McKeon to be 
Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources. Let me 
thank Senator Risch for working with me to put the hearing of 
these nominees together last week and the business meeting. As 
we all know, at the start of every Administration, it is vital 
to stand up the foreign policy leadership team as soon as 
possible, and I appreciate the cooperation.
    I am going to be very brief as we have a classified 
briefing with the Secretary at 10:00 a.m.
    The nominees before us today are both experienced and 
capable individuals. The President and the Secretary need them 
in place at Foggy Bottom, and they will confront many 
challenges if confirmed. So I think that Ambassador Sherman and 
Mr. McKeon will be key to restoring and rebuilding the 
Department, bolstering the morale of career personnel, and 
improving the Department's record on diversity. Both nominees 
indicated their commitment to a cooperative, constructive, and 
consultive relationship with this committee, and Congress and I 
will hold them to that. They have answered--I have reviewed the 
QFRs. It has been rather voluminous, and they have answered all 
of them within time.
    With that, I would like to recognize our distinguished 
Ranking Member for his comments. Senator Risch.

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

    Senator Risch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. We 
do have these two nominations in front of us, and I will first 
talk about Ambassador Sherman. And she and I do agree on some 
matters, but not all, and, of course, there is nothing unusual 
about that, and certainly I would not vote against her on that 
basis. I agree with you, of course, that the Administration 
needs the team in place, and on that basis, that is the reason 
we have been able to cooperate and get to where we are.
    Privately to me and publicly, Ambassador Sherman has 
committed that she will regularly consult with this committee 
early and often on any negotiations with Iran, whatever form 
those negotiations may take. She has also recognized that 2021 
is not 2015 and the region has changed, and that she will 
continue to support the Abraham Accords. Outside of the Middle 
East, Ambassador Sherman has committed to working with this 
committee to combat China's malign influence, including by 
increasing transatlantic cooperation. She will also support 
nuclear policy and posture that reinforces U.S. extended 
deterrence commitments to our allies in the Indo-Pacific. And 
finally, Ambassador Sherman agreed to collaborate with Congress 
on how to improve global pandemic preparedness and response. I 
truly appreciate her nomination, and when she is confirmed, I 
intend to urge her over time to honor those commitments.
    However, having made those commitments, they are not enough 
to satisfy my larger concerns about whether she is the right 
person for this role at this time to be Deputy Secretary of 
state. In my interactions with Ambassador Sherman over several 
years, I have seen really a lack of appreciation for the role 
of Congress in foreign policymaking. I go back to the time when 
she was the chief negotiator on the Iran Deal. I remember 
having her in front of the committee, and we had real 
difficulties with that. Congress has an important role to play 
in that. I remember asking her about the provisions in the 
agreement we could not see. They were secret. We were not privy 
to any of those. I have the same security clearance she does, 
being number two on the Intelligence Committee. She just flat 
refused to tell us what was in it.
    I remember listening to her. I asked her on cross-
examination whether she herself had seen those provisions in 
the agreement. She said she had not. And I said, how can you 
agree to something that has provisions that you have not even 
seen, and she had real difficulty with that. But I cross-
examined her further and asked her if she was in the room with 
those documents, and she said, well, yes, she had. I said, 
well, tell me about that, and she said, well, I was there. And 
I said, well, did you have the documents in your hand, and she 
said, yes, I did. I said, did you read those agreements. She 
said, no, she did not. She just kind of--she was sitting in the 
room, and they passed it through and it went down. I had real, 
real trouble with the credibility on that, and I have trouble 
getting past that at this point.
    I had hoped through this confirmation that she would 
overcome the impression that I had in the previous dealings 
with her on the Iran Deal. Unfortunately, as I pressed her on 
this Iran thing that we are headed to right now, I think we are 
going to see the same movie that we have seen before, and I 
have real reservations about that. At the end of the day, I 
just do not think she is the best or the right person for this, 
and I am going to vote against her for that reason. Having said 
that, I understand that she will be confirmed in all likelihood 
and look forward to trying to get a different direction in the 
future.
    As for Mr. McKeon's nomination to be Deputy Secretary of 
State for Management and Resources, I plan to support his 
nomination and look forward to working with Mr. McKeon as he 
tackles the many management issues currently facing the 
Department. In particular, I hope he will focus on the need to 
enhance global health security and diplomacy as well as the 
need to ensure that our diplomats are capable, resourced, and 
ready for any complex operating environment. I also hope he 
will take a strong role in helping the Department make 
decisions and improve the budget process so this committee can 
better understand how the Department allocates resources.
    With that, I yield back. Thank you, Senator Menendez.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Risch. Senator Cardin.
    Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to want 
to respond to Senator Risch's two points in regards to Wendy 
Sherman, and I very much appreciate his observations about 
Ambassador Sherman's extraordinary background, her expertise in 
this area, her record of public service. We have come to a 
different conclusion. I think she is the right person at this 
time.
    First, in regards to working with Congress, let me take you 
back to the beginning of the discussions of the Nuclear 
Agreement with Iran, and there was a sharp difference between 
the Republicans in Congress and the Obama administration as to 
how that agreement would be handled with Congress. Senator 
Corker, who was the Chairman of the committee--at the time I 
was the ranking Democrat--we worked with the Obama 
administration to develop a process that required them to come 
to Congress to make certain certifications to give us the 
information we needed, and Ambassador Sherman was part of that 
process that allowed us to develop a process. It was not 
perfect, but it ended up getting unanimous support, 98 to 1 
support, in the United States Senate. And then it was 
implemented in a way that we had regular briefings of 
classified information given to Democrats and Republicans so 
that we could make our own independent judgments.
    We had full access, and Ambassador Sherman was part of that 
process. And I think Senator Corker would agree that each 
Member of this committee, each Member of the Senate, got the 
information we needed to make our own independent judgments. At 
the end of the day, I disagreed with the Obama administration, 
but I certainly had the information I needed, and Ambassador 
Sherman was part of that process that made sure that we had the 
information we needed to make that decision. It was 
unprecedented the amount of information made available to us.
    Now, in regards to the documents that the IAEA had that 
Ambassador Sherman had the chance to look at or did not look at 
during the process, remember, our participation in the IAEA 
requires us to keep that information confidential. We are not 
permitted to share that information, those of us who are 
involved in the IAEA process. She had no choice but to honor 
her commitments to the IAEA.
    So I would just urge my colleagues to recognize we have a 
unique opportunity in Ambassador Sherman to get someone who 
really appreciates and understands the relationship between the 
executive and legislative branch. She is a product of the 
United States Senate, having served as chief of staff to 
Senator Mikulski. So I just urge my colleagues, this is a 
person, to me, who is eminently qualified for this position, 
and I urge my colleagues to support her nomination.
    The Chairman. Does anyone else seek recognition? Senator 
Johnson.
    Senator Johnson. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure what Senator 
Cardin is talking about, 98 to 1 vote. Maybe I was the only one 
that voted ``no''.
    Senator Cardin. No, you were not.
    Senator Johnson. My point being is what we have--I think 
what we have--what we found out is that what the JCPOA should 
have been is a treaty, which is what my amendment was. It was 
defeated, but we are seeing the folly of doing these agreements 
as executive agreements without full information, without full 
disclosure, and without the ratification of the Senate, and so 
now we are ping-ponging back and forth. But I just needed to 
make that comment.
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Yes?
    Senator Risch. Can I respond to--
    The Chairman. Yes, Senator Risch.
    Senator Risch. First of all, I appreciate Senator Cardin's 
passion on this, and I would hope that as we go forward, we 
start with what Ms. Sherman said publicly and privately to us, 
and that is, this is not 2015, and we are in a different 
position today. So I hope we can set aside feelings we have 
about personalities and move forward.
    I have to tell you, I have the feeling, and I hope I am 
dead wrong on this, that we are just rewinding the movie and 
going to show the movie again, and that is not going to work. 
We know that will not work. And I truly want to work with my 
Democrat friends, with the Administration, and try to come to 
some place on an Iran agreement that we can all get behind 
because--and I think every one of us have strong feelings about 
this. And as we go forward, I am hoping we can meld this 
together to get to a better place than we got last time. And I 
appreciate the remarks. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Shaheen.
    Senator Shaheen. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would 
just like to echo the remarks from both you and Senator Cardin 
about Wendy Sherman's expertise, her knowledge and 
understanding of how both the executive branch and the Congress 
works. And I would point out to Senator Risch, and I know he 
wants to work together because we have done that in the past, 
but President Biden is not President Obama. We saw that, I 
think, 2 weeks ago in the strike he made against Iranian 
militias in Syria that he is--understands the critical threat 
that Iran presents, and certainly Wendy Sherman understands 
that because she has had that experience.
    But the Deputy Secretary of State is not just about Iran. 
It is about a whole range of other issues that are related to 
foreign policy and to what we need to do at State, and I cannot 
think of anyone better who has more understanding about that. 
And so I would hope that we are not going to blame Wendy 
Sherman for our disagreements with the Obama administration in 
the past for her ability to work in this new administration to 
address the foreign policy challenges that we face. So I hope 
everyone will evaluate her based on her service and her 
experience. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Does anyone else seek recognition? Senator 
Coons.
    Senator Coons. Just briefly. I will join my colleagues in 
saying that Wendy Sherman is someone who worked with and for 
the Senate and Senators and understands us as a body. I am 
optimistic, and I think this is why we should proceed to the 
classified briefing that awaits, that we can dive into 
revisiting the challenges we face in the world in terms of our 
security. With the commitments we have gotten from Mr. McKeon, 
Ms. Sherman in their confirmation hearing before this 
committee, I am really optimistic that we can have a more 
engaged, more transparent relationship than we had with the 
last Administration, or, on this issue, with the Obama 
administration. And I look forward to supporting their 
nominations.
    The Chairman. Does anyone else seek recognition? Senator 
Romney?
    Senator Romney. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I must admit I 
find it difficult in these confirmation votes in that we have a 
Democrat President nominating Democrats to positions of 
leadership, and I want to vote against all of them because I 
disagree with them. I want to vote for Republicans. 
Nevertheless, the standard that I have applied in the past and 
continue to apply is, is the individual qualified for the 
position, and, number two, do they fall within the mainstream 
of the Democratic Party. Not the mainstream of the Republican 
Party, but the mainstream of the Democratic Party.
    I disagree vehemently with the posture of the prior 
Administration, the Obama administration, with regards to the 
JCPOA. I think it was a mistake. I do not think it keeps Iran 
from having a nuclear weapon eventually. Nevertheless, her 
posture appears to me to be within the mainstream of the 
Democratic Party and of the--and consistent with the posture of 
the current President. And for that reason, I intend to support 
her in her confirmation despite the fact that I disagree with 
her. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Romney. Senator Cruz?
    Senator Cruz. Mr. Chairman, I intend to vote against Wendy 
Sherman. And when you look at her record in foreign policy, I 
think she has managed to be on the wrong side of a whole lot of 
issues, and especially the most important issues. She played a 
leading role in the negotiations with North Korea where the 
objective was to lift sanctions in exchange for promises not to 
develop nuclear weapons. We now know in hindsight that endeavor 
was a colossal failure, that the result instead was that 
billions of dollars of sanctions relief that flowed into North 
Korea were used to develop what is now an arsenal of nuclear 
weapons aimed and directed at the United States.
    Then in the Obama administration, Ms. Sherman had a second 
act, and she was made the lead negotiator for the Iran Deal 
where, for whatever reason, we repeated exactly the same 
mistakes as with North Korea. We followed the same strategy 
that had failed in North Korea. We negotiated a deal very much 
like the deal that did not work in North Korea. The result of 
the JCPOA, I believe, would inevitably have led to a nuclear 
Iran. It would have led to an Ayatollah, who regularly chants 
``death to America,'' with a nuclear arsenal aimed at America.
    A nuclear Iran, I believe, is qualitatively more dangerous 
than North Korea, and Iran may be the most dangerous place on 
the planet right now because the Ayatollah is motivated by 
religious fanaticism and a seething hatred for America and for 
Israel. The Ayatollah calls Israel ``the little Satan'' and 
America ``the great Satan.'' Under the terms of the JCPOA and 
its expiration in 15 years, it was perfectly fine for the 
Ayatollah to have nuclear weapons, even while he chants ``death 
to America.''
    The most important foreign policy decision made in the 
Trump administration, I believe, was the decision to pull out 
of that catastrophic deal, that deal that flooded hundreds of 
billions of dollars into the Ayatollah, only to be used to fund 
terrorism around the world and malign efforts directed at the 
United States and directed at our allies. I agree with Israel's 
prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, when he describes a nuclear 
Iran as an existential threat to Israel, and existential in 
that context does not mean a Frenchman with a black beret, 
chain smoking. It means literally going to the very existence 
of the State of Israel. All of us are aware of the catastrophic 
horror of the Holocaust. A nuclear Iran is the one serious 
threat on this planet that could once again result in the 
murder of 6 million Jews, and if ``never again'' is to mean 
anything, it should mean never again.
    I am opposing Wendy Sherman, and I would urge colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle to oppose Wendy Sherman because she is 
nominated to this position precisely because she was the 
leading champion, the face of, the negotiator of the disastrous 
Iran Deal, and it is this Administration's stated intention to 
try to go back to that failed deal. And so I believe anyone 
casting a vote for Wendy Sherman is simultaneously casting a 
vote for the policies for which she is being nominated, the 
policies that are profoundly dangerous to America, to Israel, 
to our allies. So I am going to be voting ``no''.
    I will be voting yes on Mr. McKeon, although with both of 
them, I am placing holds on their going to the floor until the 
Administration does more on Nord Stream 2. And this is another 
topic this committee has talked about at great length, this 
committee's leadership and the bipartisan sanctions bill that 
Senator Shaheen and I have passed twice now, two different 
versions with the support of the Members of this committee.
    Our sanctions legislation worked. The pipeline that was 90 
percent complete stopped, and it stopped the instant, the hour 
sanctions legislation was signed into law, pipeline 
construction halted. It halted for a year. It was an incredible 
success for America, for this committee, and it was an 
incredible loss for Putin. It cost Putin billions of dollars. 
And in the last couple of months, as everyone knows, Putin has 
begun building the pipeline again, and he has done so because 
of the mixed signals from the Biden administration on whether 
they will follow the law that has been passed overwhelmingly 
with massive bipartisan support from Congress twice.
    Now, I have urged every single Biden State Department 
nominee, get the report to Congress that you are statutorily 
mandated to send. The report they just sent omits numerous 
ships. It omits the company that is building Nord Stream 2 from 
mandatory sanctions for building Nord Stream 2. It is utterly 
indefensible. They are not able to defend omitting it, and they 
should send an interim report to shut the pipeline down. Putin 
is rushing to get the pipeline completed in the next couple of 
months, and I have urged every Biden administration State 
Department nominee, we have had a great foreign policy victory 
for this country, and if the mixed messages and weak messages 
to Putin continue, that victory will be turned into a loss.
    So it is my hope, and this is something I would ask of the 
Democratic colleagues. We agree on Nord Stream 2. We have 
worked together on Nord Stream 2, and we have won a major 
victory. I recognize this Administration is much more likely to 
listen to Democratic Members of this committee than Republican 
Members of this committee. That is the way this town works. I 
think the Biden administration is making a major and 
unnecessary mistake. They are making it because they want to 
play nice with Germany, and that is great. Play nice with 
Germany on 50 other things, but there is no reason to give a 
massive windfall to Putin and make Europe dependent on Putin's 
energy.
    And so I want to encourage my colleagues to use every 
avenue you have to urge the Biden administration to stop 
playing around, to follow the law, and stop this pipeline. We 
have seen that it works, and the only thing that changed, the 
reason Putin began building the pipeline again----
    The Chairman. I would just say to the gentleman, with all 
due respect, I have given you 7 minutes. I think you have made 
your point on Nord Stream very clearly.
    Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Young?
    Senator Young. Thank you, Chairman. I look forward to 
working with Wendy Sherman. I do not intend to support her 
nomination, and it is with some strong reservations that I have 
come to this conclusion, and I want to explain to my colleagues 
and others why this is the case.
    So I believe in the end she will pass. That does not factor 
strongly into my decision. I had a nice meeting with Ms. 
Sherman. She comes highly recommended by Republicans and 
Democrats alike, people I respect. I received phone calls from 
these people, so I commend the Administration for their whole-
of-academia and policy expert effort to seek those who would 
validate her expertise. She is an intellectual force. She has 
the requisite professional credentials. So why am I not 
supporting her?
    Well, I have to admit I am somewhat troubled by her many 
media appearances on MSNBC, written articles, and others, and I 
have communicated this with her. This does not come as a 
surprise to her. I think it is a bad precedent to set for our 
foreign policy professionals to cross certain lines 
rhetorically, and I think Republicans and Democrats alike have 
done so in recent years. But, more importantly, it is more of 
an institutional issue. I do indeed think that a President 
should have the prerogative to nominate and have confirmed his 
or her nominees if they fall within the mainstream of their 
party and so forth, but this is not what has happened in recent 
years. In fact, there are a number of individuals, Members of 
this committee, Members outside of this committee who 
consistently voted no, no, no, no, and I realize many were 
running for President and many were not. Many were not.
    So this body needs a reset, and the way I think we arrive 
at a reset is not for people like myself, who have a reputation 
of working well across the aisle and want to work in a very 
constructive fashion with this President, it is not to 
immediately say, well, now that you are in power, we are going 
to immediately reset institutional norms. I have a higher bar, 
and I want to communicate that broadly and publicly to all of 
you that that higher bar must be met, and I will lower the bar 
progressively over a number of years if I see behavior 
improving. So maybe we will think of this next time there is a 
Republican President and it will be reciprocated, and we can 
find ourselves in a better position over a number of years 
where we give greater discretion to a President to have their 
high-level nominees confirmed by Members of the other party.
    So that is where I am at. Some might find infirmities in 
that analysis, I would welcome those, identifying those, but I 
think it is a pretty sound approach. I think the other 
approach, just to go ahead and support all these nominees who 
are well credentialed, would be naive at this point in our 
history. Thanks.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Is there any other Member? Senator 
Markey. I would just remind Members I am not going to curtail 
anybody's comments, but we have the Secretary at 10:00 at my 
request so that he could speak to Members, you know, for a fair 
amount of time about all these issues that are being raised in 
a setting in which he would be free to speak without anybody 
saying, oh, I would like to do that in a classified setting. We 
are going to be in a classified setting, so you are going to 
get the maximum opportunity, but I respect everybody's right to 
have their comments. Senator Markey.
    Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I just want to 
speak briefly to the role which Wendy Sherman played in the 
negotiation of two very important nuclear nonproliferation 
agreements. The first was North Korea. We can go back to that 
time. It was 1994. Secretary of Defense William Perry had sent 
two options to President Clinton in terms of what the war 
strategy should be against North Korea. One of them would have 
resulted in casualties that matched World War I and World War 
II----
    Senator Shaheen. Ed, can you talk up?
    Senator Markey [continuing]. I am sorry. In William Perry's 
autobiography, he made it quite clear that this was a very, 
very stressful time for our country. Secretary Albright 
designated Wendy Sherman to be the emissary to North Korea to 
try to resolve this issue. The agreement--the agreed framework, 
which was ultimately completed, put the plutonium program of 
North Korea under full scope safeguards. It lasted from 1994 to 
2002. President Bush named John Bolton as his negotiator on 
that issue. He took a different path, but for those 8 years, we 
did not, in fact, have the kind of tension, pressure that could 
have led to war.
    The same thing was true in 2013 on the issue of Iran's 
nuclear program. Similarly, Wendy Sherman was designated to 
negotiate on an agreement to reduce that tension between our 
countries. We were again on a verge of a military confrontation 
with Iran. Iran was about 2 months away at that point from 
having enough enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon. Two months 
away. Wendy Sherman played the key role in negotiating that 
agreement so that we would avoid that military confrontation, 
and that agreement continued again until John Bolton convinced 
President Trump that he should use a strategy of maximum 
pressure as an alternative.
    But in both instances, for President Clinton and for 
President Obama, Wendy Sherman completed an assignment that she 
was given--to reduce the tensions between two of our military 
rivals and to avoid war--and she did the job. Now, there can be 
a disagreement here with regard to whether or not John Bolton 
had a better approach in 2002 or in 2018, but I do not think in 
any way we should undermine the overall record of Wendy Sherman 
and what she did. We should be thanking her for what she did in 
service to two Presidents and to our country, and I do not 
think there is anything on the record which disqualifies her 
from this job.
    And I think, in fact, for President Biden to name someone 
like this with the background she has, with the experience she 
has, with the success that she has had, is actually a good sign 
for our country, and she does deserve an affirmative vote from 
this committee today.
    The Chairman. Senator Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. Mr. Chairman, quite a few points have been 
made on both sides of this conversation. I would propose that 
we hold a vote and allow people to make additional comments 
because of conflicts that a number of us have.
    The Chairman. If there is no one else, I will just close by 
saying I reject the proposition that a vote for Wendy Sherman 
is a vote for the Iran Deal. As someone who vigorously opposed 
it and went through a lot as a result of it, I can tell you 
that I do not consider a vote for Wendy Sherman as a vote for 
the Iran Deal. As Senator Shaheen has said, this nomination is 
far beyond the question of Iran itself. There are actually 
individuals who have been named specifically for the purposes 
of engaging Iran, and it is not Wendy Sherman.
    Secondly, I strongly oppose Nord Stream, and I have 
supported the Senator from Texas' efforts in this regard. But I 
must say I think it is not fair to say that you want to lay 
this at the feet of the Biden administration when for 4 years, 
the Trump Administration could have imposed a series of 
sanctions and acted in a way that would have nipped it in the 
bud and did nothing.
    And then lastly, I appreciate Senator Young's comments, and 
I understand it. I would just simply say that when we talk 
about raising the bar and behavior, we had a plethora of 
nominees during the previous Administration that far exceeded 
in their commentary, and were approved by this committee, of 
the comments that supposedly are attributed to Wendy Sherman. 
And I just hope that we can raise the bar on the behavior on 
both sides so that we can get once again to what the tradition 
of this committee has been.
    With that, I believe it is fair to say everybody has had 
their say.
    I will entertain a motion that the nomination of Ambassador 
Wendy Sherman to be Deputy Secretary of State be reported 
favorably.
    Senator Cardin. So move.
    The Chairman. Moved by Senator Cardin. Seconded by Senator 
Shaheen.
    The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    Senator Markey. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    Senator Booker. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schatz?
    Senator Schatz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Senator Van Hollen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    Senator Risch. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Johnson. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
    Senator Romney. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    Senator Portman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Young?
    Senator Young. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cruz?
    Senator Cruz. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rounds?
    Senator Rounds. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hagerty?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Hagerty?
    Senator Hagerty. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Aye. The clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 14; the nays are 8.
    The Chairman. The ayes have it, and the nomination is 
agreed to and will be reported to the Senate.
    Next we take up a motion on the nomination of Mr. McKeon to 
be Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources.
    Is there a motion to adopt?
    Senator Cardin. So move.
    The Chairman. So moved by Senator Cardin.
    Senator Risch. Second.
    The Chairman. Seconded by Senator Risch. Is there a voice 
vote that will be entertained?
    If so, all those in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All those opposed, say nay.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it, and the nomination will be 
reported favorably to the Senate.
    With the thanks of the Chair, we appreciate it, and this 
business meeting is adjourned. We now have the Secretary in the 
Intelligence Room.


    [Whereupon, at 10:05 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]



                               ----------                              






                            BUSINESS MEETING

                               ----------                              


                       WEDNESDAY, MARCH 24, 2021

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

                Summary of Action Taken by the Committee

                              LEGISLATION

  S. 615, A bill to establish an interagency program to assist 
        countries in North Africa and West Africa to improve immediate 
        and long-term capabilities to counter terrorist threats, with 
        an amendment--agreed to by voice vote (Paul recorded as no)

     Manager's amendment--agreed to by voice vote

  S. 814, Ukraine Security Partnership Act of 2021--Held over

  S. 413, A bill to establish the China Censorship Monitor and Action 
        Group, and for other purposes--Held over

  S. 335, Tropical Forest and Coral Reef Conservation Reauthorization 
        Act--agreed to by voice vote (Paul and Barrasso recorded as no)

  S.Res. 22, A resolution reaffirming the partnership between the 
        United States and the Republic of Ecuador and recognizing the 
        restoration and advancement of economic relations, security, 
        and development opportunities in both nations--agreed to by 
        voice vote

  S.Res. 37, A resolution expressing solidarity with the San Isidro 
        Movement in Cuba, condemning escalated attacks against artistic 
        freedoms in Cuba, and calling for the repeal of laws that 
        violate freedom of expression and the immediate release of 
        arbitrarily detained artists, journalists, and activists, with 
        amendments--agreed to by voice vote

     Preamble amendment--agreed to by voice vote

     Resolving Clause amendment--agreed to by voice vote

  S.Res. 44, A resolution denouncing the Maduro regime's fraudulent 
        legislative elections, the absence of acceptable conditions to 
        ensure free, fair, and transparent electoral processes in 
        Venezuela, and the further erosion of Venezuelan democracy--
        agreed to by voice vote

  S.Res. 81, A resolution honoring Las Damas de Blanco, a women-led 
        nonviolent movement in support of freedom and human rights in 
        Cuba, and calling for the release of all political prisoners in 
        Cuba--agreed to by voice vote

  S.Res. 120, Recognizing the Ninth Summit of the Americas and 
        reaffirming the commitment of the United States to a more 
        prosperous, secure, and democratic Western Hemisphere, with an 
        amendment--agreed to by voice vote

     Manager's Preamble amendment--agreed to by voice vote

  S.Res. 34, A resolution recognizing the 200th anniversary of the 
        independence of Greece and celebrating democracy in Greece and 
        the United States--agreed to by voice vote

  S.Res. 117, A resolution expressing support for the full 
        implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, or the Belfast 
        Agreement, and subsequent agreements and arrangements for 
        implementation to support peace on the island of Ireland, with 
        amendments--agreed to by voice vote

     Substitute amendment--agreed to by voice vote

     Manager's Preamble amendment--agreed to by voice vote

  S.Res. 35, A resolution condemning the military coup that took place 
        on February 1, 2021, in Burma and the Burmese military's 
        detention of civilian leaders, calling for an immediate and 
        unconditional release of all those detained and for those 
        elected to serve in parliament to resume their duties without 
        impediment, and for other purposes, with amendments--agreed to 
        by voice vote

     Manager's Preamble amendment--agreed to by voice vote

     Manager's Substitute amendment--agreed to by voice vote

  S.Res. 36, A resolution reaffirming the strategic partnership between 
        the United States and Mongolia and recognizing the 30th 
        anniversary of democracy in Mongolia, with amendments--agreed 
        to by voice vote

     Preamble amendment--agreed to by voice vote

     Substitute amendment--agreed to by voice vote

  S.Res. 99, A Resolution Observing the 10th anniversary of the 
        uprising in Syria--agreed to by voice vote

  S.Res. 97, A resolution calling on the Government of Ethiopia, the 
        Tigray People's Liberation Front, and other belligerents to 
        cease all hostilities, protect human rights, allow unfettered 
        humanitarian access, and cooperate with independent 
        investigations of credible atrocity allegations pertaining to 
        the conflict in the Tigray Region of Ethiopia, with 
        amendments--agreed to by voice vote (Rounds recorded as no)

     Title amendment--agreed to by voice vote

     Manager's Preamble amendment--agreed to by voice vote

     Manager's Resolving Clause amendment--agreed to by voice vote

  S.Res. 114, A resolution commending the United States African 
        Development Foundation on the occasion of its 40th anniversary 
        for creating pathways to proseperity for underserved communites 
        on the African continent through community-led development--
        agreed to by voice vote

  S.Res. 122, Reaffirming the importance of United States alliances and 
        partnerships, with amendments--agreed to by voice vote

     Manager's Preamble amendment--agreed to by voice vote

     Manager's Resolving Clause amendment--agreed to by voice vote

                           Meeting Trancript

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:33 a.m., in 
Room SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert 
Menendez, Chairman of the committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Menendez [presiding], Cardin, Shaheen, 
Coons, Murphy, Kaine, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen, Risch, 
Johnson, Romney, Portman, Paul, and Barrasso.

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

    The Chairman. The business meeting of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee will come to order. We have nine Members. 
We need--well, now have 10 Members. We need 12 to vote. So we 
will start off, and then hopefully by the time we are finished 
with our remarks, there will be the ability to vote, and we 
will be looking to make a motion to vote en bloc, which we have 
talked to and have an agreement with the Ranking Member about.
    I am pleased that the committee has gathered today for our 
first legislative business meeting of the 117th Congress. The 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee must be in the lead as we 
respond to the unprecedented foreign policy crises of our time, 
restore America's role in the world, and reaffirm our core 
values of democracy and human rights. Today we take a first 
step on that agenda as we mark up 15 bipartisan bills and 
resolutions, including legislation reaffirming our alliances 
around the world, supporting democracy in Cuba and Venezuela, 
and addressing ongoing challenges in Syria, Ethiopia, and 
elsewhere. I plan to hold regular legislative business meetings 
and hope that each of you will join the Ranking Member and me 
as we create a robust, bipartisan agenda for the committee, and 
I look forward to working with each of you on your legislative 
priorities.
    Before I speak briefly about the items on the agenda, there 
are two items that will no longer be considered today. I 
received a request to hold over S. 413, the China Censorship 
Act, and I will be holding over S. 814, the Ukraine Security 
and Partnership Act. Both are solid pieces of legislation. I 
commend Senators Merkley and Risch, respectively, on their 
work, and I look forward to taking up both bills after the 
recess. For Members' awareness and maybe to call attention to 
the rules, I opted to hold over the Ukraine bill despite my 
strong support and co-sponsorship. I did so in light of a late-
breaking request yesterday evening to rewrite and submit a 
previously-filed first-degree amendment that would have been 
out of the rules. And the reason we have those rules is so that 
all Members understand what they are voting on and have an 
opportunity to understand what amendments are coming their way 
so they can make an informed judgment on them.
    I strongly support Senators' rights to offer amendments, 
but it is also imperative that all of you have the time to 
consider amendments before you vote on them. So I plan to take 
up the Ukraine bill at the next business meeting in the near 
future, and Senators will once again have an opportunity to 
submit amendments.
    While we have a robust agenda today, I would like to 
comment on a few specific legislative items, starting with the 
Trans-Sahel bill, which I co-authored with the Ranking Member, 
and I thank him for his partnership on this critical piece of 
legislation. As we restore America's role in the world and 
protect our national security interests, we have to refocus on 
the Sahel, or we will be on the verge of losing the region to 
terrorism.
    Last year, there was a 44-percent increase in violent 
attacks attributed to militant Islamist groups in the Sahel 
with a 57-percent increase in the deaths attributable to those 
attacks. That is why this bipartisan bill authorizes a new 
Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Partnership to build capacity in 
the Sahel to combat terrorism and terrorist ideology. As we all 
learned on September 11th, we have to take on terrorism abroad 
so we do not have to fight it here at home.
    I am also pleased that our agenda contains numerous 
resolutions reaffirming our democratic values and standing up 
for human rights around the world. As we will discuss shortly 
at our hearing, democracy is under threat in our own 
hemisphere, and that is why I worked with my friend and 
colleague, Senator Rubio, on a Venezuela resolution and two 
Cuba resolutions. In November of 2020, the world saw a renewed 
wave of activism in Cuba as a diverse group of artists from the 
San Isidro Movement sparked a wave of protests against 
restrictions on freedom of expression. Their efforts were built 
by more than 15 years of peaceful activism by Cuba's Ladies in 
White who had faced years of repression. Our two resolutions 
express our support for Cuban activists and human rights 
defenders and document the Cuban regime's persecution of civil 
society leaders. Senator Rubio and I also offered a resolution 
denouncing the Maduro regime's fraudulent legislative elections 
in Venezuela, something that has been recognized as fraudulent 
internationally, expressing concerns about crimes against 
humanity, and calling for a renewed multilateral response to 
the Venezuela crisis.
    Unfortunately, Latin America is not the only region in the 
world where democracy is under threat, and our agenda includes 
resolutions supporting democratic movements in Syria, Burma, 
and Ethiopia. I have also introduced other items on the agenda 
that provide hope for democratic progress and peace, including 
resolutions recognizing the 200th anniversary of the 
independence of Greece, and expressing support for the full 
implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. In a similar vein, 
I also note the resolution that Senator Risch and I co-
sponsored on the importance of U.S. alliances and partnerships. 
Finally, as everyone is aware, Senator Risch and I are working 
together to write a bipartisan China bill with the goal of 
providing the text to everyone on the committee in the next few 
days. We intend to work with each of you to ensure that your 
China priorities are included in this text, which we will mark 
up the week of April 12th.
    Let me close by noting again how pleased I am at the 
promising bipartisan effort that produced today's agenda. I 
look forward to considering and moving similar lists to the 
117th Congress. And with that, I recognize the distinguished 
Ranking Member, Senator Risch, for his remarks.

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

    Senator Risch. Well, thank you very much, Senator Menendez. 
First of all, let me say, and I certainly do not want to step 
on partisan toes here. I was disappointed that the S.814 
Ukrainian Security Partnership Act is being held over. I 
understand that Senator Cruz has availed himself of traditions 
that we have of making some changes to this. This Nord Stream 2 
issue we have dealt with over and over again, and I think we 
are all committed to try to get this thing done, and this would 
not be so bad if we were not facing a 2-week break here, so 
that is an issue. But nonetheless, I understand that the rules 
are such that this can be done, and it is what it is, I guess, 
at this point. I hope you would--I understand you have recently 
written the Administration, you and Senator Shaheen. Myself and 
Senator Cruz did. The letters may have had a slightly different 
tone, but the objective was the same, and I hope we will all 
try to continue down that road because, again, time is running 
out. It is just flat running out on us, and this is something 
that that we have all worked so hard on.
    So I also appreciate the work Senator Menendez and I did to 
introduce Senate Resolution 122, a resolution that reaffirms 
the Senate's support for U.S. defense treaty commitments to our 
allies in the Indo-Pacific and Europe. In today's challenging 
security environment, it is critical that the U.S. sustains its 
extended deterrence policies, and that both the U.S. and its 
allies make substantial contributions to addressing shared 
threats.
    I want to thank Senator Cardin and seven other Members of 
this committee for participating with me on Senate Res. 97. The 
conflict in Ethiopia's Tigray region and elsewhere in the 
country is deeply concerning, and I know virtually everyone on 
this committee is on board with that. While Ethiopia's 
transition faces significant challenges, passing this 
resolution will send an important bipartisan signal to 
Ethiopia, our allies, and our own government that the 
withdrawal of Eritrean forces, the cessation of hostilities, 
and getting Ethiopia back on track to achieve a once-in-a-
generation democratic transition are priorities for the U.S. 
Senate.
    On Syria, I am happy to join Chairman Menendez in 
sponsoring Senate Res. 99, a resolution marking the 10th 
anniversary of the Syrian conflict. This resolution reaffirms 
our support for the Syrian people, emphasizes the policy of the 
United States to seek a political solution to this prolonged, 
difficult conflict, and highlights the need for accountability 
for all of the crimes committed by Assad and his Russian and 
Iranian backers. Senate Resolution 120 is also on the agenda. 
This resolution emphasizes that we have a great opportunity as 
the U.S. hosts the Ninth Summit of the Americas to reaffirm our 
commitment to a region to be safe, democratic, and prosperous.
    I am glad to join Senator--excuse me--Chairman Menendez in 
co-sponsoring Senate 615, the Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism 
Partnership Program Act. This bill will give Congress greater 
oversight of TSCTP programs. This is especially important given 
that a recent Department inspector general audit found 
potential waste due to poor management of these funds, and I 
could not have said it any better than Chairman Menendez did 
about the area and the problems that are occurring there. 
Senate Res. 22 highlights the progress Ecuador has made in 
promoting democratic values and improving economic and security 
conditions. Our two countries should take additional steps to 
deepen our economic relationship and tackle shared challenges, 
such as transnational crime and the regional instability 
provoked by the Maduro regime in Venezuela.
    I also want to recognize the work our teams--ours being 
both Republican and Senate teams, my staff, the Chairman's 
staff--in working on the China resolution. This has been a long 
time coming. Fortunately, there is a lot of work that has been 
done before we got here. I do wish, as I talked with the 
Chairman about this, that we had more time to work on this. I 
think obviously we wind up dragging our feet around here a lot 
of times on things that we should not. On the other hand, it is 
important that we do get this right when we are doing 
something, particularly as big as China is. But there are 
urgent problems, and I want to do everything I can to assist in 
moving this forward. Any China legislation that passes out of 
this committee needs to be truly bipartisan, and we on this 
side are committed to that. That means it needs to include 
numerous ideas and proposals from both sides of the aisle. It 
needs to be strong, concrete, and actionable, and anything 
short of this will send the wrong message to our allies and our 
adversaries in the region.
    Finally, it must address the full array of challenges China 
poses. Political influence in the United States is one of those 
challenges. We are all aware the Chinese Government seeks undue 
influence in our universities, wants to influence how our 
Government makes decisions, and has no qualms about coercing 
our private sector. I am always amazed when I hear the 
statistics--and these are very round numbers--that we have 
about 300,000 Chinese students studying here in America at 
American universities, many of them taking graduate studies in 
programs that are very sensitive on national matters. The 
reverse of that is there are 12,000 American students studying 
in China compared to the 300,000 that are studying here.
    We know that the Chinese Government seeks to steal the best 
of American innovation. They always have. If we are going to 
invest more in R&D in the United States, we have to make sure 
we are protecting the results. This is the point. If we do not 
have anything strong and actionable on political influence, we 
are missing a big slice of the problem. I expect the final 
product to be--and on that issue, the Chairman and I had some 
discussions on that, yes, and I think we came up with some 
productive ideas to move forward. I expect the final product to 
be representative of both sides of the aisle. I will continue 
to work with Chairman Menendez towards this goal and hope we 
can reach agreement on all of these issues. With that, I will 
yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Risch, and we do look 
forward to working together on a China bill. It is incredibly 
important for us to speak with one voice as much as we can. Is 
there any Member who wants to be recognized on any of the items 
on the agenda? Senator Coons, who recently came back from a 
mission to Ethiopia, which sounds like we have had some 
success. Senator Coons.
    Senator Coons. Thank you. Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member 
Risch, I am so encouraged to hear your bipartisan work on the 
China bill and that we are considering more than a dozen pieces 
of legislation on a bipartisan basis, which I think is setting 
a very positive tone for this committee. For those watching, I 
will just comment that there are resolutions all across our 
agenda today that are designed to promote democracy and our 
core values in our relations towards Venezuela, Cuba, Syria, 
Burma, and as well, Ethiopia. And I want to thank Senator 
Cardin and Ranking Member Risch for your leadership on this 
resolution.
    As was mentioned, I just returned from a weekend spent as 
President Biden's personal emissary meeting with Prime Minister 
Abiy and a whole range of senior Ethiopian officials and others 
in the international community, and I want to thank you for 
allowing changes to the resolution to recognize that trip, 
which I believe was constructive. I just want to note that 
there have already been some positive public statements by 
Prime Minister Abiy in the last 24 hours recognizing the need 
for accountability for human rights violations, the first 
public acknowledgement of the presence Eritrean troops, and 
just within the last few hours, positive statements about the 
possible resolution of the border dispute with Sudan and the 
path forward on the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam. There are 
other issues that we must address--full humanitarian access, 
the cessation of hostilities, the path towards free and fair 
elections--and I look forward to working with each of you on 
these issues and hopefully to there being more progress. So 
thank you.
    There are a number of other important items on today's 
agenda. I will just briefly thank Senator Portman for his 
partnership on the Tropical Forest and Coral Reef Conservation 
Restoration Act, and on a number of other items, like the 
anniversary of the U.S. African Development Foundation. Thank 
you for the opportunity to work with all of you on a bipartisan 
basis, and I am hopeful we can make progress in addressing the 
challenging situation in Tigray and Ethiopia. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you for your good work, Senator Coons. 
Senator Portman. Senator Portman?
    Senator Portman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, to Senator 
Coons, thank you for your work for the Tropical Forest Act. 
That is in this package of bills, and I appreciate your 
including it, Mr. Chairman and the Ranking Member. This is 
legislation that is actually working to reduce CO2, 
to help developing countries, and with a great bang for the 
buck for the American taxpayer. About $118 million of private 
sector funding has been leveraged through these debt-for-nature 
swaps, groups like the Nature Conservancy, Conservation 
International, World Wildlife Fund, and so on. The total amount 
is about 300 million bucks over the last 15 years, and it has 
saved, according to the analysis we have, about 67 million 
acres of tropical forests from being burned.
    As you know, tropical forest burning is one of the major 
causes of CO2 emissions. In fact, after automobiles 
and other transportation and factories, it is probably number 3 
or number 4, and this legislation, by saving about 67 million 
acres, has generated significant carbon dioxide sequestration. 
Sixty million metric tons is the estimate, the equivalent of 
taking about 11.8 million cars off the road. So to my way of 
thinking, this is a good way for us to proceed on issues like 
this. We have not lost a single American job through this 
legislation. In fact, we have helped developing countries by 
improving their balance sheet through these debt-for-nature 
swaps, so I thank you very much for including it.
    I will say the Administration is interested right now in 
agreements with two Latin American countries and one Southeast 
Asian country, so this is timely. We need to have the 
authorization, and I hope this can be an example for what we 
can do together on a bipartisan basis to focus on these issues. 
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Thank you for your good work. 
Senator Paul?
    Senator Paul. Thank you. I will oppose Senate Bill 615 to 
establish an interagency program in North Africa and West 
Africa. The bill states rather blandly and without proof that 
it is in our national security interest to be involved in 
Africa to the extent that we will be appropriating resources, 
we will be checking violent extremism. We will even be 
monitoring media. We have trouble even monitoring violent 
extremism and media in own country, much less in Africa. It 
also says we are going to enhance border security. It seems 
like we have got our own border problems we might want to pay 
attention to before we decide that we are going to take care of 
the border problems in Africa.
    I think it is an open-ended question, though, whether or 
not this involvement and this degree of involvement in Africa 
is in our national security interest. I think this is an 
unproven assertion. I think the burden should be, on those who 
want to get more involved in Africa, to prove, one, that it 
works--our involvement in the past--and, two, that the violent 
extremists there are a threat to our U.S. national security. 
Others might argue that our involvement in Africa actually 
becomes a tripwire to expanding war and to expanding 
involvement in these areas.
    The concern I have about this bill is that we presume that 
we have solutions to a complex, interrelated series of regional 
conflicts and long-held rivalries, some of which go back 
decades and longer. With this bill, we are formally committing 
to solve these complicated problems in North and West Africa, 
but have not really demonstrated that we know the answers or 
understand the nature of what is happening there. While there 
are Boko Haram, and ISIS sympathizers, and splinter fighter 
groups who pose regional threats, you also have disputes over 
land and water. You have farmers and livestock herders 
clashing. Two years ago, we lost four soldiers in Niger who 
were chasing a goat herder. Was that a vital interest in Niger 
that sent these brave young men to their deaths? Should anybody 
ask these questions, why we were chasing this goat herder? Was 
this goat herder a threat to our national security?
    You have transitional governments that come and go. You 
have pockets of ungoverned territories surrounded by more 
stable territory. You have armed counterterrorism groups acting 
in self-defense. Can we presume to know who the good guys are 
and who the bad guys are in these religious disputes and 
territorial disputes? The French have been there. The Europeans 
have been there. Now we are there.
    The complicated warfare--the complicated clan warfare of 
Somalia is often the norm in Africa. In Somalia, you have Al-
Shabaab, but you also have factions like Puntland, Jubaland, 
the Galmudug, The Popular Resistance Movement, and the 
transitional Federal government that control different parts of 
the country, assert different levels of autonomy, but also come 
from overlapping tribes, clans, and sub-clans, such as Hawiye, 
Rahanweyn, Habar Gidir. Some of the factions consist of only 
one tribe, and other factions are made up of many tribes and 
clans. Can we really presume to know who is best to rule 
Somalia and that we have the answers for Somalia? You would 
think after the disaster that was Mogadishu, the United States 
would have learned its lesson there, too, but, no, we are still 
there with U.S. soldiers 20 years later.
    This bill does not specifically apply to Somalia, but it is 
the same sort of story throughout Africa--messy wars, messy 
clan warfare, messy tribes--where I do not know that we can 
really presume to know what is best. I think we are kidding 
ourselves that the United States presumes to know which faction 
supports the ideals of a western republic. To reduce these 
complicated histories in the region to a matter of eliminating 
terrorism oversimplifies the nature of the problems there, but 
it also obscures the fact that many of these groups pose no 
immediate threat to Americans here at home.
    We have a significant military presence in Africa. A recent 
report says we have 6,000 troops in Africa. No one has given an 
authorization for the use of force, and I do appreciate that an 
amendment I offered will be included in this to make clear that 
this bill does not authorize the use of force. However, there 
are a whole lot of references to their military, our military, 
and support, and you can see how it quickly morphs into any 
Administration that wants to use military force will point to 
this as support for whatever they choose to do.
    I think we need to go further in trying to not eliminate or 
dumb this down to two solutions: that we have to fight 
everywhere or otherwise terrorists will overrun us. I think it 
is a false choice. It is a justification for perpetual war. It 
is precisely that mindset that keeps us bogged down in 
Afghanistan. I mean, this talks about, you know, making sure 
girls get an education and things like this, admirable 
qualities, but are we really going to send our soldiers into 
every country in the world to make sure that girls get an 
education? Is it feasible? Is it possible? Is it something we 
should be asking our soldiers to do? I think it is time that we 
understand that the idea that we can eradicate an ideology or 
pacify a populice full of discontent is foolhardy and naive at 
best. Thank you.
    The Chairman. I thank the Senator. I am glad he recognized 
that we included his amendment that makes it clear that nothing 
in this legislation is to be considered an authorization for 
the use of military force, and I know that you focused most of 
your comments in the context of potential military operations. 
That is not the purpose. The purpose of this is actually to 
create a framework and a partnership that avoids conflict. But 
let us be, you know, blunt. Seven thousand people were killed 
by terrorists in the Sahel last year alone. More than 2 million 
people have been internally displaced. Another 800,000 are 
refugees in neighboring countries. It may seem a long, far 
place away, but the reality is, is that these types of 
challenges unabated will ultimately end up as real national 
interests and security questions for the United States.
    So what Senator Risch and I have done, and this is building 
also on Congressman McCaul, which passed this legislation--we 
passed this legislation in the last Congress--are doing is to 
create a framework where, between our efforts on USAID, and 
diplomacy, and democracy, and governance issues, and health 
issues, that we can hopefully avoid the conflict so none of our 
sons and daughters have to go. I appreciate the Senator's real 
concern in that regard, and I would just simply say that this 
is--I see the legislation as avoiding that possibility.
    Senator Paul. Could I ask one quick question?
    The Chairman. Sure.
    Senator Paul. You know, in Morocco, they have had the 
dispute forever from the territory that is not Morocco, is 
Morocco. We have now recognized that as being part of Morocco. 
That is in North and West Africa. Are we going to, you know, 
presume to know the answers of their border disputes, you know, 
if we are going to be involved with borders disputes in that 
area?
    The Chairman. I do not think that that is the purpose of 
the legislation, to be defining border disputes. The previous 
Administration, as you rightly recognize what is, in some 
minds, the disputed area in Morocco as part of the Kingdom of 
Morocco, and it made that decision. So my perspective is just 
simply that what we are trying to do is create a framework and 
a strategy that hopefully avoids what the gentleman is 
concerned about so that we do not have military operations. 
Senator Risch.
    Senator Risch. Well, Mr. Chairman, first of all, Senator 
Paul, I think, states in very colorful language what the 
situation is in many parts of Africa, and it is difficult, to 
say the least. It certainly creates challenges that are 
stunning. The Moroccan Western Sahara issue certainly is a 
poster child for that, having gone on for as long as it has 
gone on, since independence. It is not the intent of this 
legislation to drag us into that particular dispute and for the 
many, many other disputes, tribal disputes, as the Senator 
described.
    Having said that, I think we all know with the size of the 
globe as it is today, which is shrinking dramatically, things 
that happen other places spill over quickly to involve us or 
our allies. The result is this legislation, which, as the 
Chairman correctly states, is designed to set a framework to, 
as much as anything, monitor very closely what is happening, 
and determine what our national security interests are, if any, 
in any of these disputes. So in that regard, I think it is a 
step forward in that direction. In addition to that, this is a 
part of the world where our allies are stepping up when they 
should. And in the Sahel, France has been notoriously active in 
that regard for a lot of colonial, long-term, historical 
reasons, and more power to them. I mean, I do not--we certainly 
want to encourage them to continue to do that.
    But in any event, I think this is a good piece of 
legislation that sets up a framework, and I would not subscribe 
to anything that would drag us into conflicts that we do not 
have any business being in. So with that, thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Is there--excuse me. Is there any 
other Member who wishes to address any of the resolutions on 
the agenda?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, I would ask that we now consider the 
15 bills and resolutions on the agenda en bloc, as amended by 
the following noticed amendments: S. 615, as amended by the 
manager's amendment; S. 335; S.Res. 22; S.Res. 37, as amended 
by the preamble and resolving clause amendments; S.Res. 44; 
S.Res. 81; S.Res. 120, as amended by the manager's preamble 
amendment; S.Res.34; S.Res. 117, as amended by the substitute 
amendment and the manager's preamble amendment; S.Res. 35, as 
amended by the manager's preamble and manager's substitute 
amendments; S.Res. 36, as amended by the preamble and 
substitute amendments; S.Res. 99; S.Res. 97, as amended by the 
title amendment, the manager's preamble, and manager's 
resolving clause amendments; S.Res. 114; S.Res. 122, as amended 
by the manager's preamble amendment and manager's resolving 
clause amendment.
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Senator Risch.
    Senator Risch. I am not objecting, but I would request 
that--I have some requests from Members as far as being able to 
get on the record as a ``no'' vote on individual items on that.
    The Chairman. And we will observe those, yes.
    Senator Risch. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Is there a motion to move it en bloc?
    Senator Kaine. So move.
    The Chairman. So moved by Senator Kaine. Is there a second?
    Senator Coons. Second.
    The Chairman. Moved by Senator Coons.
    All those in favor will say aye.
    (A chorus of ayes.)
    The Chairman. All those opposed will say nay.
    (No response.)
    The Chairman. The ayes have it and----
    Senator Paul. 615----
    The Chairman [continuing]. And we will have--I am sorry----
    Senator Paul [continuing]. Will you record me as a ``no'' 
on 615?
    The Chairman. Yes, Senator Paul will be recorded as a 
``no'' on S.Res. 615.
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman, Senator Rounds has requested 
to be recorded as voting ``no'' on Senate Res. 97, please.
    The Chairman. Senator Rounds will so be recorded. Is there 
any other requests? Senator Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso. Mr. Chairman, please to be recorded as a 
``no'' on S. 335, Tropical Forest and Coral Reef.
    The Chairman. Senator Barrasso will be so recorded. Is 
there any other requests?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not----
    Senator Paul. Can you record me as a ``no'' on 335 as well?
    The Chairman. And Senator Paul will also be a ``no'' on 
335.
    With that, I believe that our business for the business 
meeting is finished. With the thanks of the Chair, this meeting 
is adjourned, and we will then move towards the hearing on 
democracy in Latin America.


    [Whereupon, at 10:01 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]



                              ----------                              





                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                        THURSDAY, APRIL 15, 2021

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                   Washington, D.C.

                Summary of Action Taken by the Committee

                               NOMINATION

  The Honorable Samantha Power, of Massachusetts, to be administrator 
        of the United States Agency for International Development--
        agreed to by voice vote

                           Meeting Transcript

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:07 a.m., in 
Room SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert 
Menendez, Chairman of the committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Menendez [presiding], Cardin, Shaheen, 
Coons, Kaine, Merkley, Schatz, Van Hollen, Risch, Johnson, 
Romney, and Cruz.

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

    The Chairman. This business meeting of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee will come to order.
    This morning, we will consider the nomination of Ambassador 
Samantha Power to be the administrator of the United States 
Agency for International Development.
    As I stated at her hearing, I believe Ambassador Power's 
prodigious public service experience and her dedication to the 
advancement of humanitarian principles make her impeccably 
qualified to be the next administrator of USAID.
    Upon confirmation, I trust that she will appropriately 
prioritize and elevate this indispensable and often overlooked 
development arm of U.S. foreign policy.
    This nomination comes before the committee at a crucial 
time in the agency's tenure. USAID will play a crucial role in 
directing the U.S. response to some of the most important 
issues of our time, including COVID-19, global forced 
migration, climate change, and human and resource-driven 
conflicts.
    Upon confirmation, Ambassador Power will also be charged 
with strengthening a weakened agency. The past four years have 
taken their toll on USAID.
    Internal morale is wounded. Relationships with implementing 
partners are increasingly strained, and the politicization of 
aid has tarnished the United States' reputation as a 
trustworthy partner.
    I am confident that Ambassador Power has the capacity and 
the capability to address these issues, and I am pleased by her 
commitment, if confirmed, to engage in frequent and open 
consultation with Congress.
    With that, I would like to recognize our distinguished 
Ranking Member, Senator Risch, for his comments.

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

    Senator Risch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And today, globally, we are in the midst of the worst 
global pandemic of our generation. Conflict, displacement, 
hunger, and corruption continue to plague vulnerable 
populations. Now, more than ever, we need a U.S. development 
agency that is efficient, effective, and accountable.
    Whoever leads USAID must ensure that U.S. foreign 
assistance is results driven, that it leverages other donors, 
promotes self-reliance, and creates opportunities for private 
sector-led growth, and, most importantly, that it ultimately 
aligns with the national security interests of the American 
people.
    My staff and I have discussed these principles with 
Ambassador Power at great length. I believe she understands the 
task at hand. There is no question she has significant 
qualifications that qualify her for this job.
    And while I was not completely satisfied by some of her 
responses to direct questions, including the need to eliminate 
cargo preference requirements from emergency food aid, I am 
reasonably assured she will uphold her promise to work in a 
bipartisan manner with Congress on this and other issues and as 
a result, I will be voting for Ambassador Power.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Risch.
    Are there any other Members wishing to make any comments on 
this nomination?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Seeing none, we are going to have to wait 
until we get a sufficient number of Members to vote.
    So we will hold that in abeyance and I will turn to our 
next hearing and open up with some introductory comments, and 
at the appropriate time when we have enough Members here we 
will call the roll when it is appropriate and staff will--is 
that enough?
    I understand we need one more person. So let me start off 
making a preparatory comment that has nothing to do with either 
these nominees or the issue at hand but I think it is 
compelling to do so.
    I understand that we have a quorum now. So based upon that, 
we will turn to the matter at hand.
    All debate has been taken on the nomination of Ambassador 
Samantha Power to be the administrator of USAID.
    Is there a motion to favorably report the nomination of 
Ambassador Power to be Administrator of the U.S. Agency for 
International Development by voice vote?
    Senator Coons. So moved.
    Senator Shaheen. Second.
    The Chairman. So moved and seconded. The question is on the 
motion to favorably report the Power nomination.
    All those in favor will say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    Those opposed will say nay.
    [No response.]
    And with it, the ayes have it and the Power nomination is 
agreed to and will be reported to the full Senate and with a 
positive recommendation.
    That completes the committee's business as it relates to 
the Power nomination. I thank our colleagues for being here.
    [Recess.]


    [Immediately following the business meeting, the committee 
moved on to a nomination hearing which began at 11:12 a.m.]



                              ----------                              






                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                       WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21, 2021

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

                Summary of Action Taken by the Committee

                              LEGISLATION

  S. 1169, Strategic Competition Act of 2021, with amendments--agreed 
        to by roll call vote (21-1) (Coons, Van Hollen, Cardin, and 
        Kaine added as co-sponsors)

          Yeas: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy (proxy), 
        Kaine, Markey, Merkley, Booker (proxy), Schatz, Van Hollen, 
        Risch, Rubio (proxy), Johnson, Romney, Portman (proxy), Young 
        (proxy), Barrasso, Cruz, Rounds, and Hagerty

          Nays: Paul

     Managers amendment--agreed to by voice vote

     Rubio 1st Degree amendment #1--failed by voice vote

     Shaheen 1st Degree amendment #2--agreed to by voice vote (Young 
            added as co-sponsor)

     Murphy 1st Degree amendment #5, as modified--agreed to by voice 
            vote (Paul, Barrasso, and Cruz recorded as no)

     Paul 1st Degree amendment #2--failed by roll call vote (2-20)

          Yeas: Paul and Cruz

          Nays: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, Kaine, 
        Markey, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen, Risch, Rubio, 
        Johnson, Romney, Portman (proxy), Young (proxy), Barrasso, 
        Rounds, and Haggerty

     Barrasso 1st Degree amendment #5--failed by roll call vote (7-15)

          Yeas: Johnson, Portman (proxy), Paul, Young (proxy), 
        Barrasso, Cruz, Rounds

          Nays: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, Kaine, 
        Markey, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen, Risch, Rubio, 
        Romney, and Hagerty

     Markey 1st Degree amendment #3--agreed to by voice vote

     Merkley 1st Degree amendment #3--agreed to by voice vote

       Cruz 2nd Degree amendment to Merkley 1st Degree 
            amendment #3--failed by roll call vote (11-11)

                  Yeas: Risch, Rubio, Johnson, Romney, Portman, Paul, 
                Young (proxy), Barrasso, Cruz, Rounds, and Hagerty

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

     Rubio 1st Degree amendment #16--failed by roll call vote (11-11)

          Yeas: Merkley, Risch, Rubio, Johnson, Romney, Portman 
        (proxy), Young (proxy), Barrasso, Cruz (proxy), Rounds, and 
        Hagerty (proxy)

          Nays: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy (proxy), 
        Kaine, Markey (proxy), Booker (proxy), Schatz, Van Hollen, and 
        Paul

     Paul 1st Degree amendment #3--ruled out of order

     Cardin 1st Degree amendment #2, as modified--agreed to by voice 
            vote

     Markey 1st Degree amendment #8--agreed to by roll call vote (15-
            7)

          Yeas: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy (proxy), 
        Kaine, Markey, Merkley, Booker (proxy), Schatz, Van Hollen, 
        Rubio (proxy), Paul, Cruz, and Hagerty (proxy)

          Nays: Risch, Johnson, Romney, Portman (proxy), Young (proxy), 
        Rounds

     Paul 1st Degree amendment #4--ruled out of order

     Markey 1st Degree amendment #4--agreed to by voice vote (Barrasso 
            recorded as no)

  S. 413, A bill to establish the China Censorship Monitor and Action 
        Group, and for other purposes--withdrawn

  S. 814, Ukraine Security Partnership Act of 2021, with amendments--
        agreed to by voice vote

     Managers amendment--agreed to by voice vote

     Cruz 1st Degree amendment #1--agreed to by voice vote (Barrasso 
            added as co-sponsor)

                              NOMINATIONS

  The Honorable Victoria Nuland, of Virginia, to be an Under Secretary 
        of State (Political Affairs)--agreed to by voice vote (Paul 
        recorded as no)

  Ms. Uzra Zeya, of Virginia, to be an Under Secretary of State 
        (Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights)--agreed to by 
        voice vote (Paul recorded as no)

                           Meeting Transcript

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m., in 
Room SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert 
Menendez, Chairman of the committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Menendez [presiding], Cardin, Shaheen, 
Coons, Murphy, Kaine, Markey, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van 
Hollen, Risch, Rubio, Johnson, Romney, Portman, Paul, Young, 
Barrasso, Cruz, Rounds, and Hagerty.

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

    The Chairman. Good morning. The business meeting of the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee will come to order.
    This morning, we will consider the Strategic Competition 
Act of 2021, as well as S. 413, a bill to establish the China 
Censorship Monitor and Action Group, and S. 814, the Ukraine 
Security Partnership Act of 2021. We also have two nominees on 
the agenda: Victor Nuland to be Under Secretary for political 
affairs; Uzra Zeya to be Under Secretary for civilian, 
security, democracy, and human rights. These positions are 
essential to advancing our diplomacy, our interests, and our 
values, and these two nominees are superbly qualified to do so, 
particularly given their decades of experience in the Foreign 
Service. I strongly support their nominations and urge all of 
my colleagues to work together towards their swift 
confirmation.
    Let me turn to the legislative side of the agenda. As I 
have said before, I believe that China today, led by a 
communist party and propelled by Xi Jinping's hyper 
nationalism, is unlike any challenge we have ever faced as a 
nation. China today is challenging the United States, disabling 
the international community across every dimension of power--
political, diplomatic, economic, innovation, military, even 
cultural--and with an alternative and deeply disturbing model 
for global governance. So this is a challenge of unprecedented 
scope, scale, and urgency, and one that demands a policy and 
strategy that is genuinely competitive.
    So I am genuinely pleased that Senator Risch and I, with 
input from many Members of the committee, have come together to 
create the Strategic Competition Act of 2021. The Strategic 
Competition Act is an unprecedented bipartisan effort to 
mobilize all United States' strategic, economic, and diplomatic 
tools for an Indo-Pacific strategy that will allow us to truly 
confront the challenges China poses to our national and 
economic security. This moment demands a unified, strategic 
response so that we can rebuild American leadership, invest in 
our ability to out-compete China, and reground diplomacy and 
our core values.
    The bill will help us reinforce and rebuild alliances and 
partnerships, restore American leadership of international and 
regional organizations, respond to China's predatory economic 
practices, reinvest and replenish the sources of our economic 
strength and innovation, and grounds our approach to China in 
our values and highest aspirations as a nation. There should be 
little doubt that the right framework for thinking about our 
relationship with China is strategic competition, not because 
that is what we want or what we have tried to create, but 
because of the choices that Beijing has and is making, and we 
must be clear-eyed and sober about Beijing's intentions and 
actions, and calibrate our policy and strategy accordingly.
    I want to reiterate my thanks to Ranking Member Risch for 
his excellent contributions offered in a bipartisan spirit of 
cooperation. In fact, I would like to thank all Members and 
their staffs for their significant contributions to the bill, 
and I would be remiss if I did not extend my enormous 
appreciation to the Ranking Member's staff and my own for their 
tireless efforts on this bill, which included hundreds of hours 
of painstaking negotiations as well as countless late nights.
    As I mentioned earlier, we will also be taking up the China 
Censorship Act, and I commend Senators Merkley and Rubio for 
their work on this bill. It is an important contribution, and 
they have been waiting for quite some time to get it out of the 
committee. And finally, with respect to Ukraine, in the 7 years 
following Russia's invasion, Ukrainian service members have 
selflessly and courageously continued to defend their homeland 
against Russian ground, sea, and cyberspace assaults that 
violate Ukraine's sovereignty and security. I am proud to join 
with Senator Risch on the Ukraine Security Partnership Act, a 
long-term security assistance package that demonstrates our 
bipartisan commitment to a secure Ukraine. As we all know, the 
security situation has grown increasingly dire as thousands of 
Russian forces have amassed on Ukraine's border. This bill 
could not be timelier in sending a message to the world that we 
stand by Ukraine.
    Let me finally register my deep concern about the treatment 
of Russian opposition leader, Alexei Navalny. The Russian 
Government must release Mr. Navalny immediately and allow him 
access to desperately-needed medical care. We must be perfectly 
clear that if he is not afforded this care, we are prepared to 
impose sanctions not only on individuals, but on the Russian 
banking and financial sector. This is barbarism playing out in 
real time, and we cannot be silent.
    With that, let me recognize our distinguished Ranking 
Member for his comments. Senator Risch?

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

    Senator Risch. Thank you, Chairman Menendez. I want to 
thank everyone for being here today. The good news for 
everybody who are here is that, indeed, as is true in a lot of 
the speeches that we give, and that is that the issues facing 
us today in foreign policy, and perhaps for the entire 21st 
century, is going to be China, China, and China. This is our 
answer, and this has been a long time coming. It has been a lot 
of hard work, and I want to thank all of our Members of this 
committee who were consulted actively and who participated 
actively, and their staffs participated actively. This has got 
virtually everyone's fingerprints on it, for better or for 
worse. As a result of that, of course, we have a piece of 
legislation that has things in it everybody will love and 
things in it that everybody is not so red hot about, but that 
is the way you get legislation through.
    I have said from the beginning, this proposal needs to be 
strong, actionable, and truly bipartisan, and it really is. The 
challenge that we are facing from China deserves no less than 
what we are undertaking here. I think this package that we have 
prepared today for markup actually meets all of those criteria. 
This bill--I cannot overstate the significance of the bill. It 
has the potential to be an important step toward ensuring the 
U.S. is postured to compete with China for decades to come. 
Indeed, if we are successful here, that will be the outcome. 
Only history will judge that, but this really needs to be done.
    One of the priorities that I had, and I want to compliment 
Senator Menendez for working with me on this because this is a 
difficult situation, but it definitely needed to be addressed, 
and it is going to be controversial as it gets out in the 
public. I had the good fortune--Vicki and I had the good 
fortune of traveling in China in 1983, and at that time, China 
was very much a third world country. And as I looked around, it 
had nothing that we had, and I could not imagine things being 
different. Well, fast forward these decades, and, of course, 
things have changed dramatically.
    Now, how did that happen? Well, China has stolen every 
single good idea we have and taken it back to their people to 
make life better for them, except they left behind the freedoms 
that we have, the respect for human rights that we have, and 
certainly our form of democracy that we have. Their autocratic 
form of government is very different than ours, and, as a 
result of that, they can move things much more quickly. And as 
a result of that, they have gotten to where they are by 
stealing our ideas.
    Now, one of the ways they have done that is through our 
university system. There are 300,000 Chinese students studying 
in America today. Three hundred thousand. They are not here 
studying ancient Greek philosophy. They are not studying home 
economics. They are in all the areas that we for decades have 
built the foundations that we have for America. Now, there is 
nothing wrong with us sharing our good fortune with the world. 
Indeed, we want everyone to have the quality of life that 
Americans have. But unfortunately, the Chinese have infused a 
tremendous amount of influence into the universities. So one of 
the ways that we have come up with in this bill to counter that 
is that we are going to require that these very substantial 
contributions of a million dollars or more be reviewed by 
CFIUS, just as the other kinds of expenditures are, to 
determine whether or not these things are in the best interest 
of the United States.
    We do not allow our politicians to take money from China. 
Why do we not? Because we do not want them influenced with the 
kind of things that China is peddling. There is no reason why 
these important institutions that are debating and that are 
producing the future leaders of this country should have that 
kind of influence if, indeed, it is put there for malign 
purposes. So as a result of that, we have come up with this 
provision so that CFIUS has a look at it.
    Now, let us not be naive. We are going to get pushback from 
the colleges and universities. Everybody in this room has dealt 
with college presidents before, and it is their job to generate 
as much money as they can for their colleges and universities, 
but it is not right to be taking money from the Chinese 
Communist Party. Indeed, if money is fungible, and it is, 
certainly some of the money that the Chinese Communist party 
amasses is a result of slave labor from the Uyghurs. And if you 
trace that money, where does it go? It goes into their general 
pot and then into whatever they spend it on, so you can make a 
very legitimate argument that that money is going into our 
colleges and universities, which should not be done. We hope 
that colleges and universities will look at this, buy on to our 
arguments that this needs to be substantially more tamped down 
and regulated than what it is. And if they have constructive 
ways of dealing with this, we certainly have no problem with 
dealing with that.
    We saw an example right here on this committee when Linda 
Greenfield testified. I supported her, and one of the reasons I 
supported her was she admitted that she had made that speech 
that was highly favorable towards China, and did it as a result 
of a $1,500 contribution from a Confucius Institute that 
employed her to speak at that. So if you can buy that for 
$1,500, imagine what you can buy with millions that go into 
these colleges and universities.
    So with that, let me just conclude on that note, that this 
bill really has the potential for drawing 75, 80, or more votes 
on the floor. Senator Menendez and I both started on this in 
the prior Congress. I introduced a bill, Senator Menendez 
introduced a bill, so this has been in the works for many, many 
months. The work has been difficult, but we have gotten through 
it, and I want to join Senator Menendez in thanking all Members 
of the committee for being involved in this, and the staffs. 
Particularly, I want to commend Senator Menendez's staff and my 
staff for working together. These were difficult things to work 
through, and, as Senator Menendez noted, they had many late 
nights trying to bring this together, and they have done really 
an outstanding job.
    So with that, we have got some amendment work to do on 
this. I am going to be voting against some of the amendments, 
even some that are submitted by Members of my own party. And it 
is painful sometimes to vote against these because my heart is 
there, but on the other hand, we have made commitments as far 
as getting this bill to where it is that is a balance that can 
really go across the floor in good fashion and have a very 
substantial road behind it, and I think that is very important.
    So thanks to all who participated in this. It has certainly 
been a team effort, and we will see if we cannot make this 
work. I would again plead with everyone, particularly the 
majority leadership at this time, to let this bill run by 
itself. I know Senator Young and Senator Schumer have a bill of 
their own that is a China bill. It is in an entirely different 
lane than this bill is. This bill is very much in our lane as 
the Foreign Relations Committee. I think Senator Young/Senator 
Schumer's bill's lane is more in a commercial sense. I am not 
as familiar with it as I should have been because I have been 
focused on this, but, again, I hope this one will be a 
standalone vote that we can take, and I think we can do good 
things with it.
    As far as Ukraine, the Security Partnership Act that we are 
going to vote on, 7 years ago, Russia illegally seized Crimea 
and began a campaign of covert military support for Eastern 
Ukrainian separatists. The past few weeks, Russia has built up 
a massive military presence on Ukraine's border, and fighting 
tensions have increased in the eastern Ukraine. You can add 
this to the long, long list of Russia's malign activities. This 
bill, I think, addresses that. There is going to be an 
amendment offered today. Senator Cruz's amendment would require 
the President to report to Congress within 15 days whether Nord 
Stream 2 AG, the company building the Nord Stream pipeline, and 
around 20 other entities are eligible for sanctions PEESA, 
which, of course, we know they are, and we want to urge them to 
move forward with those and get that done.
    With that, we have got a lot of work to do this morning, 
and I will yield. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Ranking Member, for 
your comments. Let me first turn to the two nominations on the 
agenda: Ambassador Victoria Nuland to be the special 
representative for nuclear non-proliferation--no, that is not 
right. It is Under Secretary, right?
    Voice. Under Secretary for Political Affairs.
    The Chairman. To be Under Secretary for Political Affairs, 
and Ms. Uzra Zeya to be Under Secretary for Civilian Security, 
Democracy, and Human Rights. Would any Senator like to speak 
concerning these nominations?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, I will entertain a motion to approve 
both nominations by voice vote.
    Senator Coons. So move.
    The Chairman. It is moved. Seconded?
    Senator Cardin. Second.
    The Chairman. The question is on the motion to favorably 
report the nominations.
    All in favor will say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All those opposed will say no.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it, and the nominations are 
agreed to.
    Senator Paul. May I be recorded as a ``no'' on the record, 
please?
    The Chairman. I am sorry?
    Senator Paul. I ask to be recorded as a ``no.''
    The Chairman. Absolutely. Senator Paul will be recorded as 
a ``no.'' The ayes have it and will be favorably reported to 
the Senate.
    Without objection, we will now consider S. 1169, the 
Strategic Competition Act of 2021. I am very pleased that over 
the past couple of days, the Ranking Member and I and our 
staffs have painstakingly negotiated a bipartisan manager's 
package. This package takes the base bill of the Strategic 
Competition Act, which the Ranking Member and I circulated a 
few weeks ago, and it incorporates your excellent input. Dozens 
of Democratic and Republican amendments have now been worked 
into the text, so it is no longer really a Menendez/Rich text. 
It is already, in a very concrete sense, a committee text. Once 
adopted, the manager's package will serve as the base bill for 
the markup.
    Unless there are any comments or questions, Senator?
    Senator Risch. I would occur in the Chairman's comments, 
and I would move the adoption of the----
    The Chairman. A motion has been made to approve the 
manager's package by voice vote. Is there a second?
    Senator Cardin. Second.
    The Chairman. Seconded by Senator Cardin.
    All those in favor will say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed, say no.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it, and amendment is agreed to.
    Next, I want to briefly discuss how I intend to approach 
amendments today. This committee has not marked up a bill of 
this size and with this many amendments for several years. 
Additionally, we are under COVID restrictions, so each office 
has had to print and organize all of the relevant paper on 
their own. Particularly in light of this complexity, I am going 
to make every effort to organize the markup as efficiently and 
effectively as possible. So I intend to go down the dais in 
order of seniority, alternating between Democrats and 
Republicans, asking you to call up only one amendment each 
turn, and I intend to continue in this process until all 
Members are satisfied in terms of amendments that they seek to 
offer. If there is a second amendment to that amendment, then 
we will consider that second amendment at that time after the 
first amendment has been offered.
    I also want to say that I have been working with the 
Ranking Member to have a bill that, number one, not only can be 
reported on a bipartisan basis on the floor, but that can 
sustain challenges to it on questions, such as blue slip, which 
is, of course, issues of generating revenues over in the House 
of Representatives and out of our jurisdiction. I have heard 
from several Chairman and a few Ranking Members about issues 
that are may come before the committee, of which they have 
exerted very strong opinions about the rights they have of 
jurisdictional issues. And as vigorous as I would like to 
support the committee's jurisdictional issues, I understand why 
they are doing that in their respect. So I think we are going 
to have a robust debate, a lot of amendments, but there may be 
some that fall into those buckets that I will have to rule out 
of order.
    So with that, let me turn to Senator Risch for any 
amendments that he may have.
    Senator Risch. First of all, let me concur in the 
Chairman's remarks regarding the construction of the bill that 
we can actually accomplish something. And I agree with him on 
the blue slip remarks, and also, on top of that, we know there 
are some poison pills out there that fall within our 
jurisdiction, and I will be voting against all those poison 
pills, as much as it pains me, because some of the things, 
substantively, I support. But nonetheless, I think that we have 
a product here that, with the consideration of the non-poison 
pill amendments, we can move. So I am going to yield back 
without any amendments, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much. Senator Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Let me thank the Chairman and Ranking 
Member. This bill is very important, and I hope we can move it 
quickly. I want to thank you and your staff for working with 
our staffs, as you pointed out. Included in the manager's 
package that was just approved are several amendments that I 
offered in regards to the human rights dimension, dealing with 
a report on corruption within the Chinese regime, as well as 
dealing with the plight of the Uyghurs and the Hong Kong human 
rights advocates. And I appreciate the strong commitment to 
human rights that are included in the manager's package.
    Also included was an amendment that would have removed the 
sunset on the Global Magnitsky and codified a stronger 
provision. I understand that there has been communication 
between staffs here and the Speaker's staff in the House of 
Representatives. There is a blue slip issue. I believe those 
issues have been resolved, but they have not been resolved to 
the satisfaction of the House and Senate at this particular 
moment. There is a way of drafting it that does not create a 
blue slip issue, and I hope I can work with the Chairman and 
the Ranking Member as we move forward to see whether there 
still may be an opportunity on this bill for that provision to 
be included.
    I do not believe it is controversial. I think everyone here 
supports Global Magnitsky and removing the sunset. It is 
bipartisan legislation. If we cannot get it into this 
legislation, then we will look for a vehicle, a House vehicle, 
in order to move this legislation. I serve on the Senate 
Finance Committee, so I will also be working with my colleagues 
on the Senate Finance Committee. But it is extremely urgent 
that we make it clear that Congress maintains its support for 
the Global Magnitsky sanctions, which have been so widely 
accepted globally, and are a very important tool against the 
Russian Federation and other governments that have abused the 
rights of their citizens.
    So with that, Mr. Chairman, let me thank you. I have no 
additional amendments that I wish to offer.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cardin. Let me just say I 
strongly support your ending the sunset on Global Magnitsky, 
and but for the potential blue slip issue, I would be making 
sure you had it up, and I would be voting for it. I think you 
would get an overwhelming vote here in the committee. If we can 
get clearance before the end of this markup, I will recognize 
you again to do it, and if not, you have my commitment to work 
with you on the floor to try to achieve that.
    Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Senator Rubio?
    Senator Rubio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also appreciate 
the work that you and the Ranking Member's staff have done in 
putting this together. A lot of our amendments have been 
included. I did want to call up Rubio amendment Number 1, which 
I think is--and I believe there is an amendment--first-degree 
amendment to the amendment, which is the one that we should 
probably take up.
    The Chairman. The Senator is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Senator Rubio. Thank you, and hopefully it will not take 
that long. One thing the bill does not do, it does not include 
any actionable measures to address Beijing's activities in the 
South China Sea, and it is clear that what they are doing is a 
flagrant violation of international law. A Hague tribunal 
rejected their maritime claims, and it was a unanimous 
decision. And despite that, we now see an unprecedented amount 
of outpost development, military presence there.
    You will recall that in September 2015, Xi Jinping stood in 
the Rose Garden with President Obama, and he pledged that they 
would not militarize the South China Sea. Well, by December of 
the following year, we had imagery showing that Xi had deployed 
military assets, including large anti-aircraft guns, at each of 
the outposts Beijing controls in the Spratly Islands. They have 
built runways on these islands, dozens of hangers for fighter 
aircraft, anti-ship cruise missiles, anti-aircraft batteries, 
missile defenses, and it is using these islands for its 
pressure campaign against Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines, 
Malaysia, and the Spratlys and Paracels, and has even pressed 
into the Natuna Sea to challenge Indonesia.
    They now have over 20 outposts in the Paracel Islands and 
seven in the Spratly Islands. It uses a constant Coast Guard 
presence to control the Scarborough Shoal, which it illegally 
seized from the Philippines in 2012. Since 2013, they have 
engaged in dredging and artificial island building, creating 
3,200 acres--3,200 acres--of new land, and it has also 
substantially augmented their presence in the Paracel Islands. 
I could go on and on, but in recent weeks, we have seen them 
continue to use intimidation to change the facts on the ground. 
It is creating a new flashpoint in the South China Sea, Beijing 
is. They are amassing about 220 fishing and militia vessels in 
a reef inside the Philippines' exclusive economic zone, and it 
is a traditional Filipino fishing ground.
    And so what this amendment would do is it would impose--it 
would do a number of things, but I think the key is that it 
would impose sanctions on Chinese persons and entities that 
contribute to development projects in parts of the South China 
Sea contested by a member country of the Association of 
Southeast Asian Nations, or engage in actions or policies that 
threaten the peace or stability in disputed South China Sea 
areas, or in an East China Sea area administered by Japan or 
South Korea. It would prohibit U.S. entities from investing in 
or ensuring projects involving sanctioned entities in either 
sea. It would impose prohibitions and restrictions 
correspondent and payable through accounts related to 
sanctioned entities if the Office of the Director of National 
Intelligence determines that China has taken certain actions, 
such as declaring an air defense identification zone over the 
South China Sea. It goes on and on, a number of other items 
regarding government publishing prohibitions and things of this 
nature, but those are the key provisions.
    I would point out that this is a bill that I have filed--a 
bipartisan bill that I have filed, I believe, since 2016, and 
it has been referred to this committee each time. I think we 
have not taken action on it up to this point, but I hope that 
that will change today. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Rubio. Let me--and then I 
will recognize Members. Let me just make a comment. I share 
your concerns about the PRC's aggressive and expansionist 
approach in the South China Sea. It is clear we have to do a 
better job in bringing to bear all the tools at our disposal to 
shape, constrain, and deter Beijing's behavior. But this 
amendment contains provisions that would clearly create a blue 
slip issue and, therefore, allow the whole bill to fail on the 
floor. As well, it has provisions in it that are outside of the 
committee's jurisdiction. So while I share your concerns and 
would be happy to work with you as we move forward, I will have 
to vote no today based upon those issues to preserve the 
integrity of the bill on the floor. Senator Paul?
    Senator Paul. I oppose the amendment. I think defining 
things as contested areas without GPS coordinates could mean 
anything. It is overly broad. I think also this would include 
construction or development projects that might not be military 
in nature, so I think it needs to be thought through a little 
more before something like this is passed. So I will oppose the 
amendment.
    The Chairman. Any other comments? Senator Risch?
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman, I am going to support this 
amendment. First of all, the South China Sea is really 
important on the issue involving China, and I agree with the 
Chairman that the House very well could raise the blue slip 
issue on this, just as it would in Magnitsky. But I am really 
concerned that to say that we can allow House Ways and Means to 
preempt entirely the field of sanctions, I just do not buy 
onto. And I think they can rate--it cannot be raised here. It 
is going to be raised in the House, and I think they are 
going--the House is going to deal with this anyway, so I think 
we will wind up perhaps in a conference committee knocking 
these out. I cannot imagine that they would want to walk away 
from the provisions regarding the South China Sea. So for that 
reason, I am going to--and I share the same thing. My view is 
the same as far as Senator Cardin's are concerned. I just--I do 
not want to concede this ground to the House Ways and Means 
Committee.
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Yes, Senator Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. I believe I am Senator Rubio's co-sponsor 
of the amendment, so I strongly support it, but I am going to 
support the Chairman. I think Senator Risch raises a very good 
point. I do not want to accept what the House is saying, but I 
think we have to have a process to bring these issues to 
conclusion and not jeopardize the overall bill in doing that. I 
am willing to back off on Global Magnitsky. I would hope 
Senator Rubio would work with us in regards to the China Sea. I 
hope we can get that included in the legislation before it 
reaches the President's desk. But I think the orderly way to do 
it is not to raise an issue in the bill that we are moving 
forward that you would like to see considered on its own. I 
think putting these provisions in it make it much more 
problematic, that that will eventually happen. So I am going to 
support the Chairman, although I strongly support what Senator 
Rubio is trying to do in regards to the China Sea.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much. Senator Rubio?
    Senator Rubio. Just to address a couple points on the 
argument of overly broad. I mean, actually China has 
consistently made this argument for years about this nine-dash 
line. If you look at the passports they issue, it claims these 
territorial areas that do not belong to them. That has been 
adjudicated at the Hague, which is the international body that 
adjudicates these matters with great precision, and they lost 
unanimously, and they have ignored it and done whatever they 
wanted.
    On the issue of jurisdiction, you know, obviously this is a 
major geopolitical issue. The tensions with the Philippines now 
are extraordinary, and I hope everyone is paying attention to 
what could happen there next with regards to a real potential 
military conflict given the recent pronouncements by the 
president of the Philippines about what they intend to do. But 
this is part of an ongoing strategy to control one of the 
world's, if not the world's, most important shipping lane. And 
this bill, I filed it as a bill 4 years ago. It was referred to 
this committee. So if it was referred to this committee, it is 
the only place that this could be worked. I would love for it 
to be voted on as a standalone bill. We have tried to do that. 
It has not happened.
    This is a bill regarding China and strategic competition 
and strategic issues. This is a major strategic issue. I am not 
sure what the forum is in the Senate to address something like 
this if it is not the committee it has been referred to as a 
standalone bill, and I would hope that we would recognize that 
in how we vote today. I understand how difficult it is to put 
together complex pieces of legislation and the procedural 
grounds that can be raised as a result. But, frankly, I mean, 
at the end of the day, if I file a bill and the bill is 
referred to the Foreign Relations Committee, this is the 
jurisdiction. It is the only jurisdiction I have as a Senator 
to take it up in, and that is what I hope we will do today. 
Thank you.
    The Chairman. Let me--yes, Senator Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. If we are expecting a resolution on the 
blue slip issue with respect to Global Magnitsky, is it 
possible to get a resolution on this issue before the end of 
this markup?
    The Chairman. Well, we are not going to get all blue slip 
issues dealt with. We have been reaching out to the Ways and 
Means Committee to try to verify whether there is or is not a 
blue slip issue on all of these questions. We are not going to 
get it done by the end of this markup, so that is clear. The 
question is, listen, I share Senator Rubio's concerns, but if 
we are going to start picking over which blue slip issue we are 
going to preserve and which one we are not, then we are going 
to have a risk on the floor. The question becomes--I would like 
to have a product after all this hard work that withstands the 
test of leaders on either side of the aisle choosing blue slip 
as a reason not to proceed with the vehicle. And so I would 
like to have the time to work, as we move to the floor, to 
solve many of these, of which I happen to agree with. Magnitsky 
is one, I agree with Senator Rubio's, but I am not about to 
take all of the work and then put it to risk on the floor. I am 
not sure what--that would be a pyrrhic victory, so.
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Senator Risch?
    Senator Risch. If this fails, and I assume it is going to 
here, I think Senator Menendez and I would commit that we are 
going to work with the House to try to get these things in 
there and get them included, particularly if it gets a good 
vote here on the----
    The Chairman. I would be happy to work towards that goal.
    Senator Risch. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Is there any other Member wishing to be heard 
on this amendment?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not----
    Senator Hagerty. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard.
    The Chairman. Yes, Senator Hagerty.
    Senator Hagerty. I am going to support Senator Rubio's 
amendment because this area is of incredible strategic 
significance. It is part of a malign strategy that the Chinese 
Communist Party has been deploying in that region to take over 
one of the busiest sea lanes in the world. It is a vital flow 
of commerce for our allies in the region, and we need to stand 
strong right now rather than lose ground. Thank you, sir.
    The Chairman. Anyone else? Senator Cruz?
    Senator Cruz. Mr. Chairman, I also support Senator Rubio's 
amendment. I am a co-sponsor of it. I think this is an 
important amendment, and I appreciate the Chairman's commitment 
to work with the Ranking Member and to work with the Ways and 
Means Committee to get the blue slip issue resolved because I 
think this would be a meaningful improvement in the underlying 
bill.
    The Chairman. Anyone else?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, the question is on Rubio amendment 1.
    All those in favor will say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All those opposed will say no.
    [A chorus of noes.]
    The Chairman. The noes have it, and the amendment is not 
agreed to.
    Senator Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank 
you to you and Senator Risch and everyone on this committee who 
has worked so hard on this legislation. We need a strategy, a 
whole-of-government strategy to combat what China is doing, and 
we have not had one to the extent we need to. This bill is part 
of that effort to address it in a meaningful way across a 
variety of aspects of our Government, and I appreciate your 
including two of my amendments in the manager's package.
    This third amendment, which is Shaheen amendment Number 2, 
is really based on legislation that was passed out of this 
committee in 2012 and 2013 by unanimous consent, that was 
sponsored initially--I was a co-sponsor, but Senator Durbin and 
Senator Boozman, and the original bill was called Increasing 
American Jobs Through Greater Exports to Africa Act. What we 
have done is to take that legislation and to add Latin America. 
And the reason I did that is because I was at an Armed Services 
Committee hearing with Admiral Fowler, who is the head of 
Southern Command, which includes all of Latin America, except 
Mexico, and he presented this map to us to show us the 
spreading of Chinese influence that is going on in Latin 
America.
    And you can see--you probably cannot see from where you are 
sitting, but there are several things that are really 
concerning about this. One is the $500 billion trade goal by 
2025 that China has in Latin America, the 25 of 31 countries 
that host Chinese infrastructure projects, the $120 million 
value of COVID cumulative aid, and it goes on. We will leave 
this in the corner for anybody who would like to see it, but 
the red countries are One Belt One Road members with China. And 
when we asked the question, so what does the map for the United 
States' influence look like, we do not have an answer yet.
    And so what this legislation is designed to do is to look 
particularly at exports in Latin America and Africa, and to try 
and encourage additional exports which will not only improve 
our influence in both of those countries, but it will also 
contribute to jobs in America. And it does this by adding 
coordinator roles to develop a target-driven strategy to ensure 
training for U.S. diplomats and increasing trade missions to 
both regions. So this not only supports economic development in 
the regions, it will boost American jobs.
    I think, as we have all said, China's trade agenda 
threatens to undermine decades of our investment in Latin 
America and in Africa, and I hope you will join me in 
supporting this amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Senator Risch?
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman, I am going to support this 
amendment. This committee has a history with this piece of 
legislation and has passed it before. I think it is a good 
addition. Unfortunately, it is one of those ones that just 
wound up on the cutting room floor because of the volume of 
things, so I am going to support it.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Anyone else? Senator Booker?
    Senator Booker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am a co-sponsor 
of this and I support it, and I really see the urgency for it. 
We know that despite the strong demand for American products 
and services, China really, and others, really have been 
building the markets, as we see from that chart, as well as on 
the African continent, and the U.S. is decidedly being left 
behind. From 2008 to 2019, China alone provided more than $462 
billion in loans to the developing world, and in 2009, China 
surpassed the United States as the leading trade partner of 
African countries. The Export-Import Bank of the United States 
reports China's Export Finance Authority is larger than all the 
other export credit agencies in the G7 countries combined, 
making China the world's largest official creditor with a 
portfolio more than twice the size of the World Bank and 
International Monetary Fund combined.
    China's aggressive investment in Africa and abroad puts 
American businesses and workers at a severe disadvantage as key 
markets are instead filled by foreign companies using low-
interest government loans. African consumers lose access to 
high-quality American products, and American workers lose 
import-export markets. American businesses need more tools to 
compete with China, and this would give us exactly that, create 
jobs at home, and, once again, have America be seen as a leader 
in some of the most dynamic parts of the world. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    The Chairman. Senator Paul?
    Senator Paul. I will oppose the amendment. The deficit last 
year was over $4 trillion for the United States. This year, it 
will be over $3 trillion. It makes no sense to borrow money 
from China to send it to countries to combat the effect of 
China. So this is fiscally unsound, adds to our deficit, and is 
not a good idea.
    The Chairman. Senator Young?
    Senator Young. I will be supporting the amendment. I would 
like to be added as a co-sponsor.
    The Chairman. Without objection.
    Senator Young. Investment per se by the Chinese Communist 
Party is not a bad thing, especially in our hemisphere, but 
their investments are not transparent and they are 
transactional. They are oftentimes used to put countries into 
debt traps. They are also used to gain votes in international 
forums. They use their leverage to extract natural resources in 
our hemisphere, and increasingly we are seeing mil-to-mil 
cooperation in a number of countries. Most recently, I had some 
dialogue with the Jamaican Government that was quite sobering.
    So we need to up our own trade game. I think that is a very 
important part of the piece, to Senator Booker's comment, so we 
will have to optimize those tools. And we might even explore 
looking at USTR capacity, a very lean agency, but, you know, we 
need to be striking as many of these trade agreements, or 
investment agreements, as possible. So I will be supportive.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Coons?
    Senator Coons. Thank you, Chairman Menendez. I am 
enthusiastically supporting the initiative of Senator Shaheen. 
I will just draw your attention to the bottom left corner: 
eight countries interested in partnering with China and getting 
access to a vaccine to combat COVID-19. In the coming months, 
we will be awash in vaccines in the United States, and I just 
would urge that we work together with the Administration to 
find a way, once we have vaccinated the American population, to 
make available robustly our surplus of vaccines. I have heard 
from several African heads of state, who I got to know in my 
years as the subcommittee Chair, desperate for a path towards 
getting the more reliable, more effective American-developed 
vaccines. This is critical in South America, in the Caribbean, 
in Africa, in Oceania. There are many places in the world where 
the absence of availability of our developed vaccines is 
something that we could work together to accelerate, and would 
push back on some of the vaccine diplomacy by China. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Does anyone seek recognition?
    Senator Romney. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Senator Romney?
    Senator Romney. I support this amendment also. This is as 
good a place as any to make a comment about the overall 
legislation, which I support and applaud. At the same time, I 
would note that I do not believe anyone would think that this 
legislation is going to change China's march towards global 
hegemony of autocracy and repression. We do not have, as a 
nation, a comprehensive, effective strategy to change China's 
course and to assure America's leadership in the world going 
forward over the long haul. And while I very much support this 
legislation as a positive step, I would suggest that we have a 
lot more work to do. And the Administration, in particular, 
given the fact that foreign policy is typically carried out at 
the executive branch level, has a responsibility to actually 
help develop a highly-effective strategy, which the world will 
look at and recognize the reality that we have developed an 
approach to change the trajectory that China is on and that we 
are on. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. I very much appreciate the Senator's remarks. 
I agree with him. I hope this can be the beginning of setting 
some direction and continuing to build upon it. Is there any 
other Member seeking recognition? Senator Portman?
    Senator Portman. I am happy to support Senator Shaheen's 
amendment. We spoke about it yesterday on the floor. And it is 
interesting, we have free trade agreements with Central 
American countries of course, Colombia, Peru, Chile, so we have 
an advantage actually, and this enables us to take advantage of 
those trade agreements in a more specific way. And it is true 
that this is our hemisphere, as some would say, our zone of 
influence, and it is troubling when you see the investments and 
the, sometimes, course of activity that goes along with those 
investments, and high-interest loans, and so on. So I think 
this is a step in the right direction, and I look forward to 
working with Senator Shaheen going forward on this.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Any other Members seeking 
recognition? If not----
    Senator Hagerty. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. I am sorry. Senator Hagerty?
    Senator Hagerty. First, I would like to say I agree 
wholeheartedly with Senator Romney's comments. This is the 
beginning of something that we have to spend a lot more time 
working on. But in this respect for this amendment, for Senator 
Shaheen's amendment, I support it wholeheartedly as well. China 
is weaponizing trade, it is weaponizing its vaccine diplomacy, 
and we need to take every step we possibly can to step up our 
game to resist it. So thank you for making this amendment, 
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you. If there is no other Member 
seeking recognition, the vote is on the Shaheen amendment 
Number 2.
    All those in favor will say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All those opposed will say no.
    [A chorus of noes.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed 
to.
    Senator Johnson?
    Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank 
you and the Ranking Member for including my amendment on the 
Open Technology Fund, helping to ensure that funds from that 
will actually be used to circumvent the firewall that the 
Communist Party of China puts in place so that the Chinese 
people do not understand what is happening in the world with 
the censorship. I think it is incredibly troubling, so I 
appreciate you including that amendment.
    I have another amendment that I will not ask for a vote on. 
Apparently there are some issues of jurisdiction, but I think I 
have both your commitments to work with me to try and get that 
on the floor. It really--it relates to Taiwan. My amendments 
were really designed to put pressure on the Communist Party of 
China to hopefully modify their behavior. I do not think there 
is a better way of putting pressure on them than to support 
Taiwan. I think it is very difficult to do it. It is important 
to do it, but to do it the right way, and I know there are some 
other amendments regarding Taiwan on the markup today.
    This would elevate them to the Tier 1 list on the Strategic 
Trade Authorization, allowing them to obtain different types of 
products without a license, put them on par with other friends 
and allies. So, again, I just appreciate your commitment to 
work with me in the future, but I think it is incredibly 
important that we here in the United States Senate show strong 
support for Taiwan as China ramps up its pressure on that 
nation. Thank you.
    The Chairman. I share the Senator's concerns about Taiwan 
as the co-Chair of the Taiwan Caucus, and I would very much 
look forward to working with the Senator to try to make this an 
order. With that, Senator Coons?
    Senator Coons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Menendez, 
Ranking Member Risch, I just wanted to take a moment and 
congratulate you and your staff for your very hard work. For 
the newer Members of this committee, this is what legislating 
looks like, and it is very difficult. It has been very rare in 
the last couple of years, and I am so grateful to both of you 
for this moment, one of the more encouraging markups I have 
been a part of in many years on this committee.
    I have two amendments that I would love to have considered 
today, but for the same reasons other Senators have just 
recognized, I will not be calling them up. One has to do with 
designating residents of Xinjiang as Priority 2 refugees, which 
would cause jurisdictional challenges. The other has to do with 
international standard setting bodies, and I will just briefly 
speak to this.
    China missed 4G. They are not missing 5G, and they 
absolutely intend to dominate 6G. There are a number of 
cutting-edge technologies where the Chinese are exceptionally 
aggressive on IP rights issues in global standard-setting 
bodies. You did include in the base text a number of provisions 
that my very capable and talented staff, led by Tom Mancinelli, 
helped work with you on. One was about U.S. and allied 
contributions to standard-setting bodies, which I appreciate. 
Another encourages USTR to work with our allies on digital 
trade agreements, and another calling for a thorough and 
credible investigation of forced labor and re-education in 
Xinjiang.
    Let me just say that, to the points made about the need for 
a more comprehensive strategy, the best thing we can do is to 
start by investing in ourselves, demonstrating our democracy 
and how our legislature can work in investing in ways that will 
make us more competitive. Mr. Chairman, I would be grateful to 
be added as a co-sponsor of this bill.
    And one concluding comment, if I might. I am an 
appropriator. There are seven of us here today who are on the 
SFOPS Appropriations Subcommittee. There are aspirational 
funding levels for programs being authorized in this bill, 
which I enthusiastically will support on the floor. But I hope 
everyone recognizes that the constraints in our current 
allocations on State and USAID funding will force very 
difficult decisions about funding. So I look forward to working 
in close consultation with you as well as with my Ranking 
Member, Senator Graham, as we move towards trying to fund the 
impressive, ambitious, even aspirational provisions that will 
be in this, and to, of course, work with the Administration on 
how to move forward.
    Thank you again for what I think is going to be a great 
markup and a great process forward.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Coons. Without objection, 
you will be added as a co-sponsor. I appreciate your 
forbearance of your amendments, which I agree with, but it is 
just a question of, again, preserving the sanctity of the bill 
as best we can on the floor. So we look forward to working with 
you, and we appreciate your leadership as a Chair on the SFOPS, 
and I look forward to working with you to make as robust as 
possible our abilities, not only on this, but on other things 
as well for the State Department. And with that, let me 
recognize Senator Romney.
    Senator Romney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I very much 
appreciate the numerous amendments which I offered as having 
been included in the manager's package. I bring the committee's 
attention to one in particular, and that is with regards to the 
upcoming Beijing Olympics. Senator Kaine and I worked together 
to make sure that we point out that it is disgusting that the 
IOC has provided Beijing a platform to host the world, and to 
have a nation, which is committing genocide against a people 
is, at the same time, hosting an Olympic Games is something 
which is jarring and outrageous. And as a result, the amendment 
calls for a diplomatic boycott, such that we will probably not 
be sending any diplomats to participate in the Olympic 
experience there.
    I would note for my colleagues that I think it is important 
at the same time that we not express our outrage by telling our 
athletes that they cannot compete there, and that we allow--
this is not part of the amendment, but that we allow our 
athletes to compete there. They have trained their entire lives 
to be ready for this moment, and asking a handful of young 
Americans not to be able to fulfill their dream and to carry 
the burden of our national outrage would be a mistake. And 
instead, those who will carry that outrage will be our 
diplomats, our sponsors, people who would otherwise go as 
spectators, and that is where, in my opinion, the boycott 
should occur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you for your----
    Senator Kaine. Mr. Chair?
    The Chairman. Thank you for your contributions, Senator 
Romney. Senator Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. Mr. Chair, I would just like to compliment 
my colleague, Senator Romney, on this proposal, which I think 
is a very important one, and I think we need to continue to 
explore other steps that we can take, particularly to shine the 
attention of the world on human rights issues in China during 
the Beijing Olympics, whether it is treatment of the Uyghurs or 
persecution of pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong. There will 
be an opportunity to grab dramatic attention during that 
period, and we need to explore additional ways to do that, but 
I appreciate my colleague including me on this bill.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much. Senator Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me 
add my thanks to both you and the Ranking Member and your 
staff. This is an extraordinary achievement. Granted there is 
still much work to do, but we have been trying to compete with 
China and other ascended nations with one, and sometimes two, 
hands tied behind our back. And this legislation, while 
certainly not completing the job, points us in a direction 
where we can start to stand up the real capacities that are 
going to allow us to be able to truly compete. And, again, let 
me thank you for putting this committee in the position to 
lead, for the Ranking Member and the Chairman to allow us 
further down the dais to add our ideas to this legislation, 
greatly appreciate it.
    Two comments on the underlying bill, as amended by the 
manager's package, and then I do have one amendment to offer. I 
appreciate the focus that this bill puts on the direct 
investment that the Chinese Government is making in our 
university system. I think that is appropriate. I will say that 
there is an important distinction between the impact of direct 
Chinese Government funding in universities versus the role that 
Chinese students and researchers play in our university system. 
And I would hope that as we move this legislation to the floor, 
and as we continue discussions about how we rightsize our 
policy with respect to the role that Chinese funding, but also 
Chinese researchers, are playing at our universities, that we 
do not cut off our nose to spite our face. I think we need to 
get this policy right.
    Second, there is a provision in the manager's package that 
I think is really important. It requires the Administration to 
notify Congress in this committee when relations have begun on 
a bilateral or multilateral agreement with a foreign country, 
and when those negotiations have been completed. I think that 
can get us back in the game of having real input into these 
talks. I do hope that there is some openness to continue to 
work on that language. I know the State Department has some 
concerns about when they would be required to make that initial 
notification of Congress. It is sometimes difficult to know 
when a negotiation begins, and so I would hope that we would 
work with the State Department moving forward to make sure that 
we get that provision right.
    As to amendments, I want to thank the Chairman for agreeing 
to continue to work with me on one amendment that I will not 
offer, re-establishing the capacity at the State Department to 
incentivize and fund what we call sub-national diplomacy. The 
Chinese are really good at using regional and local officials 
to travel the world to spread China's message, to spread their 
influence. We are not as good at using governors and local 
elected officials to represent the United States abroad. There 
are many that are very willing, and so I would love to continue 
conversations about how we can re-establish what was a former 
capacity at the State Department to help lead that effort. I 
think that is an example of a tool that we would be better off 
utilizing more robustly.
    The amendment that I would like to call up, if the Chairman 
would allow me, is Revised Murphy Number 5.
    The Chairman. Revised Murphy Number 5 is called up and 
recognized.
    Senator Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank 
Senator Coons and others for their leadership on empowering the 
Development Finance Corporation to be able to do the kind of 
international development deals that are good for the world and 
our partners, but also help us compete with a Chinese 
International Development Bank that still distinctly dwarfs the 
size of our own. This amendment that I am hoping the committee 
will support would do two things. First, it includes a sense of 
the Congress that DFC's equity investments should be treated as 
loans, which are expected to generate returns. Right now these 
equity investments are treated as spending, meaning that they 
count against us when it comes to congressional expenditures 
and any budget agreements that we provide. These equity 
investments are not that different than loans. They, in fact, 
bring money back into the U.S. Treasury. This is just a sense 
of the Congress that, moving forward, working with other 
committees of jurisdiction, we can treat them in the same way 
that would allow DFC to do much more sound equity investment.
    Second, this amendment would increase the cap for those 
investments up to $100 billion. Again, we are talking about a 
China Development Bank that has a $1 trillion portfolio. This 
amendment would simply move from $60 to $100 billion the amount 
of equity investment that DFC can do. I would argue that we 
should go further, but that would be a really important step to 
try to get to a position where we can better compete with 
China's International Development Bank, especially when it 
comes to developing nations, which is where DFC's focus is.
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Senator Risch?
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman, I am going to support this 
amendment. You know, it is not perfect. I would rather the 
jump-up was a little less than what it is, but I understand 
this opportunity does not come along very often, so I 
understand why this is being done. More importantly, what I 
really like about this is mandating the change on how CBO works 
with these things. I mean they--I never--CBO does all kinds of 
things that I do not understand. This is a correction to the 
way they are doing things that I think is beneficial, so I am 
going to support this amendment.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Let me say that I think the 
revised amendment draws attention to the need for the equity 
fix to change the way CBO scores DFC's budget, and I support 
what Senator Murphy wants to achieve. I appreciate his decision 
to modify the amendment to remove language which may have 
triggered a 306 budget point of order from the Budget 
Committee. So I understand that--so we support your compromise 
and we urge others to vote as well. I want to make one comment 
about Senator Murphy's. We look forward to working with you, 
and your sub-national suggestion, I think is a good one.
    I do want to say one thing about the transparency 
provisions included in the manager's package. You know, I have 
a strong belief in a separate, co-equal branch of government. I 
have had that under Democratic and Republican administrations. 
If we are not informed, we cannot ultimately make informed 
decisions. We stand ready and willing, as we have offered. I am 
very supportive of this President and the State Department and 
the Secretary, and we have offered the opportunity to revise it 
in such a way that meets our goal of getting information and 
notification in a timely manner, and not being overly 
burdensome. And so we will continue to work with them in that 
spirit.
    Are there any other comments about this amendment? Senator 
Coons?
    Senator Coons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator 
Murphy. I enthusiastically support your amendment. As initially 
drafted, the bill had a $100 billion authorization. It was 
Chairman Corker, who, at the last minute, decided to bring it 
back down after it was enacted, and seeing what good the DFC 
has done, and he, like Senator Risch, was, like, you know, we 
should have put it up higher. So I think this is an overdue and 
welcome correction. And the equity treatment, I have tried so 
far unsuccessfully with OMB and CBO, and I look forward to 
working with you in coordination with the Budget Committee, 
OMB, and CBO to address this equity scoring issue, which is 
critical if the DFC is actually going to achieve its impact. 
Thank you for offering this amendment.
    The Chairman. Any other Member seeking recognition on this 
amendment?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, the vote is on the Revised Murphy 
amendment 5.
    All those in favor will say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All those opposed will say no.
    [A chorus of noes.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed 
to.
    Senator Cruz. Mr. Chairman, I ask that I be recorded as a 
``no.''
    The Chairman. Senator Cruz will be recorded as a ``no'' as 
will Senator Paul.
    Now, let me turn--I see Senator Portman is not with us at 
this moment, so let me turn to Senator Paul.
    Senator Paul. This bill has been devised as a way to 
counter China by spending government funds through the National 
Science Foundation, about $10 billion a year. I think it is 
important, before we add $10 billion a year to the National 
Science Foundation--this will be Paul amendment 2--that we look 
a little bit at how successful they have been. We have not 
authorized them in years but we just keep funding them.
    They currently spend about $8 billion, so this would more 
than double their budget. Government, as we all know, lacks the 
profit motive and is inherently less efficient than the 
marketplace.
    Congress has doled out money again and again to the 
National Science Foundation only to see the money wasted, 
decade after decade. There is no evidence it will be any 
different this time.
    In 1975, the conservative Democrat, William Proxmire, 
criticized the NSF for spending $84,000 to try to find out why 
people fall in love. Now, 45 years later, the NSF is still 
spending money, $585,000 to be exact, to find out how people 
fall in love, studying online dating habits.
    The late Senator Coburn similarly criticized the NSF for 
wasting money. I am sure we have all heard of the infamous 
shrimp on a treadmill, the nearly $700,000 project to run a 
shrimp on an underwater treadmill.
    That is not all. Seven hundred thousand dollars in money 
that was to be spent on autism research was sub-granted to 
study whether Neil Armstrong, when he stepped on the moon, 
said, ``One small step for man'' or ``One small step for a 
man.'' That was $700,000 worth of autism research. This is the 
group you are wanting to give the money to.
    In the end, they listened to the tape over and over, the 
crackly tape from the moon, and they could not decide.
    So what does this have to do with China? Well, some in 
Congress want to pour tens of billions more into this very 
agency, the National Science Foundation, putting it not only in 
charge of science but technology research as well.
    How well will the money be spent? Let us look at what they 
do with the money they already have. One point five million to 
study how to improve how tomatoes taste. Researchers determined 
that adding sugar would help.
    What about $188,000 to study why Americans will not use the 
metric system, $30,000 to study gambling habits in Uganda, and 
$500,000 to study if you take a selfie of yourself while 
smiling and look at it later in the day whether that will make 
you happy.
    Unless studying selfies is somehow a deterrent to China, 
what Congress is doing with this new effort is supercharging 
the next generation of government waste. If you are unwilling 
to fix the waste that currently exists in the National Science 
Foundation, there is no expectation they are going to do better 
this time.
    Increasing dollar amounts and expanding mandates is not the 
answer. We need government accountability to unleash private 
investment and to get Congress out of these funding decisions.
    Otherwise, we will just keep borrowing money from China, 
hoping that the debt to them will stop their rising influence, 
hardly a recipe for success.
    My amendment would attempt to pay for the $10 billion a 
year by looking at foreign aid. We have spent about $30 billion 
in foreign aid.
    Mine would cut $10 billion a year with an exemption for 
Israel, and this would be a way that if you really do believe 
this is the way to combat China that it actually would be a 
bill that is paid for.
    This is in recognition that our deficit last year was $4 
trillion. This year it will be over $3 trillion, and we have an 
institutional deficit every year of about a trillion just from 
ongoing mandatory spending.
    So I think the responsible thing to do here is to vote for 
some sort of pay-for and that is what this is intended as.
    And I would like a recorded vote, please.
    The Chairman. The gentleman asks for a recorded vote.
    Other Members?
    Senator Risch?
    Senator Risch. Yeah. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I do not 
disagree with those outrageous examples that Senator Paul has 
given. Certainly, we need a whole lot more oversight into those 
kinds of things.
    But we are getting a little confused here that the Endless 
Frontiers Act, which is Senator Schumer and Senator Young's 
bill, deals with the National Science Foundation. That is not 
included in this bill.
    What this--as I understand what Senator Paul is doing with 
this bill is taking $10 billion out of the assistance budget 
that was in the 2021 budget that we have already passed and is 
in place, and is using that to, I guess, cover spending by the 
National Science Foundation.
    But I want to be perfectly clear that this bill in no way 
will fund any of those kind of outrageous things that has been 
done in the past, and I certainly would not support it if it 
did.
    So I am going to be opposing this particular amendment.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Any other Members?
    This is an amendment that, if enacted, I think would have 
some serious consequences in terms of $10 billion cut in 
foreign affairs spending. I appreciate the examples that the 
Senator has raised. I do believe there has to be more vigorous 
oversight in the collective spending that we have.
    But to target the foreign affairs budget, which is already, 
I think, woefully underfunded is something I cannot support.
    Is there any other Members seeking recognition?
    If not, the Senator has asked for a roll call vote.
    The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    Senator Markey. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    Senator Booker. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schatz?
    Senator Schatz. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Senator Van Hollen. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    Senator Risch. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Rubio. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Johnson. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
    Senator Romney. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Young?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cruz?
    Senator Cruz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rounds?
    Senator Rounds. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hagerty?
    Senator Hagerty. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No.
    Clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 2; the nays are 20.
    The Chairman. And the amendment is not agreed to.
    Senator Kaine is next if the Senator has an amendment or 
wishes to speak at this time.
    Senator Kaine. I do not have an amendment to call up.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Then we will move down the aisle 
to Senator Barrasso.
    Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like 
to call up amendment No. 5, and I would like to describe the 
amendment.
    The Chairman. The amendment is called up and the Senator is 
recognized for five minutes.
    Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. President--Mr. Chairman.
    This amendment is going to----
    The Chairman. I thank you for the promotion, though.
    Senator Barrasso. You are well--well deserved.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Barrasso. My amendment is going to strike the 
rushed authorization of the largest capital increase in the 
history of the Inter-American Development Bank.
    The amendment, instead, requires the Department of Treasury 
to report to Congress with the critical information needed to 
make an informed decision and a clear-eyed assessment of the 
issue that is before us.
    Since the bank was established in 1959, the Inter-American 
Development Bank has completed a total of nine capital 
increases. Each time there was a thorough and orderly process 
that was followed.
    Yet, this bill authorizes the U.S. Governor of the Bank to 
vote in favor of some unknown resolution for the tenth capital 
increase, and that will be worth $80 billion.
    There is no data analysis or information available on the 
tenth capital increase since the 1950s. The reason that there 
is no data or analysis or information available is because 
there still has been no negotiations of strategic planning that 
has ever been discussed at the bank yet as to what would be 
involved in this.
    So when my office talked to the Department of Treasury this 
week, we were informed it was the United States position that 
right now it is too early to talk about a capital increase. To 
this point, the Board of Governors just started gathering 
information only about a month ago.
    In March of this year, the Board of Governors of the bank 
approved a resolution authorizing the beginning of the analysis 
work required to consider whether they even needed a capital 
increase.
    So we are still at the very beginning of the process. The 
first step is to analyze the regional needs, assess the 
adequacy then of the bank's current capital, and identify any 
potential reforms needed. The work is expected to be completed 
in the fall.
    So then countries will review the information and determine 
whether the bank needs additional funds, how they would best be 
used, and then to share the allocations.
    At that point, that is when the negotiation process would 
start, which can take about a year. But that is not the process 
being pursued by this bill.
    We are being asked to authorize a resolution when there are 
still so many unanswered questions. What are the specific 
capital needs of the bank? No data provided.
    How will the bank use the resources? No information 
available. What are the reform priorities that will be part of 
the package? Nothing has been discussed.
    How will the U.S. contributions be leveraged to get other 
donors to increase their support? No plans are provided. How 
will shares be distributed and allocated to which nations? No 
answers available.
    What role does the U.S. want the bank to play in the region 
in comparison to USAID, in comparison to the Development 
Finance Corporation, in comparison to the World Bank, in 
comparison to the International Monetary Fund? Absolutely no 
strategy is created or outlined.
    The U.S. Congress has never ever authorized or appropriated 
a capital increase before the formal completion of a full 
review and negotiation by the bank.
    So I do not think this is good governance. It is not proper 
oversight. I understand there is an interest to respond to 
China's lending in Latin America. I understand it completely. 
We have seen terrible impact of China's predatory lending.
    But Congress should not blindly authorize taxpayer funding 
without doing the due diligence work needed to make this kind 
of decision.
    So this amendment commits Treasury to begin the traditional 
process for reviewing the capital increase.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
    Let me respond to this particular amendment. Clearly, over 
the last 15 years, China has aggressively expanded its 
sovereign lending in Latin America and the Caribbean, leaving 
many countries facing challenging levels of debt.
    China's pervasiveness in the hemisphere is beyond one's 
imagination. Within our own sphere and neighbors, they are 
challenging us dramatically. Their predatory economic diplomacy 
is a challenge to U.S. national interests and one that demands 
a response.
    We are talking about economic growth and stability with our 
neighbors. The IDB is our hemisphere's preeminent multilateral 
development bank and one of the greatest tools we have to push 
back against the PRC's economic practices.
    They have been trying to muscle in also at the IDB. By 
authorizing a capital increase, we can counter Chinese lending 
and position the IDB to address the region's crises.
    As Latin America and the Caribbean suffered the highest 
levels of COVID-19 cases and related deaths in the world, GDP 
contracted by 7.4 percent and 44 million Latin Americans and 
Caribbean fell into poverty.
    In November of 2020, a major hurricane struck Central 
America, inflicting severe devastation on the region, 
displacing tens of thousands, and driving new waves of 
immigration towards the United States.
    By authorizing a tenth general capital increase, we can 
position the IDB to support countries facing challenges from 
Chinese debt, help the region rebuild after the COVID crisis, 
and support countries suffering from natural disasters.
    We have a 30 percent stake in the IDB. It is time for us to 
lead. In March, the Biden administration joined IDB governors 
and voted for a capital review, the first step towards such an 
increase.
    This provision provides the president with all the 
flexibility he needs to negotiate and ensures that he has the 
authorization he needs for the tenth capital increase. That 
review is already underway.
    I do not believe we need a report to be proposed, as this 
amendment does, when we have the ability to be briefed by the 
Administration and hear from the IDB directly, and ultimately 
have further review by the Appropriations Committee.
    This language was shared with the Administration and they 
expressed no objection nor requested any edits.
    So for those reasons, I will be opposing the Senator's 
amendment.
    Is there any other Member seeking recognition?
    Senator Risch?
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman I am likewise going to oppose 
this. I, generally, support Senator Barrasso's philosophy and 
am generally there, but this is something that really deserves 
our attention.
    Look, the IDB has not had an increase since March of 2010. 
This is the first increase in 10 years, and I think we all 
wring our hands over the money that the Chinese are spending in 
our hemisphere. This is our opportunity to do something about 
it.
    This increase in IDB's resources shows that we are prepared 
to act and are acting to counter Chinese efforts to secure a 
foothold in this hemisphere.
    So for that reason and reasons, I think, articulated by the 
Chairman about what is happening in our own hemisphere, I am 
going to oppose this amendment.
    The Chairman. Any other Senators seeking recognition?
    Senator Rubio?
    Senator Rubio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Actually, this is an important amendment because I think it 
touches on the broader topic everyone has been talking about 
today. This whole issue of China is really going to challenge 
us to rethink orthodoxy on a number of fronts and in the issue 
of investment in particular.
    Let me first begin by saying there really is no such thing 
as a Chinese corporation, I think, at least as far as it being 
an equivalent to an American corporation.
    Every single one of these are national champions allowed to 
succeed by a repressive regime that also subsidizes them, that 
sends them abroad to undercut the competition in order to 
dominate market share.
    There is also no such thing as Chinese foreign aid, at 
least from the Chinese Communist Party. They do not come in and 
help a country because they want the country to be more stable 
and become a democracy or even an ally.
    They use it as leverage. They use it as an opportunity to 
send their workers to these countries, as you have seen it in 
these projects. But they also use it as an opportunity to 
create leverage--diplomatic leverage.
    They use lending as a way to force you to vote with them in 
international forums. They take commodities, natural resources, 
port rights, and all sorts of things as leverage and as 
collateral in order to be repaid.
    And we have left these countries incredibly vulnerable. I 
guess my point being is I believe in the free market as much as 
anyone in this place.
    But when it comes to China, we are not competing in a free 
market competition. This is mercantilism. This is a state-
sponsored, state-directed effort to use money to gain 
geopolitical advantage, including in our own hemisphere.
    It is one of the reasons why I thought it was very 
important that for the first time ever, in 2020 an American was 
elected as the IDB's president and elected, by the way, on a 
platform of transparency--where is the money going, how is it 
being invested--and calibrating China, and I think it 
represents a unique opportunity to strengthen our footprint in 
the hemisphere in which we live in and have to operate.
    And it is a winner all the way around because this is what 
allows us to get into the game of creating opportunities to 
basic front-end investment to leverage the private sector to 
become more involved.
    We have left countries all over the planet vulnerable to 
this, but we have particularly done so in the Western 
Hemisphere. Almost without exception, every leader of a country 
in the Western Hemisphere would prefer to do trade, commerce, 
and investment with the United States.
    But it is not happening. It is not forthcoming. And as a 
result, they are forced to turn to these mechanisms that the 
Chinese Communist Party is putting out there.
    And I just fear that we are going to come back in 10 or 15 
years and realize that we have been encircled through a 
combination of things.
    And my last point is look at what is happening with Panama. 
The Panama Canal today, the Chinese control major operations in 
the ports there, in fact, on both sides of the port heading 
east and west. They are not a charity. They are probably not 
even making money on it.
    It is because it provides them the opportunity in the 
future to have at least rotational naval visits, but also an 
opportunity to create havoc as a choke point in case of a 
conflict.
    And that is just one small-scale example among many. You 
know, they were on the verge of acquiring fishing rights just 
off the coast of Florida and the Bahamas. We saw recently what 
happened with Paraguay's inability to acquire vaccines and how 
it almost, I believe, was going to change its diplomatic 
recognition of Taiwan.
    So we could go on and on for hours. I understand the intent 
behind this and I think, generally, we are all in favor of not 
doing things that spend money in ways that should not be spent.
    But I think we should be very careful about sending out 
signals or doing anything that harms our ability to rethink how 
we approach this very unique challenge that is historic in 
scope and is going to define the 21st century.
    The Chairman. Any other Members?
    Senator Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much.
    Just briefly, I think we can rethink how we look at things, 
as the Senators have talked about. But we should not rethink 
oversight, and I agree with what you said a little earlier 
during the discussion of Senator Paul's amendment, Mr. 
Chairman, when you agreed that more vigorous oversight of 
collective spending continues to be necessary. I agree with 
everyone who wants to do everything we can to provide 
alternatives to Chinese lending.
    You know, even in this bill, a provision to counter China 
through international financial institutions only allows for 
low-carbon projects. You take a look at the Belt and Road 
Initiative, it is all about coal-fired power plants. That is 
what they are doing around the world with their predatory 
lending by China.
    Currently, China is providing seven of 10 global coal 
production plants right now that they have either permitted or 
are under construction. So for countries that want low-cost 
electricity, we are already writing them off because of what is 
in this with our efforts to allow only low-carbon projects.
    So, you know, I think that is pushing countries into 
predatory lending with China rather than coming to look for us 
for help in their energy needs as well.
    So I would like a recorded vote, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you.
    The Chairman. Seeing no other Member seeking recognition, 
the Senator asked for a recorded vote. The clerk will call the 
roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    Senator Markey. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    Senator Booker. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schatz?
    Senator Schatz. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Senator Van Hollen. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    Senator Risch. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Rubio. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Johnson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
    Senator Romney. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Young?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cruz?
    Senator Cruz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rounds?
    Senator Rounds. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hagerty?
    Senator Hagerty. Negative.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 7; the nays are 15.
    The Chairman. And the amendment fails.
    Senator Barrasso. Mr. Chairman, I also would ask that I 
could please be recorded as a ``no'' on the Murphy amendment 
that was previously voted upon.
    The Chairman. Senator, we will record it as such.
    Let me turn to Senator Markey.
    Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. Thank 
you for this hearing. Thank you to your staff, Senator Risch, 
for your incredible leadership on this issue.
    We are, clearly, at a defining moment, and China has a 
plan. They are executing their plan. The United States will 
win, but you need a plan to win. Cannot win without a plan and 
you have to understand the plan as well. You have to be able to 
explain the plan to the American people.
    The Chinese people actually understand the plan that their 
country has because it is pretty simple. Our country has to do 
the same thing now.
    We have to lay out what we are going to do to deal with 
these multiple threats from the Chinese, and we are not going 
to win by being like the Chinese.
    We are going to win by being more like ourselves, by being 
a better form of ourselves, and we express our own values, our 
own American culture, in a way that expresses the best values 
of our country.
    That is our moment. That is what this committee begins here 
today to express and there are other places in this Congress 
that the same thing is happening. But there is a lot more work 
to do to be more like ourselves.
    We have waited too long, but we can still catch up and then 
exceed anything that the Chinese may have planned.
    Back a few years ago, Senator Gardner and I joined forces 
to adopt a strategy for U.S. engagement in the most 
consequential region, and that was something called the Asia 
Reassurance Initiative signed into law in 2018, dedicating $7.5 
billion dollars over five years to cement the United States' 
status as a Pacific power in the 21st century.
    And it does that by helping our partners in the region 
defend a free and open Indo-Pacific and defend human rights 
that are increasingly under assault.
    Towards that end, I am pleased that the Strategic 
Competition Act through the manager's amendment authorizes the 
Asia Reassurance Initiative Act for an additional three years 
and adds $500 million more per year in resources so that we can 
help to meet those challenges by giving all of our federal 
agencies the tools they need, the additional tools they need, 
to be able to play in these countries in the Indo-Pacific 
region.
    I also want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for everything that 
you did to help Senator Rubio and I with the Taiwan Fellowship 
Act, which is in additional funding for Radio Free Asia and for 
the language which was included to deal with the fentanyl 
issue. I thank you for that.
    We know that China is still a major source of the flow of 
fentanyl precursors into our country and this will work to 
establish Drug Enforcement Agency offices in two of China's 
biggest exporting cities.
    We are losing hundreds of thousands of Americans to 
fentanyl, hundreds of thousands over the course of a decade, 
and it is important for us to focus upon that issue as well.
    And the amendment, which I am calling up right now, is 
Markey No. 3, calling on the State and Defense Department to 
jointly develop a climate-resilient strategy for the Indo-
Pacific.
    We know that our own Defense Department says that climate 
change is a threat multiplier. A continued shift in weather 
patterns and rising sea levels will lead to growing food 
insecurity and larger storms increasing the humanitarian 
response burden for our armed services, for our allies, and for 
our partners.
    This amendment would take a step to acknowledge that 
climate security is inextricably linked to our national 
security by reaffirming our commitment to working with our 
partners and allies in the Indo-Pacific on climate resiliency 
and adaptation efforts.
    And the amendment also calls on the United States 
Government to develop an interagency climate resiliency 
strategy for the Indo-Pacific so that we can ensure that our 
own military bases, our troops, our partners, our allies, are 
prepared to deal with climate-related challenges in the years 
ahead.
    We see it already in Virginia. Senator Kaine is an expert 
on what is happening in Virginia, but it is happening all 
around the world.
    Who tells us we should do this? Our admirals and our 
generals. They are telling us what is happening to them. They 
are telling us it is a threat multiplier.
    I urge support for my amendment.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Let me just say that I appreciate your leadership in this 
regard. You and Senator Rubio on the subcommittee have done 
some excellent work together. Much of it, as you have noted, is 
in the underlying legislation already.
    Markey 3 simply adds additional findings on the very real 
and present vulnerabilities that Indo-Pacific nations face from 
changes in the global climate.
    It bolsters the sense of Congress that is already in the 
bill on U.S. commitments to our partners and allies, and I urge 
my colleagues to vote yes on the Markey amendment.
    Senator Risch?
    Senator Risch. Well, I am going to be opposing this.
    Again, the climate provisions are, certainly, covered in 
the bill, and they were negotiated back and forth. I think we 
got the right balance already in the bill. But in any event, I 
am going to vote no on it. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Any other Members seeking recognition?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, the vote is on Markey amendment 3.
    All those in favor will say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All those opposed will say no.
    [A chorus of noes.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it and the amendment is agreed 
to.
    With that, I recognize Senator Cruz.
    Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And I want to thank both the Chairman and Ranking Member 
for your hard work pulling this bill together and for the 
cooperative manner in which it has gone forward.
    There are a number of very good provisions that are 
included in this bill, a number of different pieces of 
legislation I have introduced that had been incorporated.
    The underlying bill includes language from the SHAME Act, 
which I had introduced, which imposes sanctions on Chinese 
officials for rape, for forced abortions, for forced 
sterilization.
    In addition to that, there were four of my amendments in 
the manager's package that this committee just adopted. The 
Taiwan SOS bill, letting Taiwan display their symbols of 
sovereignty--that is an important reaffirmation of our strong 
support for Taiwan.
    In addition to that, the Secure IP Act, which provides for 
a list of the corporate officers of companies stealing U.S. 
intellectual properties. In addition to that, an explicit 
finding--a genocide finding that explicitly acknowledges the 
genocide targeted at the Uyghurs.
    And, finally, an amendment that requires a report on the 
effect that potentially reentering the JCPOA would have on 
Iran-China cooperation.
    I think all of those were significant positive 
improvements, and I want to thank the Chairman and Ranking 
Member for working with me and my staff to include them.
    I do not have an additional amendment at this point to call 
up.
    The Chairman. I thank the Senator for his work and the--
which has been incorporated and thank him for allowing us to 
proceed.
    Senator Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 
thank you to you and to Senator Risch for working to 
incorporate so many amendments that I and colleagues have 
produced, including nine of my amendments, three of which 
address Taiwan, which I think is very important in our efforts 
to support democracy around the world.
    I do want to call up today Merkley No. 3, which addresses 
the China Censorship Monitor and Action Group, and if this gets 
into the main bill, Mr. Chairman, it would be my inclination to 
drop the markup on the standalone bill.
    But I think this is the right content to be included in the 
broader bill since that is the place where it will likely go to 
the floor.
    And I want to thank Cory Gardner, who worked on this with 
me last time, and for Marco Rubio for his partnership this time 
around.
    We have all seen the stories of China exercising influence 
on U.S. companies in all kinds of ways, from basketball to film 
to hotels, in regard to their expression of opinion about 
China's activities in the world.
    What this amendment does and what the broader bill does is 
it sets up an action group that will take and have an 
interagency process to monitor all of this Chinese influence on 
U.S. freedom of speech, particularly in the corporate sector, 
and then it requires an extensive report to be delivered back 
to us within a year to detail the activities and a strategy for 
how we should be responding.
    And it sets up this working group and sunsets it after five 
years. We can decide then if it needs to be taken forward. That 
is the amendment and it incorporates, essentially, the content 
of S. 413.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Merkley.
    I support--this actually was--in essence, is the subject of 
the freestanding bill that we had prepared for today's markup, 
and I understand your desire to, in essence, take that and 
include it in this legislation.
    Senator Merkley. Yes.
    The Chairman. Okay.
    Senator Rubio, who has worked on this with Senator Markey.
    Senator Rubio. Yeah, and I appreciate it coming forward and 
being moved on in this way, and I look forward--I think we are 
going to learn even more about the outrageous--we are already 
being censored.
    You cannot produce a film in Hollywood today, no major 
motion picture in Hollywood today can have an angle to it that 
the Chinese Communist Party does not like because it will not 
be distributed in China, and they want to make the money over 
there.
    And we have got plenty of corporations who have made 
millions, if not billions, of dollars with access to the 
Chinese market. The price of that access and making that 
billions of dollars is to say nothing about the horrifying 
abuses.
    We have major corporations that are coming into this very 
building and lobbying against everything from bills dealing 
with the forced labor of Uyghur Muslims to, you know, anything 
that could undermine their ability to make money in China.
    So but I think Americans are going to be startled to learn 
about how much of the content that they have access to in this 
country is tailored to meet the censorship standards of the 
Chinese Communist Party, who have leveraged the commercial 
value of that marketplace to inflict those conditions on 
Americans.
    And so I look forward to the results of the study, because 
I think it will be enlightening.
    The Chairman. Any other comments on this amendment?
    Senator Cruz. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. I think the Senator wants to offer an 
amendment, if I am not mistaken. So before we get to that, is 
there any other comments.
    If not, I recognize Senator Cruz.
    Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    As the Chairman is aware, this particular amendment has 
been a subject of considerable discussion and negotiation. I 
had hoped that Senator Merkley and I could reach common ground 
on this amendment.
    This amendment has similarities to an amendment and a bill 
that I have introduced and advocated for repeatedly called the 
SCRIPT Act that is focused on the persistent pattern of 
censorship coming out of Hollywood, that as America produces 
movies, American movie producers have demonstrated a repeated 
willingness to censor our movies to please the Communist Party 
in China and the censors coming out of China.
    And working with Senator Merkley, I agreed in my amendment 
to add his language focusing on social media, education, 
travel, financial services, manufacturing, technology, 
telecommunication, internet infrastructure, expanding the scope 
beyond just Hollywood, and so I added the language that Senator 
Merkley proposed.
    But, nonetheless, we did not reach common ground, and so 
the difference between what I have introduced and what Senator 
Merkley has introduced is twofold.
    Number one, my amendment explicitly addresses the political 
censorship, and the political censorship from the Chinese 
Communist Party is particularly sensitive. It is their focus.
    My amendment defines political content and the political 
censorship as content that is considered sensitive by the 
Chinese Communist Party or the Government of the People's 
Republic of China for political reasons, including issues 
related to human rights, freedom of expression, Taiwan, Tibet, 
Hong Kong, and the Tiananmen Square Massacre, also concerning 
the repression of the Uyghurs, the Falun Gong, and other 
religious and spiritual minorities, and the ongoing genocide of 
the Uyghurs including through, of course, their birth 
prevention policies in Uyghur-concentrated areas such as forced 
abortions, involuntary sterilizations, and the involuntary 
implantation of contraceptives.
    Senator Merkley's language deletes all of that. I think it 
is a mistake to delete all of that. That is, clearly, a central 
concern for the Chinese Communist Party and I think it is 
important that we focus the study in particular on their 
political censorship.
    The other thing that Senator Merkley's version deletes is 
the explicit focus on Hollywood, on films and television, and 
producing a list in particular of any United States company 
that has altered the content of a film in response to or in 
anticipation of a request from the Chinese Communist Party.
    And I think it is important in particular to provide the 
transparency what movies are being censored, what American 
movies are being censored, and Senator Merkley's amendment 
deletes that provision and, instead, lumps film in with 
everything else.
    I think we have a unique and serious problem with Hollywood 
being all too willing and even eager to play the role of censor 
for the Chinese Communist Party.
    And so, accordingly, I call up my second degree amendment, 
Cruz 1, which is a second degree amendment to Merkley 3, and 
what the second degree amendment does is simply goes back to 
the original language that includes focus on political issues, 
includes Tibet, includes the Falun Gong, includes the Uyghurs, 
includes the horrific human rights focus, and it also 
specifically calls for developing a public list and public 
reporting of what U.S. film companies are editing what movies 
at the request of the Chinese Communist Party.
    And so I would ask for a vote on the Cruz second amendment.
    Senator Merkley. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Senator Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. Thank you. Let me point out several 
things.
    The list that my colleague refers to on political content 
is under a definition of political content, which was required, 
because he uses the term political content later in his 
amendment. So it is a definitional presentation, not 
instruction for the report.
    Then that is--does not appear in our basic amendment 
because we do not use the term political comment.
    And then the second is, what we have done in this is said 
we want to focus the attention on what the Chinese Government 
is doing so we want it to be comprehensive, and we list out all 
of the areas where freedom of expression is being impacted: 
media, social media, film, education, travel, financial 
services, sports, entertainment, technology, 
telecommunications, internet infrastructure.
    Now, we ask for the report to include illustrative 
examples. Explain to us exactly what is being done by the 
Chinese as to get to the sort of point that I, certainly, share 
is we need to understand exactly what they are doing.
    Now, I think all of you have seen from various press 
reports that some of our hotels have changed their activities, 
and I would be happy to give some examples of that.
    A group of our airlines have changed their activities, and 
we can give examples. Some of our famous retailers have changed 
the expressions they have on their products. Be happy to give 
examples. The NBA has changed its conduct, and I would be happy 
to share.
    The point here is, this is about analyzing what China is 
doing across all of these categories, not to pick a particular 
category, film, and make it essentially what appears to be a 
direct effort to criticize the American film industry.
    We want the focus to be on what China is doing. If we were 
to have the same detail, we should have it--or if we were 
approaching it to say let us single out just film and give 
these examples, well, why not how our universities have 
responded?
    Why not how our airlines have responded? Why not have our 
hotels? It is just--rather than being an attack on Hollywood, 
this is an analysis of what China is doing in all these sectors 
with an instruction for them to provide the examples of what is 
going on.
    So there will be the examples happening in all of these 
sectors. But I do not want to convert this bill as simply an 
attack on Hollywood.
    I invite Senator Cruz to introduce his own amendment 
separate to be considered if he wants to focus in that detail 
in that fashion.
    Senator Cruz. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Senator Cruz?
    Senator Cruz. If I could respond to that.
    As I mentioned, I agreed with Senator Merkley to expand the 
scope of it. I agree that China is imposing restrictions on a 
host of areas, whether the NBA or otherwise, and so I think 
that was a positive suggestion for Senator Merkley that I 
agreed to.
    I do think we have a unique problem with Hollywood and 
Hollywood playing the role of censors. Senator Merkley asked, 
well, how are airlines or hotels different.
    Well, they are different because they are not content 
providers. Censorship is not the same sort of threat with an 
airline or hotel. There are, certainly, airlines and hotels 
that accede to pressure from Communist China.
    But when it comes to censorship of creative output, that is 
something Hollywood is directly responsible for, and the 
principle difference between Senator Merkley's version and my 
version is whether or not we would produce a list of what 
movies are being censored as a result of pressure from 
Communist China.
    It does not impose any penalties. It simply has 
transparency. Do the American people have a right to know what 
movies are being censored?
    We know, for example, that ``Top Gun 2'' that they removed 
the patches from the back of Maverick's jacket because you had 
Taiwan and Japan there. The Communist Party of China did not 
like Taiwan and Japan on the back of Maverick's jacket.
    And so Hollywood telling America now Maverick, probably the 
greatest Navy recruiting film ever produced, is scared of the 
Chinese Communists and changed his jacket not to offend them.
    We know that ``Bohemian Rhapsody,'' a fabulous biopic of 
Freddie Mercury, they edited out scenes of homosexual sex 
because the Chinese, apparently, were offended by them. I do 
not know how anyone tells the story of Freddie Mercury without 
acknowledging that he was gay.
    And, yet, Hollywood, those great social justice warriors, 
happily edited those scenes out to appease the Chinese 
Communist censors.
    And so the question on this vote is, do we want a list so 
the American people can see what films are being censored at 
the request of the Chinese? Or do we want to, effectively, help 
cover up for Hollywood and hide that list so the American 
people do not know?
    I think the answer should be in favor of transparency.
    Senator Merkley. Mr. Chairman----
    The Chairman. Let me, if I can, Senator Merkley. There may 
be other Members who want to be recognized.
    Senator Cardin, I will come back to you as well.
    Senator Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Oh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I am trying to put the amendment with Senator Merkley's 
proposal. If I understand Senator Cruz's explanation, the point 
that Senator Merkley raised is handled in the Cruz amendment. 
You use the expanded list?
    Senator Cruz. Yes.
    Senator Cardin. So the only difference is whether we are 
going to name and shame whoever is altering the content. Is 
that the substance of the difference?
    Senator Cruz. The difference is my amendment requires a 
list of what movies have been censored. Senator Merkley's----
    Senator Cardin. Movies are the entire list of Senator 
Merkley.
    Senator Cruz. It specifies movies--TV shows and movies 
because that has been a persistent problem. Senator Merkley's 
does not require a list. It says you can give some examples, 
but it does not produce a comprehensive list of where the 
censorship is occurring.
    Senator Cardin. So the transparency is only on the movies?
    Senator Cruz. I am more than happy to have a list on 
anything else as well. But the movies have been the persistent 
problem.
    The Chairman. Senator Merkley. And then I would like to----
    Senator Merkley. Thank you.
    The Chairman [continuing]. I think we have had a robust 
debate. I would like to put it to a vote now.
    Senator Merkley. Yeah. I really disagree with the 
characterization of my colleague. The whole point of this is to 
get transparency on what China is doing in all sectors and to 
treat them all, effectively, comprehensively, extensive working 
group, produce the examples of exactly what is happening.
    My colleague has said, well, let us take one particular 
area that he wants to amplify. I think that what that does is 
create a sense that this is being converted from an examination 
of the offenses of China to an attack on a particular industry 
in Oregon and in the United States.
    All of these sectors are going to have transparency in 
terms of the hotel sector, the airline sector, the retail 
sector, because we are covering them all, and we are asking the 
commission to treat them all in exactly the same fashion with 
the same aggressiveness, the same thoroughness rather than call 
out one for this particular list.
    That is why I disagree with this. We need the comprehensive 
equal treatment of all sectors.
    Senator Cruz. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote on my 
amendment.
    The Chairman. The gentleman will get his recorded vote.
    I recognize the desire for transparency. I think the 
underlying amendment of Senator Merkley does that as the whole 
bill is--as the entirety of his bill.
    I just simply believe it is not fair or right to target the 
film industry, the only real industry singled out in this 
amendment, in terms of the type of reporting that is sought.
    I hope it is part of the greater reporting, and if there is 
no further debate, I will call up a vote on the Cruz----
    Senator Risch. Second.
    The Chairman. Yeah. Okay. The Cruz amendment to the Merkley 
amendment. I do not know if it is a first or second degree, 
according to this.
    Does the Senator accept a recorded--I mean, a voice vote 
or----
    Senator Cruz. I would like a recorded vote.
    The Chairman. The Senator asks for a recorded vote. The 
clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    The Chairman. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    The Chairman. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    The Chairman. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    The Chairman. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    Senator Booker. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schatz?
    Senator Schatz. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Senator Van Hollen. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    Senator Risch. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Rubio. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Johnson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
    Senator Romney. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    Senator Portman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Young?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cruz?
    Senator Cruz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rounds?
    Senator Rounds. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hagerty?
    Senator Hagerty. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No.
    [Pause.]
    The Chairman. The clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 11; the noes are 11.
    The Chairman. In a tie vote, the amendment does not 
succeed. The vote is now on the Merkley amendment.
    All those in favor will say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All those opposed will say no.
    [A chorus of noes.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it and the amendment is agreed 
to.
    Now, for the information of all Members, of course, we have 
a vote going on on the floor. Because we got a lot of work 
still to do, we are almost down both sides of the aisle for the 
first round of amendments.
    I am going to continue the process. I would urge Members 
that have already offered their amendments to cast their vote 
on the floor and then come back, you know, as quickly as 
possible so that we can finish this important bill.
    With that, let me turn to Senator Rounds.
    Senator Rounds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    My amendments have been included in the manager's package. 
I would like to thank you and the Ranking Member and your 
staffs for the work. I yield back.
    The Chairman. Senator Rounds, with that expediency, we are 
going to include more of your amendments in the package in the 
future. So thank you very much. We appreciate your contribution 
to the effort.
    Let me turn to Senator Schatz. I am sorry. Wow, how could I 
do that to my----
    Senator Booker. My senior Senator, my fellow New Jerseyan.
    The Chairman [continuing]. Distinguished colleague and 
friend from New Jersey, Senator Booker. Sorry.
    Senator Booker. Thank you much.
    The Chairman. You are always so quiet that I just, you 
know----
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Booker. Thank you. I just want to--again, I want to 
praise the Chairman and the Ranking Member and everyone who has 
been involved and the staffs for this extraordinary work. It is 
really lifting me to be a part of this larger process and the 
urgency of our global competitiveness.
    I am going to not bring up Booker amendment 3 for a vote, 
but I just want to spend a second or two, knowing that we are 
tight for time, to speak on it.
    I want to thank Senator Young for joining our effort and 
signing on as a co-sponsor. This amendment was previously 
introduced in the last Congress--in this Congress by Senator 
Cornyn, myself, Senator Tillis, Senator Carper. It is a 
bipartisan effort that we have right now.
    And I just want to say that this is about preventing future 
pandemics. It is critical that if we are going to reduce the 
risk of other global pandemics like the one we are suffering 
now that we have to act to deal with what is a long line of 
zoonotic epidemics--SARS, MERS, Ebola, HIV and AIDS, and other 
pathogens, which have, tragically, been making millions and 
millions of people sick and causing untold death and 
destruction.
    And so this should be the lesson from COVID-19 is for us to 
act, and that means stopping deforestation, other habitat 
destruction, and it means a shutdown of global wildlife 
markets.
    Scientists are telling us that this COVID pandemic, just 
like SARS, originated in a live wildlife market. Scientists are 
also telling us that for decades these markets create a Petri 
dish for viruses that spill over into humans.
    If wildlife markets are not shut down globally and if the 
international trade in wildlife for human consumption is not 
ended, then the emergence of the next deadly pandemic is not a 
question of if. It is a question of when.
    And so this bipartisan amendment will take bold steps to 
address this problem. And, again, fortunately, this amendment 
is something that is supported now by groups like the 
Infectious Disease Society of America, the Consortium of 
Universities for Global Health, the American Society of 
Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, the Wildlife Conservation 
Society, along with 80 other groups who all believe that our 
amendment is critical to saving massive amounts of human life.
    So I was assured that we have a pathway to work on this 
together. I am really hoping we can have some constructive 
conversation and get this over the finish line--it has 
bipartisan support--and I am hoping that eventually on the 
floor it can be added.
    So thank you.
    The Chairman. Let me thank my colleague very much. I 
appreciate his leadership on this. I know Senator Cornyn has 
also spoken to me about it, and I look forward to working with 
you to try to get this in order as we move to the floor, and I 
appreciate your leadership on it very strongly.
    I just want to note that we have lost a quorum. So what my 
intention was to plow forward I cannot do because any amendment 
that would be taken up would not necessarily be considered 
being ruled appropriately.
    So for comments, I am happy to recognize Senator Portman 
before I recess briefly.
    Senator Portman. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you for your willingness and the Ranking Member's 
willingness to look at this wildlife markets issue and, Senator 
Booker, appreciate your willingness today to pull back on the 
amendment and work with us on a path forward, because I believe 
you are right and there is one and, you know, conservation 
groups are on both sides of this.
    I think there is a way to do this. I have worked with 
Senator Coons on this, who co-Chairs the International 
Conservation Caucus with me.
    We think there is a balanced approach to deal with this 
zoonotic issue you mentioned, which is the transmission from 
animals to humans.
    I know you and Senator Cornyn, who worked on this, as well 
as Senator Graham, I just think there is a way to do it in a 
much more targeted way, because some of these wildlife markets, 
clearly, are unsanitary, and causing the problem. Others are 
not.
    Also, there is different kinds of wildlife that present a 
challenge and others that do not. Other markets that do not 
have the unsanitary conditions and so on do not have those 
risks, but also they do provide traditional protein to some of 
the poorest people in the world. And we have to be careful, I 
think, how we approach it.
    So I look forward to working with you, with the Chair and 
Ranking Member and others, and the stakeholders on the outside 
who are very interested in this issue, to build on the progress 
we have made over the last few days and try to develop a 
targeted approach to combat this risk of wildlife markets 
contributing to zoonotic spillover, and I look forward to 
working with you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
    Now, because we have lost a quorum, what I will do is I 
will recess subject to the call of the Chair. It is the Chair's 
intention to go straight to vote, come immediately back, and 
restart the process where the next person to be recognized is 
Senator Hagerty.
    With that, the committee stands in recess subject to the 
call of the Chair.
    [Recess.]
    The Chairman. The Senate Foreign Relations business meeting 
will come to order.
    I know that the Ranking Member has just told me he will be 
in in just a moment. I think our next colleague who is up is 
Senator Hagerty, and I do not see him presently here. So we 
will turn to Senator Schatz.
    Senator Schatz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking 
Member.
    And I appreciate your willingness to accommodate several of 
my amendments relating to Oceania, USAID, the Peace Corps, and 
establishing an Oceania security dialogue and dealing with IUU 
fishing. All of those are in the base text, and I appreciate 
it. I have no amendments to offer.
    Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator. Thank you for your 
contributions, and you have definitely, for purposes of this 
committee and this bill, put Oceania on the map. So we 
appreciate your engagement.
    So, at this point, I will start a new round, since I do 
not--I will recognize Members who may not have had their 
opportunity to offer an amendment previously. And, but at this 
point, I will start over again.
    So, turning on the Republican side, Senator Risch? Senator 
Rubio?
    Senator Rubio. I would like to call up my amendment number 
16. Is that right?
    And what this amendment would basically do is it would not 
fundamentally alter U.S. policy towards Taiwan. What it would 
basically do is follow the lead of allies such as the British 
and the Japanese and change the title of our highest official 
in Taiwan to the title of ``representative'' from ``director,'' 
from ``director'' of the American Institute in Taiwan to the 
title ``representative.'' And it would also give the Senate 
advice and consent counsel--advice and consent role with 
regards to who that individual is.
    The lack of Senate confirmation on this position I think is 
out of step with the general trend of affording greater respect 
to Taiwan's democracy and placing a higher priority on 
strengthening our relationship with Taiwan. And I also do not 
think that we should be kept from doing this by an 
authoritarian regime and its bullying tactics. So following the 
lead of our British and Japanese allies, that is what this 
amendment would do.
    The Chairman. I thank the Senator.
    Is anyone else seeking recognition?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Let me commend my colleague for offering this 
amendment. I agree with him about the importance of elevating 
the director of the Taipei office of the American Institute in 
Taiwan. However, the way the law is currently written, the 
director is not technically a United States Government 
employee, and while the American Institute in Taiwan is our de 
facto embassy in Taiwan, it is officially a nonprofit, and the 
director is a private citizen.
    So while I agree with the sentiments expressed by the 
amendment, it is on that basis that I will oppose it and urge 
my colleagues to do likewise.
    Senator Rubio. Mr. Chairman, if I could, just a point of 
clarity. My understanding is that the director is a U.S. 
Government employee. I do not know if we can get some clarity 
on that. Certainly, the U.S. taxpayer is funding that director 
role.
    The Chairman. To the extent that it is a nonprofit and the 
director is the head of the nonprofit, it is not an official 
Government position, as I understand it, an official Government 
employee.
    Anyone else wishing to speak to the amendment?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, is the Senator willing to take a 
voice vote, or he wants a recorded vote?
    Senator Rubio. Well, I would like a recorded vote on this 
one.
    The Chairman. Okay. The Senator has asked for a recorded 
vote. The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    The Chairman. No, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    The Chairman. No, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    The Chairman. No, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schatz?
    Senator Schatz. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Senator Van Hollen. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    Senator Risch. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Rubio. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Johnson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
    Senator Romney. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    Senator Risch. Aye, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Young?
    Senator Risch. Aye, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cruz?
    Senator Risch. Aye, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rounds?
    Senator Rounds. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hagerty?
    Senator Risch. Aye, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 11; the nays are 11.
    The Chairman. And the amendment fails.
    Let me recognize Senator Van Hollen, who has returned with 
us, and this will be his first chance.
    Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Let me start by thanking you and the Ranking Member for 
bringing us together. I think this is a very important 
bipartisan effort to tackle our largest strategic challenge in 
the world, which is China, which, as I see, is taking a two-
pronged approach. They have been very clear in their 2025 plan 
that they want to be dominant in cutting-edge technologies 
around the world, and I think it is important that we step up 
our game, which is why I support the bipartisan Endless 
Frontier part of this proposal put forward by Senator Young and 
others.
    And then, of course, they want to use that economic muscle 
to enter into what, as Senator Rubio described, a mercantilist 
strategy overseas, combined with Belt and Roads, not just to 
strengthen themselves economically, but to export their model 
of authoritarian rule. So I think this is a really important 
effort, and I think we need to also expand our toolbox here in 
terms of response, which is why I supported Senator Shaheen's 
amendment and others and believe we need to substantially boost 
our efforts in this overall area.
    I want to thank you and the Ranking Member for including 
two amendments I proposed as part of the manager's package. One 
does involve the Development Finance Corporation, which I think 
is a very important innovation, supported the amendment to 
increase the authorization to $100 billion. But it needs 
direction in a number of areas, and one is in the digital 
space.
    We have seen what has happened not just with our European 
allies who have been tempted to take on 5G, but in Africa and 
other places around the world, Huawei is dominant. They have 70 
percent of the 4G market in Africa right now. And so one of the 
amendments adopted would call for a better digital strategy 
with respect to the Development Finance Corporation.
    The other is based on a bill I introduced with Senator 
Sullivan to identify all of the areas--and there are many, as 
we know--of lack of reciprocity in how China deals with 
everything from U.S. diplomats and travel, to how they deal 
with press and media, to how they deal with American 
businesses--identifying those areas and recommending a strategy 
for how we deal with that.
    There are two amendments I proposed that I will not offer 
because they also fall, as I understand it, within the Banking 
and Housing Committee jurisdiction. But I will be pursuing 
them. One has to do with the BRINK Act bill. I teamed up with 
Senator Toomey a number of years ago to pass secondary 
sanctions on North Korea.
    We know from U.N. reports that there is some leakage in 
that sanctions regime, especially from banks based in China, 
and we really want to press this administration, as we did the 
last administration, on that.
    The other relates to reports of China working in Saudi 
Arabia on uranium ore development, just wanting to make sure 
that we do not see China supporting uranium enrichment 
activities in Saudi Arabia going forward, given all the 
nonproliferation issues.
    So those are amendments I will pursue separately. I do just 
want to say a word about this blue slip issue because I think 
many of us encountered it over the years, and I would say, Mr. 
Chairman and Ranking Member, beyond this particular bill, it is 
my view that the House has taken an incredibly expansive 
interpretation of the blue slip power. And this is true of both 
Democrats and Republicans in the House.
    So I think beyond this bill, we should have a larger 
discussion. Many of us have had bills that have been tripped up 
on that issue. I understand the blue slip power, and I respect 
it. But the House is trying to drive through a big hole there, 
and they use it to enhance their leverage on both sides of the 
aisle.
    So I hope we will have that broader conversation with them 
beyond this particular bill. We have encountered it in many 
places.
    And finally, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, I would like 
to be added as a co-sponsor of the bill.
    The Chairman. Without objection, the Senator will be added. 
Appreciate your contributions to the bill. Look forward to 
supporting you at the Banking Committee as a fellow Member on 
the amendments that you offered.
    And I agree, and I look forward to engaging the Ranking 
Member with our respective leadership about what is the scope 
of the blue slip. As former House members, some of us, I 
understand the nature of the blue slip, and I, too, respect it. 
But we just do not want it to be an over-wieldy process. So we 
will try to see if there are ways to narrow that.
    Thank you.
    So, in order to save time, I could just go down the aisle. 
But if I know that there is a Member on either side that is 
looking for an amendment, I could call. So, Senator Johnson, do 
you have one? Senator Markey? Senator Paul? And then I will 
turn to Senator Cardin.
    Senator Paul?
    Senator Paul. This would be amendment number 3 about basic 
research.
    As I mentioned in my opening with the first amendment about 
the National Science Foundation, it is a perpetual source of 
waste in Government. The waste in research is not limited to 
the National Science Foundation. NIH, DOE, DOD, all have funded 
wasteful projects.
    What is more troubling is that we do not have uniform 
standards about how research grants are approved. At NSF, an 
applicant can actually request which peers will review their 
application.
    So, basically, one guy could say, hey, I would like one of 
my peers to be that guy who studied Japanese quail on cocaine. 
That is the guy I want on my review committee. And he could 
say, well, maybe I would like the woman who studied the mating 
call of the Panamanian frog. I think she would be a good vote 
on my committee.
    The people asking for the money are choosing their peers. 
This is why it does not get better decade after decade. Nobody 
does anything. We would not even authorize--we have not 
authorized this in a decade. So we really should reform how 
grants are given out so we have some ability to try to get 
something better done here.
    Even more troubling than creating your own reviewers is the 
idea that after a grant is issued, they can be subgranted to 
others without any transparency. This is how we found the Neil 
Armstrong. Seven hundred grand was going to autism. Most of us, 
even me, might acknowledge the Government could have a role in 
studying autism. But the money went to study Neil Armstrong's 
statement on the Moon, ``One small step for man,'' or ``one 
small step for mankind.''
    That was subgranted. It was not even what the original 
thing was. It was supposed to go for autism. So this needs to 
be reformed. It is never reformed, decade after decade after 
decade. We did not even bother to authorize the National 
Science Foundation.
    My amendment seeks to make a uniform process across 
Government, one that includes objective reviewers assessing a 
grant's merit coming from competing scientific disciplines. So 
if you want to study Japanese quail on cocaine, maybe there 
ought to be a diabetic researcher on the committee or a breast 
cancer researcher or one of the bigger diseases where people 
would probably more acknowledge money should go, instead of 
having four people who are doing bizarre behavioral research 
like yours approving your research.
    We also should have a taxpayer watchdog on each of these 
committees. I think we also need more downstream reporting on 
what is going on and more control of subcontracting. This is a 
bill that I think would be a great reform not only for what is 
going on with doubling the size of the National Science 
Foundation, but I think if you are going to do it without 
reform, it is a real disservice to the money we are spending, 
and I would urge a ``yes'' vote.
    The Chairman. I understand the Senator has concerns about 
the efficient use of taxpayer dollars, and I commend him for 
his work to make spending more responsible. However, I am 
compelled to rule this amendment out of order for 
jurisdictional reasons.
    The amendment is clearly in the jurisdiction of the 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. It raises 
significant concerns about the impact on federally supported 
research and should be considered by the committee of 
jurisdiction. Therefore, I rule the amendment out of order.
    Senator Paul. Mr. Chairman? I guess earlier in the 
proceedings, we had a question of jurisdictional--who was in 
charge, which committee should be in charge of the jurisdiction 
of Mr. Rubio's, and we went ahead and voted on it anyway, 
right?
    The Chairman. For me, that was the blue slip issue I 
mentioned, the other. But the blue slip issue was the 
compelling reason why I objected to it and led a vote because 
it was on blue slip, not out of jurisdiction.
    Senator Paul. The blue slip has nothing to do with 
jurisdiction?
    The Chairman. No, blue slip has everything to do with the 
provision that suggests that it is the Congress and the House 
of Representatives for anything that has to deal with 
originating or affecting revenue starts there.
    Senator Paul. All right.
    The Chairman. And so that is why.
    Senator Paul. All right.
    The Chairman. Okay, I thank the Senator. Senator Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    First, I am going to call up an amendment that we have been 
able to clear through the Ways and Means Committee on Global 
Magnitsky.
    But I just really want to reinforce Senator Van Hollen's 
point and Senator Rubio's point and Senator Risch's point and 
the Chairman's point in regards to blue slip issues.
    There has to be a way that we can express ourselves as a 
committee and not just accept carte blanche the interpretation 
by the Ways and Means Committee in the House of 
Representatives. In the meantime, we were able to clear the 
Global Magnitsky amendment, as modified, which will just remove 
the sunset, but not the other provisions that we wanted to 
include in the Global Magnitsky.
    So I will ask consent to call up my amendment number 2 and 
modify it by eliminating everything from page 1, line 12, 
through page 3, line 33, which will leave in the amendment only 
the removal of the sunset provisions, which has been cleared as 
not violating the blue slip issues.
    And if I get that consent, I would just--before we vote, I 
would like to make one additional comment.
    The Chairman. Is there objection?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Without objection, the amendment is in order.
    Senator Cardin. I would then like to point out that----
    The Chairman. The amendment--excuse me, I am sorry, 
Senator. The amendment, as revised, is in order.
    Senator Cardin [continuing]. I just really want to 
underscore I am not going to give up on the other provisions 
because I do believe we should have the ability to modify the 
Global Magnitsky within our jurisdiction. It does not fall 
within the blue slip issues.
    And by the way, it basically conforms to what is in the 
executive order. So it puts the executive and legislative 
branches together on the Global Magnitsky. But at this point at 
least we have the provisions in our bill. It gives us the 
opportunity to negotiate that, and I would like to thank the 
Chairman and particularly your staff because they have spent--
both staffs have been spent an inordinate amount of time with 
back and forth with the House on this issue.
    And lastly, before we vote, I would ask consent that I be 
added as a co-sponsor.
    The Chairman. Without objection, the Senator will be added 
as a co-sponsor.
    The question is on the Cardin amendment, as revised. Is 
there any other Member seeking to be recognized?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, all those in favor will say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All those opposed will say no.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed 
to.
    Let me turn, continuing to go down the aisle. Senator 
Barrasso? Senator Rounds? Senator Rounds gets five stars.
    So let me turn over here. Senator Shaheen? Senator Coons? 
Senator Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. I would like to be added as a co-sponsor.
    The Chairman. Senator Kaine will be added as a co-sponsor, 
without objection.
    Senator Markey?
    Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
    The Chairman. You are sure you do not want to be five 
stars? No, go ahead. I am just kidding.
    Senator Markey. Excuse me?
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. I was just kidding. I said, ``Are you sure 
you do not want to be five stars?'' I am giving out five stars 
for people who are not asking for any more amendments.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Markey. When Sister Carita gave me that in the 
first grade, it really made my mother happy. And the same thing 
would be true I think for any Member here getting it from you, 
Mr. Chairman.
    Yes, so my amendment here that I am making right now, I am 
going to withdraw this. But I just want to lay it out because I 
think it is an important thing for us to begin to consider.
    And it is Markey number 6, which because I support the 
ultimate goal of complete verifiable and irreversible 
denuclearization of North Korea, as is called for in the 
Strategic Competition Act. However, I fear that a policy of 
maximum economic pressure greatly limits the negotiation space 
for the President and our allies to negotiate a possible 
agreement that offers some form of tailored sanctions relief in 
exchange for actions taken by North Korea that advance our 
security.
    A step-by-step process that verifiably freezes North 
Korea's nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs would 
advance our security without surrendering global leverage if 
the Kim regime were to cheat on its commitments. But I also 
think we should send a clear message that a policy of maximum 
pressure must not impact the very people of North Korea we aim 
to help battle disease and hunger.
    My amendment expresses support for the ongoing sanctions 
review undertaken by the Biden administration to ensure that 
the sanctions imposed by the United States and by the 
international community on the Kim regime does not 
inadvertently harm humanitarian access and humanitarian travel 
to North Korea.
    I am going to withdraw this amendment at this time, but I 
do believe that it is a subject that we all have to address as 
time moves on.
    And I also have an amendment that I would like to call up, 
Mr. Chairman, and that is that China has provided Saudi Arabia 
with the building blocks for nuclear weapons.
    The State Department annual arms control compliance report 
already faults the Chinese Government for proliferating 
ballistic missiles to other countries, including to Iran. This 
amendment requires the State Department to report on whether 
China transferred missiles capable of carrying nuclear weapons 
covered under the Missile Technology Control Regime to any 
other country in the last 3 years and to describe what 
sanctions the President may impose, pursuant to existing law.
    The amendment also requires a report on the policy steps 
the State Department would take, both to prevent and respond to 
the export of enrichment reprocessing facilities by China to 
any other country.
    Press reports from last year indicate that China may have 
aided Saudi Arabia in constructing a yellow cake extraction 
facility, the stage in the nuclear fuel cycle that precedes 
enrichment of uranium. Against the backdrop of Iran's 
concerning advancements in its nuclear program, Saudi Arabia's 
own reported illicit cooperation with China requires that we 
make a diplomatic offensive to prevent a regional arms race.
    So I urge an ``aye'' vote on this amendment.
    The Chairman. For the clarification of all Members, I 
understand this to be Markey amendment 8.
    Senator Markey. Number 8, yes.
    The Chairman. Thank you. I support the Senator's amendment.
    Is there anyone wishing to speak to it? Senator Risch?
    Senator Risch. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am going to oppose this 
not because it does not deserve attention. It really does. And 
unfortunately, the debate on this will take place in a 
different setting than what we have here. But in any event, I 
think that this is better handled in a different situation.
    I am going to oppose it. I think there are some things in 
here that deserve our attention. Indeed, there are things in 
here that are already getting very explicit attention by 
different agencies of the United States Government.
    But in any event, I do not think it is appropriate in this 
bill. I am going to oppose this.
    The Chairman. Any other Senator wishing recognition on the 
amendment?
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman, we also ought to talk about 
the blue slip problem here when we are placing sanctions. I 
mean, this is the same old, same old.
    The Chairman. I am not aware of a blue slip problem here. 
So I would have raised it with the Senator if I thought there 
was one.
    Well, let me just say I am very concerned about potential 
Chinese assistance to Saudi Arabia's ballistic missile and 
nuclear programs. Any such transactions that we have seen 
publicly reported would be a violation of the Missile 
Technology Control Regime and Arms Export Control Act.
    I believe Congress should receive full information about 
these potential Chinese activities that could spur 
proliferation in the Middle East. So I intend to support the 
Senator's amendment.
    With that, seeing no one else seeking recognition, all 
those in favor will----
    Senator Risch. Could we have a roll call vote?
    The Chairman. The Senator, the Ranking Member asked for a 
roll call vote. The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    The Chairman. Aye, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    Senator Markey. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    The Chairman. Aye, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schatz?
    Senator Schatz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Senator Van Hollen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    Senator Risch. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Risch. Aye, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Johnson. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
    Senator Romney. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    Senator Risch. No, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Young?
    Senator Risch. No, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cruz?
    Senator Cruz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rounds?
    Senator Rounds. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hagerty?
    Senator Risch. Aye, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Aye. The clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 15; the noes are 7.
    The Chairman. And the amendment is agreed to.
    Is there anyone on the Republican side of the aisle who 
wishes to offer an amendment?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Is there anyone on the Democratic--I am 
sorry. I am sorry. Senator Paul?
    Senator Paul. This amendment is pretty simple. It 
establishes a point of order----
    The Chairman. I am sorry. Could you tell us which number 
just so we can follow?
    Senator Paul. It would be Paul number 4.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Paul. This amendment establishes a point of order. 
We have almost $300 billion in unauthorized spending that 
occurs each year, including a large segment that are from 
actually in the purview of our committee. Many of the programs 
continue to be funded, have not been reviewed by Congress since 
the 1980s. My amendment, the Legislative Performance Review 
Act, says, Congress, do your job.
    It would create an order, a point of order to require 
authorizing committees to look back at programs and determine 
if they are still needed or effective or how they should be 
changed to make them more effective. The idea actually is based 
on S. 1244 from the 95th Congress, whose author was none other 
than the Senator from Delaware Joe Biden.
    The real change we made is to give authorizers a transition 
period of 4 years to get authorizations up to date. Biden's 
original bill would have forced it immediately. So this is the 
moderate version of Joe Biden's bill.
    I do not agree with the President on too much, but I think 
he hit the nail on the head when he called for congressional 
review of programs we create. It is insane and people are upset 
that we keep spending, particularly when we find the crazy 
things that people are spending money on, and these programs 
have not been reviewed. We should review these things every 
year. We should authorize them, and we should fix stuff that 
does not work and quit spending stuff on crazy things like the 
mating call of the male frog in Panama.
    So this would be a point of order that we would establish, 
and I recommend a ``yes'' vote.
    The Chairman. While I appreciate my colleague's dedication 
to the congressional budget process, this amendment is not 
appropriate for this bill, nor is it under this committee's 
jurisdiction. If the Senator wishes to reform the budget and 
appropriations process, I certainly would urge him to take his 
amendment up on the appropriate bills and the resolutions on 
the floor. So I have to rule the amendment out of order.
    Is there anyone on the Democratic side seeking to offer an 
amendment?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. There is none. Is there anyone else on the 
Republican--I am sorry. Senator Markey?
    Senator Markey. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. We are down to three stars.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. Just kidding. Go ahead. I am sorry.
    Senator Markey. My mother would have been happy with that, 
too, unfortunately. My mother always----
    The Chairman. Which amendment is this?
    Senator Markey [continuing]. My mother always said she was 
going to donate my brain to Harvard Medical School. It was a 
completely unused human organ. So three stars would be great.
    The Chairman. I think it would be well used. What 
amendment?
    Senator Markey. Mr. Chairman, I would like to call up 
Markey number 4.
    My amendment, co-sponsored by Senator Young, would create a 
Quad Parliamentary Working Group, modeled on the existing 
bilateral parliamentary groups that the United States has with 
the United Kingdom, Canada, Mexico, and others. This would 
include the United States, Japan, Australia, and India. The 
Quad Intra-Parliamentary Group would provide a forum for 
legislators, such as Members of this committee and its staff, 
to meet regularly to guide the implementation of 
recommendations from Quad working groups on a variety of 
subjects.
    The amendment will help institutionalize the work of the 
Quad to sustain cooperation amongst these four democracies, 
even when a change of government in one or more countries 
inevitably occurs. The Quad Intra-Parliamentary Group will help 
poor countries diversify cooperation on issues beyond its 
traditional defense focus, such as by delivering alternatives 
to China's Belt and Road Initiative in the Indo-Pacific and 
delivering on the promise to provide over 1 billion COVID-19 
vaccines to the region.
    The amendment calls upon the State Department to enter into 
negotiations with Japan and Australia and India within 30 days 
on the creation of such a group to give each government maximum 
flexibility to determine the scope of work and the makeup of 
its Members.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Markey.
    Look, I am pleased to see President Biden raise the 
importance of the Quad last month with a head of state dialogue 
meeting, which followed Secretaries Blinken and Austin's trip 
to the Indo-Pacific in February.
    This amendment establishing a Quad Intra-Parliamentary 
Working Group would take that relationship to the next level, 
the level it deserves. So I will seek to support the Senator's 
amendment.
    Is there anyone else wishing to speak to the amendment?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, all those in favor will say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All those opposed will say no.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed 
to.
    Is there any Member on either side seeking recognition to 
offer an amendment?
    Senator Barrasso. I would like to be recorded as ``no.''
    The Chairman. Senator Barrasso will be recorded as a 
``no.''
    Any Member seeking recognition?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. In the absence of doing so, then we are ready 
to vote on final passage.
    Is there a motion to vote on the Strategic Competition Act, 
as amended by all of the amendments approved today?
    Senator Risch. So moved.
    Senator Kaine. Second.
    The Chairman. So moved by Senator Risch. Seconded by 
Senator Kaine.
    The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    The Chairman. Aye, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    Senator Markey. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    The Chairman. Aye, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schatz?
    Senator Schatz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Senator Van Hollen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    Senator Risch. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Risch. Aye, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Johnson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
    Senator Romney. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    Senator Risch. Aye, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Young?
    Senator Risch. Aye, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cruz?
    Senator Cruz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rounds?
    Senator Rounds. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hagerty?
    Senator Hagerty. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Aye. The clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 21; the nays are 1.
    The Chairman. And the legislation is approved and send with 
a favorable recommendation to the Senate.
    Let me--at this point, we have one more piece of 
legislation, but let me thank all of our colleagues. That type 
of vote sends an incredibly powerful message, I think, to the 
world. It sends it to our leadership as we pursue the 
legislation on the floor.
    And I thank all of our colleagues. I hope you appreciated 
that we have had--this is the essence of what legislating is 
supposed to be all about. We have not had an opportunity like 
this in some time. I want to thank the Ranking Member again and 
all of you for your engagement, and the ideas you added were 
incredibly powerful and important, and we appreciate it. And it 
is really a committee product now that goes to the floor.
    So my thanks to all of you. And I certainly want to thank--
--
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman [continuing]. Very briefly, the staff on both 
sides. And on my side, I must say that these people spent 
endless hours. So, Andrew Keller, Ruchi Gill, John Ryan, 
Michael Schiffer, Damian Murphy, Doug Levinson, Megan Bartley, 
Elizabeth Schneider. And Senator Risch's staff, among others, 
Matt Sullivan, Lara Crouch, Andy Olson, Scott Richardson, as 
well as the staff director, Chris Socha.
    So my thanks to all of them. I know we have one more piece 
of legislation, but----
    Senator Risch. Well, just I want to associate myself with 
those remarks. I am not going to go through all the names, but 
certainly, everybody had an input in this. And the hours were 
incalculable, and the hurdles that had to be crossed were very 
significant.
    History will only judge whether or not this is as important 
as we think it is. We think it is important. It is finally a 
step forward on something we all talk about. I hope we get a 
vote that is similar on the floor.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Merkley, I assume that we are going to forego 
calling up the legislation independently. Is that correct?
    Senator Merkley. That is correct. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much. That is withdrawn.
    So, finally, we turn to S. 814, the Ukraine Security 
Partnership Act.
    I am pleased. I want to thank Senator Risch and the staff, 
as well as all of our co-sponsors for their partnership on this 
important piece of legislation. The bill is especially timely 
now with Russia amassing troops along Ukraine's border, cutting 
access to key ports in the Black Sea, and we need to stand with 
our Ukrainian friends who are literally on the frontlines 
battling Kremlin aggression.
    I urge my colleagues to demonstrate our commitment to the 
U.S.-Ukraine security partnership by supporting the speedy 
passage of the bill.
    I am happy to recognize Senator Risch, who has been a 
driving force on this.
    Senator Risch. I think this is----
    The Chairman. And I am pleased that we are able to 
negotiate a manager's amendment, which incorporates the first-
degree amendments filed by both Senator Risch, and Murphy, and 
I will be supporting the manager's amendment.
    Is there any Member who wishes to comment on the manager's 
amendment or the bill at this point?
    Senator Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I know it has been a long meeting. So very quickly, I just 
want to thank you and the Ranking Member for including language 
in the manager's amendment that recognizes that while security 
assistance right now is of vital importance to Ukraine, Putin's 
game from the very beginning has not necessarily been to march 
his army all the way into Kiev. It has been to destabilize the 
country to the point that, ultimately, through the political 
process, the Ukrainian people decide to install a government 
that once again settles under the wing of the Kremlin.
    And so it is our military support that is important, but 
frankly, it is also our economic support and our political 
support, our anti-corruption programming that helps stabilize 
the Government so that all of these efforts to destabilize, 
whether they be military efforts, propaganda efforts, from the 
Russian Government are not successful. And so in the manager's 
package, we just recognize that our commitment to Ukraine needs 
to be multifaceted, both a security commitment and also a 
nonmilitary, economic and political commitment as well.
    I thank you for including this in the manager's package.
    The Chairman. Well, thank you for your contribution.
    Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on the manager's 
amendment?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, the question--is there a motion to 
approve the manager's amendment by voice vote?
    Senator Risch. So moved.
    Senator Cardin. Second.
    The Chairman. So moved. Seconded.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All those opposed, say no.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it, and the manager's amendment 
is agreed to.
    Is there any other amendments to be offered? Senator Cruz?
    Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 
the hard work on this Ukraine bill.
    The amendment I have--I call up Cruz 1--is not an amendment 
that is going to surprise any Member of this committee.
    One of the great victories that this committee has produced 
over the last 2 years has been standing up to Putin and 
stopping Nord Stream 2. And we have seen strong bipartisan 
cooperation to do so. We have seen this committee twice take up 
and pass bipartisan sanctions focused on stopping Nord Stream 
2.
    The first sanctions that we passed overwhelmingly ended up 
halting construction of the pipeline immediately. For a year, 
the pipeline lay dormant, a hunk of metal at the bottom of the 
sea because of the sanctions that came out of this committee. 
We then passed a second set of sanctions that ratcheted up the 
pressure even more.
    As everyone on this committee is aware, however, Russia has 
returned to building Nord Stream 2, has done so in November of 
last year. And they are trying to rush through and finish the 
last mile of the pipeline and get it online before the 
Administration acts to impose sanctions.
    I will say Secretary Blinken, in part as a result of 
bipartisan urging from Members of this committee, put out a 
strong and unequivocal statement that those in violation of 
Federal law will face sanctions. And that statement should be 
heard by anyone involved in this project.
    This amendment continues to put forward pressure on the 
Administration to follow the law and impose sanctions. And in 
particular, it names 20 entities and requires an almost 
immediate determination whether they should be sanctioned. It 
is a message that will be heard by every company involved in 
building this pipeline that if you are involved, you will be 
sanctioned.
    And if we are going to stop this pipeline, that needs to be 
heard with real immediacy. As you know, I have been concerned 
that the Biden administration has not moved swiftly enough in 
terms of implementing the law. As the Chairman has pointed out, 
I also had concerns the Trump administration did not move 
swiftly enough implementing the law.
    And so with both administrations, this committee, in a 
bipartisan manner, has leaned in to use every tool we have to 
stop the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which stopping that pipeline 
is good for Europe, it is good for America, and it is very 
bad--it is good for Ukraine, which is obviously the topic of 
this bill, and it is very bad for Putin. And so I would urge a 
bipartisan support of this amendment.
    The Chairman. Anyone else wishing to be recognized? Senator 
Hagerty?
    Senator Hagerty. I would just like to say I wholeheartedly 
support the Senator from Texas's amendment, and I appreciate 
your leadership in terms of bringing urgency to this critical 
strategic issue.
    Thank you.
    Senator Shaheen. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Senator Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. I will just be quick. I think right now, 
as we see Putin trying to eliminate his biggest opposition 
leader, Navalny, in prison, the best shot we can make is to 
stop the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, if we are going to get his 
attention. So I hope we will pass this.
    The Chairman. Anyone else seeking recognition?
    Senator Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I also support this amendment, but for additional reasons, 
which is that if we are going to tackle climate chaos, we 
cannot be supporting expansion, massive expansion of national 
natural gas infrastructure around the world. And so I may come 
at this from a different direction, but I like the outcome.
    The Chairman. I thank the Senator.
    I support the Senator's effort and the amendment. And if he 
will take a voice vote on this?
    All those in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All those opposed, say no.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed 
to.
    I just ask Members to bear with us 2 more minutes. I 
understand Senator Murphy may have a clarification for us?
    Senator Murphy. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
    With respect to the amendment number 5 that I submitted, 
the revised amendment, I just wanted to make clear that it is 
my intention that the increase authorized by my amendment shall 
be used for loan guarantees.
    Senator Barrasso. And Mr. Chairman, I ask to be added as a 
co-sponsor to Senator Cruz's amendment.
    The Chairman. Senator Barrasso shall be added as a co-
sponsor to Senator Cruz's amendment.
    Are there any other amendments to be offered?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, the question is on the motion--is 
there a motion to approve S. 814, as amended?
    Senator Risch. So moved.
    Senator Cardin. Second.
    The Chairman. So moved. Seconded. Yes, okay. Moved and 
seconded.
    The question is on the motion to approve S. 814, as 
amended.
    All those in favor will say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All those opposed will say no.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it, and the legislation is 
approved and sent to the Senate with a positive recommendation.
    With that, I ask--that completes the committee's business. 
I ask unanimous consent that staff be authorized to make 
technical and conforming changes. Without objection, so 
ordered.
    And with the thanks of the Chair and the Ranking Member, 
this meeting is adjourned.


    [Whereupon, at 1:02 p.m., the business meeting was 
adjourned.]



                              ----------                              






                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                         TUESDAY, MAY 25, 2021

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

                Summary of Action Taken by the Committee

                              LEGISLATION

  S. RES. 229, Recognizing the devastating attack on a girls' in Kabul, 
        Afghanistan on May 8, 2021, and expressing solidarity with the 
        Afghan people--Agreed to by voice vote (Menendez, Cardin, 
        Coons, Murphy, Kaine, Markey, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van 
        Hollen, Risch, Johnson, Romney, Cruz, and Rounds added as co-
        sponsors)

                              NOMINATIONS

  The Honorable Bonnie D. Jenkins, of New York, to be an Under 
        Secretary of State (Arms Control and International Security)--
        Agreed to by roll call vote (12-10)

          Yeas: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, Kaine, 
        Markey, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen, Paul (proxy)

          Nays: Risch, Rubio (proxy), Johnson, Romney, Portman (proxy), 
        Young, Barrasso (proxy), Cruz, Rounds, Hagerty (proxy)

  The Honorable Jose W. Fernandez, of New York, to be an Under 
        Secretary of State (Economic Growth, Energy, and the 
        Environment); United States Alternate Governor of the 
        International Bank for Reconstruction and Development; United 
        States Alternate Governor of the Inter-American Development 
        Bank; and United States Alternate Governor of the European Bank 
        for Reconstruction and Development--Agreed to by voice vote 
        (Barrasso recorded as no)

                               FSO LISTS

  Abdulrazak Mahamudu Abass, et al., dated April 13, 2021 (PN 356)--
        Agreed to by Voice Vote


  Ali Abdi, et al., dated April 13, 2021 (PN 355)--Agreed to by Voice 
        Vote


  Jonathan Raphael Cohen, et al., dated April 13, 2021 (PN 358), as 
        modified--Agreed to by Voice Vote


  Alexander S. Allen, et al., dated April 27, 2021 (PN 476)--Agreed to 
        by Voice Vote

                           Meeting Transcript

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:20 p.m., in 
Room SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert Menendez, 
Chairman of the committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Menendez [presiding], Cardin, Shaheen, 
Coons, Murphy, Kaine, Markey, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van 
Hollen, Risch, Johnson, Romney, Young, Cruz, and Rounds.

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

    The Chairman. This business meeting of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee will come to order.
    This afternoon, we consider two nominees who were held over 
from last week: Bonnie Jenkins to be the Under Secretary for 
Arms Control and International Security, and Jose Fernandez to 
be Under Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy, and the 
Environment. These positions are critical to our security, 
diplomacy, our interests, and these two nominees are superbly 
qualified. I strongly support their nominations and urge my 
colleagues to work together towards their swift confirmation.
    The Under Secretary for Arms Control and International 
Security is one of the most vital senior security positions in 
the Department of State. The portfolio ranges from 
nonproliferation of nuclear weapons to dealing with the 
legacies of unexploded munitions and land mines. It requires 
orchestrating global cooperation among both allies and 
adversaries on critical issues. I am pleased to be supporting 
Ambassador Jenkins' nomination for this position. Her extensive 
experience in the Department, her 22 years in the Air Force and 
Naval Reserve provide her with the type of background and 
knowledge required for juggling the multiple and complex duties 
of this office. I look forward to her close cooperation with 
this committee on our shared goals: the advancement and 
conservation of U.S. national security interests and promotion 
of our values in our oversight of these activities.
    Similarly, I am pleased to support Mr. Jose Fernandez to be 
the next Under Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy, and the 
Environment. His years of service as the Assistant Secretary 
for Economic Growth in the Obama administration, as well as his 
extensive experience in the private sector, provide him with 
the type of skills needed in this role. Mr. Fernandez 
understands the importance of economic diplomacy and statecraft 
to build lasting alliances. During his confirmation hearing, he 
emphasized that U.S. economic engagement that helps ensure 
equitable economic opportunity, built on partnerships, is 
critical to countering the exploitive and transactional 
international development pursued by malign actors on the 
global stage. As we prioritize competition with China and 
strive to restore U.S. leadership in the world, Mr. Fernandez's 
experience and vision for State's economic growth, environment, 
and energy bureaus will be critical. He has my full support.
    Finally, we have four lists with more than 800 Foreign 
Service officers on the agenda. These are hundreds of 
hardworking individuals who serve our country at great 
sacrifice and cost to themselves and their families, and I hope 
we can move their promotions expeditiously. With that, let me 
recognize the distinguished Ranking Member, Senator Risch, for 
his comments.

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

    Senator Risch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Regarding the 
Fernandez nomination, the role of Under Secretary for economic, 
growth, energy and environment will be critical in our mission 
to combat China's predatory economic practices. This includes 
countering Chinese subsidies and bad bilateral lending, 
improving the environment in which companies operate, and 
reducing barriers to investment around the world. I believe Mr. 
Fernandez has the requisite experience and insights necessary 
to tackle the challenges ahead. I believe he is sincere in his 
eagerness to engage with this committee often. I plan to 
support his nomination.
    With regard to Ambassador Jenkins, this is more difficult. 
I commend her for her long career of service in the arms 
control space, and I appreciate her efforts to inspire a new 
expanded generation of national security professionals through 
her nonprofit work. I also appreciate her answers for the 
record on the Open Skies Treaty, stating that she believes 
that, ``Congressional authorization would be required for the 
United States to rejoin the treaty in Open Skies.'' Should she 
be confirmed, I am inclined to hold her to that statement.
    However, I am deeply concerned about her policy positions 
on the most basic and critical arms control issues. First and 
foremost, she consistently refuses to recognize the 
inextricable link between full modernization of the nuclear 
triad and arms control agreements. The New START Treaty was 
ratified in 2010, and only after the Obama administration 
agreed and promised to modernize the nuclear triad and nuclear 
weapons complex. The bipartisan consensus on nuclear 
modernization ensures that, among other things, the U.S. is in 
a position of strength for further arms control talks. While 
she and other Biden administration nominees cite support for 
``a credible modern deterrent,'' she refuses to specifically 
commit to full modernization. This position is out of step with 
commitments made by Secretary Austin and Deputy Secretary 
Hicks, both of whom have publicly voiced their support for full 
nuclear modernization. Platitudes and vague promises to consult 
with Congress on this topic simply will not do. It reminds me 
of my father when he told me, ``we will see,'' when I asked him 
whether he was taking me to the fair or not.
    In any event, with a modernized Russian arsenal, the 
Chinese racing to build a robust stockpile, plus many other 
actors seeking to acquire nuclear weapons, the arms control 
landscape for the next 20 years will be even more intricate and 
complex than what we have experienced before. The United States 
must have a credible deterrent that meets today's threat 
environment. We will not have successful arms control talks 
without it, period.
    Second, she has publicly advocated for the United States to 
adopt a no first use policy without requiring the same from 
Russia and China. This is also a non-starter. The commander of 
U.S. Strategic Command, Admiral Charles Richard, recently 
commented that the exceptions in China's no first use policy 
are large enough to drive a truck through. Without full 
reciprocity from Russia and China, such a policy would 
undermine our allies' confidence in our commitment to extend 
deterrence, especially in the Indo-Pacific.
    Third, she supports declassifying the topline number of the 
total U.S. nuclear stockpile. We tried this repeatedly during 
Obama administration, and it failed repeatedly as Russia and 
China never reciprocated by declassifying their topline 
stockpile numbers. It is delusional to think they would do that 
or that they would tell the truth if they did it. These failed 
unilateral transparency measures not only make the U.S. more 
vulnerable, they will leave our closest allies out to dry, like 
the U.K., which recently stopped publishing its stockpile 
numbers in response to increased threats.
    For these reasons, these policy reasons, I cannot support 
her for this position. I will, however, support the list as 
indicated by the Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Risch. I have one 
question. Did your dad take you to the fair?
    Senator Risch. He did not.
    The Chairman. He did not? What did you do not to be able 
to--we will not go into that right now.
    Senator Risch. The sins were multiple. The sins were----
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. Okay. Thank you for your----
    Senator Risch [continuing]. Could I get a roll call vote on 
the--not the list, at the end of----
    The Chairman. Absolutely. Any other Member wishing to speak 
to these nominations?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, a roll call vote has been requested 
on the nomination of Ambassador Bonnie Jenkins to be Under 
Secretary for Arms Control and International Security to be 
favorably reported.
    The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    Senator Markey. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    Senator Booker. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schatz?
    Senator Schatz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Senator Van Hollen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    Senator Risch. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Johnson. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
    Senator Romney. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Young?
    Senator Young. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cruz?
    Senator Cruz. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rounds?
    Senator Rounds. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hagerty?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 12; the noes are 10.
    The Chairman. And the nomination is favorably reported to 
the Senate for its consideration.
    The next vote--I will ask for a voice vote unless there is 
a request--Jose W. Fernandez to be Under Secretary for Economic 
Growth, Energy, and the Environment.
    Is there a motion to recommend--to vote out the nomination 
by voice vote?
    Senator Risch. So moved.
    The Chairman. So moved. Seconded?
    Senator Cardin. Second.
    The Chairman. All those in favor will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed will say no.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it, and Mr. Fernandez----
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman, Senator Barrasso would like to 
be recorded as ``no'' on this, please.
    The Chairman. Mr. Fernandez is favorably reported out to 
the Senate for the Under Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy, 
and the Environment, and Senator Barrasso will be listed in the 
negative.
    Finally, I ask a motion to favorably report the nominations 
of the FSO list.
    Is there a motion to that effect?
    Senator Risch. I would so move.
    The Chairman. So moved by Senator Risch. Is there a second?
    Senator Cardin. Second.
    The Chairman. Second by Senator Cardin.
    All in favor will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed will say no.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it, and the nominations on the 
FSO list are agreed to.
    If there is no further discussion----
    Senator Shaheen. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Yes, Senator Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. I have an issue I would like to raise 
before the committee, and I think it is something that all of 
us should be concerned about. You know, I have introduced a 
bipartisan resolution that condemns the attack on the girls' 
school in Kabul, Afghanistan. When we had our hearing on 
Afghanistan, virtually everyone on this committee, Republican 
and Democrat, expressed concern about the attack and about what 
was happening to women and girls. In my conversations with 
women in Afghanistan, one of the things they ask of the United 
States is if we could continue to speak out about what is 
happening in Afghanistan and against the Taliban for their 
actions.
    Now, I am feeling really frustrated because we submitted 
this resolution. We have been told we cannot hotline it. We 
have been told the committee was not going to consider anything 
other than nominations at this meeting. And so we have got a 
resolution that, by the time we can get it through the Senate, 
is really going to be outdated and it is going to get less 
attention. And it undermines the credibility of this committee, 
Mr. Chairman, in terms of our ability to weigh in on world 
events if we cannot get something as simple as a bipartisan 
resolution on an issue like the attack on the girls' school in 
Afghanistan through this committee. So I do not know what we 
are going to do about it, but I can tell you I am one unhappy 
Member today.
    The Chairman. I appreciate Senator Shaheen's leadership on 
this. I understand her concern. I was willing to put it on this 
markup for a vote. Unfortunately, we could not get an agreement 
to do that. Hotlining is a challenge. Dispensing the committee 
of resolutions in general is a challenge because what is the 
rhyme or reason? I understand this, but I have challenges with 
dozens of Members, both on and off the committee, who want to 
bypass the committee and go straight to the floor. In some 
cases, they are rather simple, but still important. In other 
cases, the resolutions need a little work in order to get it to 
a point that we can get agreement on.
    And so I understand your incredible passion on this. I 
share it. I was willing to put it on this agenda. I could not 
get an agreement. When I bypass the committee, I end up setting 
a standard. ``Well, you did it in this case, why not in this 
case?'' It is as compelling as that. It is not that simple, and 
that is the frustration I have in terms of it. So I am happy to 
have more robust business meetings, but we must get concurrence 
with the Ranking Member, and in the absence of that, I have to 
respect comity at the end of the day. Sometimes it works to my 
detriment. I complained about it in the past. I am willing to 
live by it now. So I will do everything I can to work with the 
Senator to try to make this this happen.
    Senator Shaheen. I appreciate that. I hope both the 
majority and the minority feel this way. And, again, I would 
just say as fast as events are happening in the world today, 
when this committee cannot make a statement on what is 
happening in the world, I think it undermines our ability to 
influence events. And so, I do not know what else to say other 
than how disappointed I am that we could not reach agreement to 
get a simple resolution condemning this action through this 
committee in a timely fashion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman? I agree with you, Senator 
Shaheen. I want to work every way we can to try to do this. I 
appreciate that.
    Senator Romney. Well, if that is the case, may I make a 
motion that we consider this resolution and vote on it?
    Senator Schatz. Second the motion.
    Senator Booker. Second the motion.
    The Chairman. Hold on a second.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. I do not know that we can do it----
    Senator Risch. Well, unanimous consent, we certainly could 
do it.
    Senator Young. I will indicate I would consent to it, but I 
can think of countless times in the last couple of years--I 
will be general and nonpartisan--where I have had matters of 
great urgency that I had wished would be considered by this 
committee, but they would not be waived, and the excuse was 
always there were other issues that were holding it up, so.
    The Chairman. Well----
    Senator Young. But I am fulsomely supportive of the 
gentlelady from New Hampshire.
    The Chairman. I am sorry. Well, what I could say is if we 
can take a minute, get a copy of the resolution to everybody so 
that they know what they are agreeing to. And if the request is 
by unanimous consent, which is the only way we could consider 
it, then if no one objects to the unanimous consent request, 
then we could consider it. Otherwise, it would not be possible 
until it was formally listed for a future meeting.
    Senator Risch. Would you change your request to a unanimous 
consent, Senator Romney?
    Senator Romney. Yes.
    The Chairman. All right.
    Senator Romney. If that is the only way it could be 
considered, yes.
    The Chairman. There is a unanimous consent request that has 
been made.
    Senator Cruz. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Senator Cruz?
    Senator Cruz. I expect I will consent, but it would be----
    The Chairman. You need to see the resolution.
    Senator Cruz. I would like to see the resolution first.
    The Chairman. So we will take 2 minutes and get our staff 
to get a copy of this and circulate it to every Member. But let 
me ask, assuming that the copy is satisfactory, is there any 
objection, because if there is, then there is no need to make 
copies.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Okay. So we will----
    Senator Coons. Mr. Chairman, would it be faster to simply 
read the resolution?
    The Chairman. Would it be faster to read the resolution? 
That is----
    Senator Risch. How many pages is it?
    The Chairman. I think we can get this--you know.
    Senator Booker. Does this give us time to hear Ranking 
Member Risch's stories about his childhood?
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. If he so desires.
    Senator Risch. No.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. He reserves the right on that. Senator 
Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. Mr. Chairman, while we are waiting for 
copies [inaudible].
    Senator Shaheen. I would be happy to do that. I just gave 
my only copy to the staff.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. But maybe, Jeanne, what you can do, because 
we presume that everybody knows, but you can just describe the 
events that took place and what you are trying to do.
    Senator Shaheen. Yes. As I am sure people are aware, 
several weeks ago there was a bombing of a girls' school in 
Afghanistan. It was over the weekend, and initially, it was 
reported that it killed about 50 people, mostly girls who were 
attending school. Ultimately, they determined that it killed 
over 80 people and the Taliban was responsible. And I saw one 
young girl interviewed, and I think she was about 14, and they 
asked her about the bombing, and she said, well, it is because 
the Taliban does not want girls to go to school.
    So this was all about part of the Taliban's continued 
effort to limit the ability of women and girls to live full 
lives in Afghanistan. And, as I said, one of the reasons I feel 
so strongly about this is because in conversations that I have 
had with women from Afghanistan, women leaders, and asking them 
what can we do--we are withdrawing our troops, which, as I am 
sure everyone here knows, I have reservations about, but that 
is happening. And I said, okay, what else can we do to help 
given that, and one of the things that they talked about was 
the importance of the United States speaking out against 
atrocities by the Taliban and other terrorist groups.
    We know that what we say in Congress sends a strong message 
to people around the world, and this is an opportunity for us 
to send a message that this is not acceptable and that it is 
important for girls to have an opportunity to go to school. So 
that is what the resolution is about. Thank you.
    Senator Cruz. Mr. Chairman? My staff just sent me a copy of 
the resolution. I read it. I have no objection to our taking it 
up and passing it. And, in fact, I would ask unanimous consent 
that I be added as a co-sponsor.
    Senator Shaheen. Thank you. I appreciate that.
    The Chairman. Without objection, we will add you as a co-
sponsor.
    Senator Romney. May I be added to that list of co-sponsors?
    The Chairman. Senator Romney will be added as a co-sponsor.
    Senator Cardin. I think everyone will be----
    Senator Shaheen. Yeah.
    Senator Cruz. And if Mitt and I agree and Jeanne agrees, my 
guess is the rest of us agree, too.
    Senator Shaheen. Thank you. I appreciate that.
    Voice Are we getting copies?
    The Chairman. We are getting copies. This is S.Res. 229 
that we are considering for Senator Shaheen, Senator Collins, 
and for all of those who have been added to the resolution and 
who wish to be added, we are happy to do that. While we get 
copies here, maybe I can just read through this.


        Recognizing the devastating attack on a girls' school 
        in Kabul, Afghanistan on May 8, 2021, and expressing 
        solidarity with the Afghan people: whereas on May 8, 
        2021, a car bomb and several other mechanisms were 
        detonated at the front gates of the Sayed Ul-Shuhada 
        High School in Kabul, killing more than 85 people, many 
        of whom were girls attending the school; whereas, the 
        attack took place as the girls and their families 
        prepared to celebrate Eid al-Fitr; whereas the school 
        provides education to the Dasht-e Barchi neighborhood, 
        an underserved area of Kabul where many members of the 
        Hazara minority community live; whereas the Hazara in 
        Dasht-e Barchi have been the target of extremist 
        violence for many years; whereas on March 12, 2020, 
        assailants attacked a maternity hospital in Dasht-e 
        Barchi, killing 24 people including two newborn babies, 
        mothers, and members of the hospital staff; whereas, 
        one of those killed in the attack on the hospital was 
        Maryam Noorzad, who was a midwife serving the Hazara 
        community, who dedicated her life to providing access 
        to healthcare to women in remote parts of Afghanistan, 
        who was murdered after refusing to leave the bedside of 
        a patient in labor, and whose bravery was recognized by 
        the Department of State with an honorary International 
        Women of Courage award; whereas, Afghan girls were 
        restricted from accessing an education under the 
        Taliban, forcing some girls to dress up as boys in 
        order to attend secret schools and continue their 
        education; whereas, according to a report by the Office 
        of the Director of National Intelligence, there are 
        approximately 3,500,000 girls among the 9,000,000 
        children who are enrolled in school in Afghanistan, 
        only 17 percent of girls in rural parts of Afghanistan 
        attend school, while 45 percent of girls in urban areas 
        in Afghanistan attend school, 80 percent of Afghan 
        women older than 15 years of age are illiterate, and 
        schools are increasingly being forced to close due to 
        rising insecurity; whereas, the education of girls is a 
        necessary requirement for any country to achieve long-
        term stability and peace; whereas the attack coincides 
        with an escalation of violence in Afghanistan, 
        perpetrated by the Taliban, the Islamic State of Iraq 
        and the Levant--ISIS--and other terrorist 
        organizations; whereas the recent escalation in 
        violence has disproportionately impacted women, who 
        have been targeted while working as reporters, 
        administering vaccines, serving in prominent positions, 
        and helping their communities:
          Now, therefore, be it resolved, that the Senate 
        extends its heartfelt condolences to and stands with 
        the people of Afghanistan and the Hazara community; 
        condemns all forms of violence against women and girls 
        in Afghanistan; supports United States and 
        international efforts to ensure that girls in 
        Afghanistan are able to safely attend school; affirms 
        that the United States should continue to provide 
        assistance to support the rights of women and girls to 
        achieve an education; calls on the Government of 
        Afghanistan to support girls' education and to ensure 
        that girls are able to safely attend school; calls for 
        international condemnation of violence against Afghan 
        women and girls, and asks the international community 
        to devote the resources and attention necessary to 
        provide for the continued safe education of girls in 
        Afghanistan.


    That is the resolution, S.Res. 229. There is a unanimous 
consent. Is there any objection?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Without objection, the resolution will be 
reported favorably.
    Senator Johnson. May I be added as a co-sponsor?
    The Chairman. Add Senator Johnson as a co-sponsor, Senator 
Coons, Senator Kaine, Senator Van Hollen, Senator Risch, 
Senator Rounds, Senator Cardin--excuse me--Senator Murphy, 
Senator--let us put it this way. If you do not want to be added 
on, let us know.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. Very good. Thank you, Senator Shaheen. The 
resolution is favorably reported to the Senate, and this 
hearing is--this meeting is adjourned.


    [Whereupon, at 2:42 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]



                              ----------                              






                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                         TUESDAY, JUNE 22, 2021

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

                Summary of Action Taken by the Committee

                              LEGISLATION

  S.J.Res. 10, a joint resolution to repeal the authorizations for use 
        of military force against Iraq, and for other purposes--held 
        over

  S. 1041, RENACER Act, with an amendment--agreed to by voice vote

     Managers amendment--agreed to by voice vote

  S. 65, Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, with an amendment--held 
        over

  S. 2000, a bill to promote the United States-Greece defense 
        partnership, and for other purposes, with an amendment--agreed 
        to by voice vote (Coons to be added as cosponsor)

     Substitute amendment--agreed to by voice vote

  S. 93, Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Reauthorization 
        Act, with an amendment--agreed to by voice vote

     Substitute amendment--agree to by voice vote

     Cruz 1st Degree amendment #1--failed by roll call vote (10-12)--
            tally below, voted on en bloc with Cruz 2nd degree 
            amendment

       Cruz 2nd Degree amendment to Cruz 1st Degree amendment 
            #1--failed by roll call vote (10-12)

                  Yeas: Risch, Rubio (proxy), Johnson, Romney, Portman 
                (proxy), Young, Barrasso (proxy), Cruz, Rounds, Hagerty

                  Nays: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen (proxy), Coons, 
                Murphy, Kaine, Markey, Merkley, Booker (proxy), Schatz 
                (proxy), Van Hollen, and Paul

     Paul 1st Degree amendment #1--failed by roll call vote (4-18)

          Yeas: Johnson, Paul, Cruz, Hagerty

          Nays: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen (proxy), Coons, Murphy, 
        Kaine, Markey, Merkley, Booker (proxy), Schatz (proxy), Van 
        Hollen, Risch, Rubio (proxy), Romney (proxy), Portman (proxy), 
        Young, Barrasso (proxy), Rounds

  S. 1061, Israel Relations Normalization Act of 2021, with an 
        amendment--held over

   S. 14, Combatting Global Corruption Act of 2021, with an amendment--
        agreed to by voice vote

     Manager's amendment--agreed to by voice vote

  S.Res. 67, a resolution calling for the immediate release of Trevor 
        Reed, a United States citizen who was unjustly found guilty and 
        sentenced to 9 years in a Russian prison--agreed to by voice 
        vote (Coons to be added as a cosponsor)

  S.Res. 165, a resolution calling on the Government of the Russian 
        Federation to provide evidence or to release United States 
        citizen Paul Whelan, with an amendment --agreed to by voice 
        vote

     Manager's Preamble amendment--agreed to by voice vote

  S.Res. 107, a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate relating 
        to the 10th anniversary of the March 11, 2021, earthquake and 
        tsunami in Japan--agreed to by voice vote

  S.Res. 154, a resolution congratulating the people of the Hashemite 
        Kingdom of Jordan on the centennial of the founding of the 
        Jordanian state, with an amendment--held over

  S.Res. 176, a resolution urging all parties in Georgia to seek prompt 
        implementation of the agreement signed on April 19, 2021, and 
        reaffirming the support of the Senate for Georgia, the 
        territorial integrity of Georgia, and the aspirations of 
        Georgians to join the Euro-Atlantic community with amendments, 
        agreed to by voice vote (Coons to be added as a cosponsor)

     Johnson 1st Degree amendment #1--agreed to by voice vote

     Johnson 1st Degree amendment #2--agreed to by voice vote

     Manager's Resolving Clause amendment--agreed to by voice vote

                              NOMINATIONS

  The Honorable Michele Jeanne Sison, of Maryland, a Career member of 
        the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Career Ambassador, to be 
        an Assistant Secretary of State (International Organization 
        Affairs)--held over

  The Honorable Larry Edward Andre, Jr., of Texas, a Career member of 
        the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be 
        Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United 
        States of America to the Federal Republic of Somalia--held over

  The Honorable Maria E. Brewer, 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 Lesotho--held over

  The Honorable Tulinabo S. Mushingi, of Virginia, a Career member of 
        the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Counselor, to be 
        Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United 
        States of America to the Republic of Angola, and to serve 
        concurrently and without additional compensation as Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Democratic Republic of Sao Tome and Principe--
        held over

  Ms. Elizabeth Moore Aubin, 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 People's Democratic Republic of Algeria--held 
        over

  Mr. Eugene S. Young, of New York, a Career member of the Senior 
        Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Republic of the Congo--held over

  Mr. Christopher John Lamora, of Rhode Island, 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 Cameroon--held over

  The Honorable Todd D. Robinson, of New Jersey, a Career member of the 
        Senior Foreign Service, Class of Career Minister, to be an 
        Assistant Secretary of State (International Narcotics and Law 
        Enforcement Affairs)--held over

  The Honorable Daniel J. Kritenbrink, of Virginia, a Career member of 
        the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be 
        an Assistant Secretary of State (East Asian and Pacific 
        Affairs)--held over

                               FSO LISTS

  Susannah Holmes, et al., dated April 27, 2021 (PN 479)--agreed to by 
        voice vote

                           Meeting Transcript

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:23 p.m., in 
Room SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert Menendez, 
Chairman of the sub/committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Menendez [presiding], Cardin, Coons, 
Murphy, Kaine, Markey, Merkley, Schatz, Van Hollen, Risch, 
Johnson, Romney, Paul, Young, Cruz, Rounds, and Hagerty.

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

    The Chairman. This business meeting of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee will come to order.
    The bipartisan bills and resolutions we will be marking up 
reflect the priorities and hard work of many Members of this 
committee, and I want to thank the Ranking Member and his staff 
for working with us to build today's agenda. I have a few items 
to bring to your attention up front.
    First, there have been requests for holdovers on S.J.Res. 
10, S. 65, S. 1061, S.Res. 154, and all of the nominations on 
the agenda, and so I, as always, will honor that. We will take 
up the nominations, however, along with S. 65 and S. 1061 on 
Thursday, which is the next scheduled business meeting. With 
regard to S.J.Res. 10, I understand that some Members of the 
committee are seeking additional information on the repeal of 
the 2002 AUMF. I am willing to work with those Members to 
ensure that they get answers to their questions. To that end, 
my staff and I are available to engage on this critical matter 
and, if needed, to facilitate discussions with the 
Administration, and I urge those Members who are interested to 
take advantage of that offer.
    The Administration has already issued a formal Statement of 
Administration Policy, or SAP, supporting the repeal of the 
2002 AUMF. Nonetheless, I am planning a Members' briefing for 
the beginning of the July work period so we will all have an 
opportunity to hear directly from the Administration and to 
question State and Defense Department officials concerning the 
proposed repeal. We will continue to work with Senators Kaine, 
Young, and others, and with the Ranking Member to get a markup 
agenda soon thereafter.
    Finally, I also want to mention one item that we will not 
be marking up today, but that is a priority for the Ranking 
Member and myself, and that is a global health bill. We are 
working on finalizing bill text for introduction this week, and 
we have agreed that we will be marking up the bill in the July 
work period. We look forward to sharing text with all of you as 
soon as it is ready and to move forward with a strong committee 
product.
    Turning to the legislative items on our agenda, as you have 
heard me say before, I believe the only way for this committee 
to be truly relevant is to be legislating on the important 
issues of our time, and this agenda reflects many of those 
issues. Let me highlight a few of them.
    I would like to commend Senator Cardin for his leadership 
on two very important pieces of legislation on the agenda 
today, Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability 
Reauthorization Act and the Combatting Global Corruption Act. 
This committee must address the challenges of human rights 
violations and the scourge of corruption around the world, and 
I look forward to moving both bills out of the committee. I 
have two bills on today's agenda that are priorities for me, 
and I appreciate, in particular, Senator Rubio's co-sponsorship 
on both items. The RENACER Act recognizes the need for the U.S. 
Government to send a clear message to the Ortega regime, which 
is unleashing authoritarianism in a way that we have not 
witnessed in our hemisphere for decades. In a good news story, 
the Greek defense bill is a recognition of the strong bilateral 
relationship between the U.S. and Greece. It would bolster 
support for Greek military modernization and increase 
multilateral engagement among Cyprus, Greece, Israel, and the 
United States. I hope that both items receive strong support 
from the committee. Finally, I would also note that we have two 
important resolutions on the agenda, including in relation to 
unlawfully detained American citizens in Russia, Paul Whalen 
and Trevor Reed, and I look forward to a unanimous support on 
those.
    With that, I recognize the distinguished Ranking Member for 
his remarks. Senator Risch?

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

    Senator Risch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, like 
you, I was disappointed we were not able to include the global 
health legislation on this markup, but let me say, all of us 
have spent a lot of time on this. I truly believe everyone is 
working in good faith to get us to a good place. It is 
complicated, no question about that, and I hope we can, as you 
suggested, introduce it this week and have a business meeting 
after we return from the 4th of July recess. I think a lot of 
us believe this could be one of the most significant things 
that this committee does in this Congress.
    As to the 2002 AUMF--the AUMF has always been vexing. I 
have sat through scores of hours of testimony in arguing on 
that amongst the lawyers, and politically, and everything else. 
But on today's agenda was Senate Joint Resolution 10, which 
would repeal the 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military 
Force. While I support the assertion of congressional authority 
over decisions to send American men and women into harm's way, 
the 2002 AUMF has long been used to address threats emanating 
from Iraq where our troops have been facing threats from the 
Islamic State and Iran-backed Shia militias over recent years. 
I am further concerned about the message that this repeal could 
send to the region. Indeed, I think that is the most important 
thing that we are doing when it comes to the 2002 AUMF, because 
both sides agree that the existence of the AUMF probably does 
not make that much difference when it comes to making a 
decision as to whether or not to use military force under 
certain circumstances, such as the Soleimani attack, which I 
thought was one of the best moves the last Administration made 
against the Islamic State. And I am particularly concerned 
about the message it would send as negotiators continue to 
gather in Vienna to jump back into the Iran Nuclear Deal. This 
action would send an unintended message that we are ceding 
security interests in Iraq to Iran.
    I support Senator Romney and other Members of the committee 
in their request for a public hearing and classified briefing 
on the ramifications of repealing the 2002 AUMF. These are 
important issues, and I believe some Members, who have not been 
here for the past 10 years-plus of this debate, should feel 
confident in the potential ramifications of repealing the 2002 
AUMF before they have to vote on such a measure. And I want to 
thank the Chairman for working on making that happen, and I 
have confidence he will get that done.
    On the Israel bill, I would like to thank Senators Portman, 
Booker, Cardin, Young, and Menendez for working with our staff 
on the Israel Relations Normalization Act. This bill 
underscores the importance of normalization agreements between 
Israel and its Arab neighbors. The Abraham Accords and the 
agreements like them have the potential to fundamentally 
change, and are beginning to do so, the region for better. This 
bill calls for a strategy to strengthen and expand the Accords, 
ensure that the agreements reap tangible economic and security 
benefits, and ensure that the State Department and other 
Federal agencies are appropriately resourced to drive 
additional agreements forward. I understand that this bill will 
be held over and considered at the next mark up.
    On the Uyghur Forced Labor bill, I was pleased to see 
Senate Bill 65 on the agenda today. I am proud to be an 
original co-sponsor of this bill, and I would like to commend 
Senators Rubio and Merkley for their efforts in promoting this 
legislation, which, if enacted, would have a meaningful impact 
on combating the use of forced labor in Xinjiang and throughout 
China. I also understand that this bill has been held over and 
will be considered at the next markup.
    As far as Senator Cardin's anti-corruption bills, I would 
also like to recognize him for his leadership, and join the 
Chairman in that regard, in highlighting the problems of global 
corruption and putting forward proposals to address these 
issues. The Global Magnitsky Act is a vital tool to combat 
corruption and human rights abuses around the world. I am eager 
to reauthorize it through Senate Bill 93. We have seen certain 
countries use corruption as a geopolitical weapon. In the 
provisions of Senate Bill 14, the Combatting Global Corruption 
Act, if enacted, will hopefully help our government expose and 
counter such efforts. I am also happy that we were able to take 
up the two resolutions on U.S. citizens and former Marines, 
Paul Whalen and Trevor Reed, both of whom have been arrested, 
falsely convicted, and imprisoned by the Russian Government. 
Russia must cease holding our citizens as political hostage, 
which is exactly what this is.
    Finally, the resolution calling on all parties in Georgia 
to sign and fulfill the agreement made on April 19th is an 
excellent effort by Senators Johnson and Shaheen that I am 
proud to co-sponsor. All political parties in Georgia must put 
their disagreements in the past and fulfill their obligations 
under the agreement. This is the only path to improving 
Georgia's democratic institutions. I do not see Senator Shaheen 
here. She and I were there in 2012 when they had their initial 
elections. I think both of us had been happy with those 
elections to start with and have had disappointments along the 
way. We continue to meet with the various political parties, in 
my judgment, that over rely on the United States to move things 
forward. And every time I meet with them, my message is you, 
Georgians, need to figure this out and move this forward, and I 
will continue with that message.
    With that, I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you for your comments. Given that a 
vote has just started, I intend to take up a number of those 
items, those without amendments, en bloc, then I will turn to 
S. 93. And I realize that many of you want to discuss some of 
the items that were held over, and I support that discussion, 
but I would ask you to hold off until after we have taken the 
committee votes since we have the appropriate quorum at this 
time.
    With that, without objection, we will now consider seven 
bills and resolutions on the agenda, en bloc, as amended by the 
following noticed amendments, as well as a Foreign Service 
Officer promotion list: S. 1041, as amended by the manager's 
amendment; S. 2000, in the nature of a substitute; S. 14, as 
amended by the manager's amendment; S.Res. 67, S.Res. 165, as 
amended by the manager's preamble; S.Res.107, S. 176, as 
amended by Johnson's First Degree amendment Number 1, Johnson 
First Degree amendment Number 2, and the manager's resolving 
clause amendment; and FSO List, USAID, PN 479.
    Is there a motion to approve these items, en bloc, as 
amended by the noticed amendments I just referenced?
    Senator Kaine. So moved.
    The Chairman. It has been so moved. Is there a second?
    Voice. Second.
    The Chairman. Second. Yes?
    Senator Cruz. Is there going to be an opportunity to call 
up amendments on these . . . [inaudible].
    The Chairman. No amendments were filed on these bills, and 
so----
    Senator Cruz. [Off audio.]
    The Chairman [continuing]. S. 93 is not in the en bloc 
group, yes. So, again, a motion has been made and seconded.
    All those in favor will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All those opposed will say nay.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it, and those bills and 
resolutions, as well as the Foreign Service List, are approved 
and sent to the Senate with a favorable recommendation.
    Senator Markey. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Senator Markey?
    Senator Markey. Yeah, Mr. Chairman, if I could be 
recognized briefly on one of those bills that we just passed.
    The Chairman. Could I ask you to withhold a moment, and 
then we will turn to a full conversation?
    Senator Markey. Right.
    The Chairman. Let me turn to S. 93, the Global Magnitsky 
Human Rights Accountability Reauthorization Act. Before we have 
amendments on it, is there a motion to approve the substitute 
amendment?
    Voice. So moved.
    The Chairman. So moved. Is there a second?
    Senator Kaine. Second.
    The Chairman. Second. The motion has been made and 
seconded.
    The question is on the motion to approve the substitute 
amendment.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All those opposed, say no.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed 
to.
    With that, are there any further amendments? Senator Cruz?
    Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to call 
Cruz First Degree 1 and Cruz Second Degree to Cruz First Degree 
1. What both of these amendments do is impose Global Magnitsky 
sanctions on the supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei, 
and the regime's recently elected president-elect, Ebrahim 
Raisi. Both of them are currently and well-deservedly 
sanctioned right now under Executive Order 13876 because of 
their ties to the Office of the Supreme Leader, which sets 
Iran's foreign policy, including its repeated attacks on 
American troops, its global terrorism, its unacceptable actions 
in international waters, and, of course, its seemingly never-
ending drive for nuclear weapons. However, just yesterday, 
Biden administration officials were asked if they intended to 
keep those sanctions in light of Raisi's election. They 
reiterated that they were likely to revoke much of the Trump-
era sanctions regime.
    Both Khamenei and Raisi richly deserve to be sanctioned 
under Global Magnitsky for corruption and human rights abuses. 
Khamenei has used corruption, violence, and confiscation to 
amass a conglomerate of entities worth approximately $200 
billion, stolen from the Iranian people. His three most 
valuable possessions are: the execution of Imam Khamenei's 
orders, the Mostazafan Foundation, and the Astan Quds Razavi. 
These companies also conduct international business. The U.S. 
should use Global Magnitsky to isolate and freeze this business 
empire and to block the regime.
    And as for Raisi, Raisi is a monster and a tyrant. He was 
one of the four judges on the death committees in 1988 
responsible for the mass executions of thousands of political 
prisoners over 5 months. He then served as a prosecutor in 
Tehran and other judiciary positions which he used repeatedly 
and systematically to persecute Iranian dissidents. And he has 
already said he intends to intensify crackdowns and increase 
Iran's military aggression. And so I would urge adoption of 
these amendments.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, let me 
thank Senator Menendez and Senator Risch for bringing forward 
the Global Magnitsky Reauthorization Act. I also want to thank 
you for including in the package S. 14, the Combatting Global 
Corruption, because this committee has been a leader on 
fighting corruption. I want to thank Senator Young for his help 
on the Combatting Global Corruption where we will be able to 
evaluate every country's mission to fight corruption with tier 
ratings, and those that are not making significant enough 
progress will be subject to sanctions. But, more importantly, 
we will also have capacity in each mission to deal with how a 
country is dealing with corruption. The Global Magnitsky 
Reauthorization, S. 93, reauthorizes this program and it 
strengthens this tool. Senator Wicker is my co-sponsor, and I 
know it is supported by a lot of Members of this committee.
    The Global Magnitsky has worked. It was an initiative by 
Congress, resisted initially by the Administration, and has now 
become a global standard. We have gotten our allies to act on 
the Global Magnitsky framework. Canada, the U.K., Europe have 
all followed America's leadership. We know that this discussion 
has been on the agenda of Mr. Putin. We certainly have reached 
him. So, Senator Cruz, you raised a very valid point about 
making sure we have sanctions against anyone who is violating 
these basic principles, but I oppose your amendment and I need 
to explain why.
    It is very important that we are dealing not just with visa 
restrictions, but also banking restrictions and confiscating 
money, and there is a process that needs to be followed in each 
of these cases. And that has been one of the hallmarks of why 
Global Magnitsky has been so well received among the democratic 
states of the world because we have a process. We also have an 
unprecedented ability of Congress to make recommendations as to 
who should be sanctioned. We can do that under the Magnitsky 
law. So we are involved in this process already. We have never 
used the basic framework to single out an individual or 
individuals, and I think that is inconsistent with what we are 
trying to do with Global Magnitsky is to have a framework where 
we can consider individuals for sanctions. Congress plays a 
role, the Administration plays a role, there is a process, and 
we could have accountability. But for us to start naming people 
in the basic statute, I think, would be a mistake, and for that 
reason, I regrettably oppose your amendment, but I certainly do 
not oppose your passion to hold these individuals accountable.
    The Chairman. Anyone else wishing to be recognized? Senator 
Markey?
    Senator Markey. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. 
Global Magnitsky is obviously a very important concept that we 
all agree upon, and it has become the standard by which we 
operate. And we saw in Senate 14 how we are going to be using 
it as a way of dealing with the Nord Stream project, bringing 
natural gas from Russia into Germany, and use it as way of 
sanctioning, you know, individuals who are engaging in 
corruption. And that is an important thing to do, and I support 
it.
    But I just want to say here at this time that we should 
also take note of the fact that the United States imports 
650,000 barrels of oil a day from Russia at $70 a barrel, tens 
of billions of dollars over the course of a year. So it is 
difficult to preach temperance from a bar stool. If we are 
going to be telling Germany that they should not be importing 
natural gas from Russia, then we should not be importing oil 
from Russia either. We just should not be. And so to the extent 
to which those are corrupt individuals in Russia as part of 
this petrol oligarchy that exists there, we know it is the 
principal source of funding for their government, well, we are 
providing billions of dollars to Russia on a yearly basis. Tens 
of billions.
    So I just want to say to my colleagues, I want to work with 
all of you in terms of backing out that 650,000, 700,000. We 
are at our highest level of imports from Russia in 10 years 
right now. It is getting higher and higher. So I would love to 
work with my colleagues, ensuring that we back out all that oil 
as we are asking Germany to do the same thing with natural gas. 
And, again, the same people who are being sanctioned, are being 
targeted under Global Magnitsky in the natural gas sector, will 
be pretty much the same people in the oil sector. And so I just 
would like say that I think it is a great opportunity for us to 
work together because we know at the heart of it, that so many 
of these regimes are just dependent upon the oil and gas 
revenue. And it gives us an opportunity to move in different 
directions domestically as well, that we break the addiction, 
but we also are sending a signal to the rest of the world that 
we are serious about it. We are not just going to preach, but 
we are also going to act.
    So I thank you Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to take that 
opportunity to raise the issue as we are moving forward. I will 
be trying to take some action here, and I would love to do it 
on a bipartisan basis. I think it is an important message to 
send to Russia. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you. I will remember ``temperance from 
a bar stool.'' That is a keeper. So Senator----
    Senator Risch. It sounds like John Kennedy.
    Senator Cardin. Senator Cruz.
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman, briefly?
    The Chairman. Yes?
    Senator Risch. I want to speak in favor of the amendments. 
First of all, I cannot tell you how much I appreciate Senator 
Cardin's working on this and the good work it has done. I think 
we can actually strengthen this by doing what we are doing 
here. I have been deeply disappointed by Administrations not 
doing what was intended by Magnitsky, and I think this pushes 
the envelope just a little bit further and actually strengthens 
what we are doing, and so I am going to support this. I do not 
think it in any way undercuts Magnitsky.
    The Chairman. Senator Cruz, unless somebody else? After 
that, I will have a comment, and then we will go to a vote. 
Senator Cruz?
    Senator Cruz. If I could briefly respond on a couple of 
things. One, Senator Markey's comments where he suggested a 
desire to decrease oil imports from Russia. I emphatically 
share that desire and would more than welcome Senator Markey's 
cooperation in pulling back on the policies of this 
Administration that are decreasing U.S. energy production. The 
reason we are importing more from Russia is because the Biden 
administration has canceled the Keystone pipeline, has shut 
down new leases on Federal lands, has shut down new leases in 
offshore waters. And as we produce less, that ends up sending 
billions of dollars to our enemies. And so the easiest way to 
take money out of Putin's pocket is for us to produce our own 
energy rather than importing it from Russia. That, I suspect, 
is a much longer and more extended debate which we will 
certainly have in this committee and other places.
    Let me say more broadly on the specific issue before the 
committee right now, I share Senator Cardin's passion for 
Global Magnitsky. I think it is an incredibly important tool. I 
think it is a tool that America has used to protect human 
rights globally, and so I am an enthusiastic supporter of 
reauthorizing it. I also think there is an acute need here 
because the Biden administration is foreshadowing their 
intention to lift sanctions on Khamenei and Raisi, two 
individuals currently sanctioned, two individuals whose human 
rights records are atrocious. They are not even a little bit 
bad. They are unspeakably bad. And the Biden administration is 
foreshadowing an intention to lift sanctions on them in 
exchange for nothing, not in exchange for any agreement, not an 
exchange, but simply to lift sanctions on them unilaterally. 
And so this amendment is an opportunity for Members of this 
committee on both sides of the aisle, Republicans and 
Democrats, to voice your opinion on whether Khamenei and Raisi 
should have sanctions lifted upon them or whether the same 
standard should apply to them that apply to other bad actors 
across the globe.
    Senator Markey. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Briefly. Senator Markey?
    Senator Markey. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. I would just acknowledge for Members that 
there is a vote that is ongoing.
    Senator Markey. Yes, thank you. So just for the record, the 
number that I am using of 650,000 barrels a day imported from 
Russia is during the Trump Administration. Those are the most 
recent numbers, just so you understand, and this is as he is 
meeting with Putin and simultaneously saying that we have 
reached energy independence in the United States. Clearly, we 
had not under the Trump Administration. So this an inherited 
problem that President Biden has from the Trump administration. 
And, of course, we know that President Trump never raised this 
issue about dependence upon oil coming in from Russia, but we 
know right where that oil went: out of the pockets of American 
consumers directly into the hands of those oligarchs. So I am 
just raising it because it is a continuation right from the 
Trump administration, and Joe Biden, as he has with many other 
issues, just inherited the problem. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Let me turn to the amendments at 
hand. I will oppose the amendment. First, these sanctions 
already are not sanctions under Magnitsky as it is. These 
individuals have been sanctioned for other reasons. First, the 
president-elect of Iran, Ebrahim Raisi, is already subject to 
human rights sanctions due to his involvement in the abuse and 
extrajudicial killings of protesters in 2019. More critically, 
this amendment, as I view it, does not enhance the Global 
Magnitsky Accountability Act, which is already the most 
comprehensive, targeted human rights and anti-corruption 
sanctions law in U.S. history. The law already provides a 
thorough, effective framework for State and Treasury to 
investigate cases and for the Administration to sanction 
individuals engaged in serious human rights abuses, and it 
provides a formal mechanism for Congress, a mechanism that I 
have invoked in the past with the former Chairman, to recommend 
officials who have committed significant corruption or serious 
human rights abuses to be sanctioned. So I applaud the efforts 
of my good friend to strengthen and extend the Global Magnitsky 
framework. I am a strong supporter of sanctions as a tool. I 
have devised many of them against Iran, and I do believe that 
Raisi, under existing sanctions, should continue to be 
sanctioned, as well as the questions--on to this--the First 
Degree amendment, which I will oppose for largely of the same 
reasons as I have just stated.
    With that, unless there are any other Members who wish to 
speak to it--do you seek a recorded vote?
    Senator Cruz. Yes.
    The Chairman. Okay. The clerk will call the roll. Now this 
is on the first degree amendment--is it sufficient, a roll call 
vote? Are you looking for a roll call vote on both of them?
    Senator Cruz. I'm looking for a roll call vote on both, but 
if by unanimous consent I could combine them, that is fine.
    The Chairman. That is fine. Unanimous consent has been 
asked to combine both the first and second degree amendments 
into one vote. Is there any objection?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.
    The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
    The Chairman. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    Senator Markey. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    The Chairman. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schatz?
    The Chairman. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Senator Van Hollen. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    Senator Risch. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Johnson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
    Senator Romney. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Young?
    Senator Young. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cruz?
    Senator Cruz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rounds?
    Senator Rounds. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hagerty?
    Senator Hagerty. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 10; the nays are 12.
    The Chairman. And the amendment fails.
    The question--therefore, unless there are any other 
amendments which I am unaware of----
    Senator Paul. Mr. Chairman?
    Senator Cardin. Senator Paul.
    The Chairman. I am sorry. Senator Paul?
    Senator Paul. For over a decade, I have been talking about 
countries that have blasphemy laws that lead to the death 
penalty. I first advocated for Asia Bibi back in 2011. In 
Pakistan, they are still putting people to death for blasphemy. 
Shagufta Kausar and her husband, Shafqat Emmanuel, are 
Christians in Pakistan. They have been on death row for 7 
years. My amendment would have the President to submit a report 
to our committee detailing countries that have the death 
penalty or life imprisonment for anti-apostasy laws, anti-
blasphemy laws, or laws prohibiting marriage between 
individuals of different religions. If countries were found to 
be on this list, they would then be prohibited from getting 
foreign aid from us, and that is the extent of the bill. And I 
would request a recorded vote, if possible.
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Okay. Senator Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Just briefly in opposition to the 
amendment. I certainly share Senator Paul's concerns about this 
type of behavior, and it should have consequences. We are 
dealing with the Magnitsky sanctions here, which are individual 
sanctions against human rights violators. This is not a 
country-sanctioned regime, so I think you are putting into a 
bill an amendment that is really not germane to the structure 
of the Global Magnitsky, and I would urge my colleagues to 
oppose.
    The Chairman. I share Senator Paul's concerns about 
religious freedom. I am also concerned that religion should 
never be used as a pretext for persecution or denying anyone's 
basic rights. I think there are other venues for this which I 
would look to work with the Senator on, but--Magnitsky, as was 
pointed out, is about individuals, not country specific. So I 
will oppose the amendment for that reason.
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Senator Risch?
    Senator Risch. I want to agree with those exact remarks. In 
addition to that, I want to state that putting this in here is 
going to cause us some real unintended consequences and 
difficulties with some nations that we have relationships with 
that are delicate, to say the least. I in no way denigrate the 
efforts to try to obtain religious freedom, but this is a very 
difficult way to go about it, so I am going to oppose this 
amendment.
    The Chairman. Is there any other--Senator Cruz?
    Senator Cruz. Mr. Chairman, I am going to support this 
amendment. I recognize the concerns that Senator Risch just 
raised, and there are certainly countries that their current 
law includes this, and we have strategic interests for working 
and cooperating with them. That being said, I think Senator 
Paul is exactly right that enforcing so-called blasphemy laws 
and, in particular, opposing the death penalty because of 
someone's choice of religious faith is an abomination. And I do 
not think we should ignore the impact of U.S. law on helping 
change the policies of other countries. If Senator Paul's 
amendment were adopted, I think we would see some of these 
countries have a very serious consideration about repealing 
those laws, and I think when it comes to U.S. aid, we ought to 
use it in a way that supports our interests and supports our 
values. And so I will be supporting Senator Paul's amendment, 
even though he did not support my amendment.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. Very gallant of you. Senator Paul?
    Senator Paul. Well, what to say? In response to those who 
are worried about our strategic relationship with countries 
that put people to death for blasphemy, this would only prevent 
foreign aid, not military sales of weapons, alliances, going to 
war with people. So if you still want to fight arm-in-arm with 
those people, killing people for blasphemy, you would be 
allowed to under this. This is just foreign aid. I think at the 
very least we can limit gifts to people and say, for goodness 
sakes, you cannot put people to death, you know, for 
intermarriage of faiths or blasphemy. And the reason we put it 
on this vehicle is because this vehicle will pass. If we put it 
on another vehicle, then it will become symbolic and never 
become law. Thanks.
    The Chairman. The clerk will call the roll on the Paul 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
    The Chairman. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    Senator Markey. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    The Chairman. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schatz?
    The Chairman. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Senator Van Hollen. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    Senator Risch. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Johnson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Young?
    Senator Young. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cruz?
    Senator Cruz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rounds?
    Senator Rounds. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hagerty?
    Senator Hagerty. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No.
    The clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 4; the nays are 18.
    The Chairman. And the amendment is not agreed to.
    The question is on the motion to approve S. 93, as amended.
    All those in favor will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All those opposed will say nay.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it, and S. 93 is reported 
favorably to the Senate.
    Now, my understanding is that this vote will only be held 
open until 3:00 because the Vice President is waiting to cast a 
vote, and so I am happy to come back and entertain remarks. If 
somebody can do it in a minute, I am happy to consider that. 
Senator Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. In 1 minute, just with respect to S. J. Res. 
10, the AUMF, we were anxious to move to that today because the 
1991 and 2002 AUMFs were AUMFs to authorize military action 
against a Government of Iraq that no longer exists. They were 
not to authorize action in Iraq. We toppled the government of 
Saddam Hussein, and Iraq is now a strategic partner. However, I 
do think the comity provision in this committee that allows 
something to be postponed for one meeting makes sense, and I 
also believe that the request for a briefing on the topic is a 
good faith request. And so I believe, together with my co-
sponsor Senator Young, look forward to that discussion.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much. Senator----
    Senator Young. Mr. Chairman, I have some remarks along 
those lines that I just ask be submitted for the record.
    The Chairman. Absolutely. Without objection, they shall be 
submitted.

    [The information referred to follows:]


                  Statement Submitted by Senator Young

                        aumf repeal / hold-over
    I appreciate, and share, the comments and sentiments expressed by 
my colleagues concerning the need for this committee to conduct 
rigorous oversight while jealously guarding our war powers authorities.
    Most Members around this room will recall a debate we had last 
Congress (May 2019) during the Caesar Syria bill. I was inclined to 
support an amendment offered by former Senator Udall concerning the 
2001 AUMF and its applicability to Iran. The only reason I ended up 
opposing that amendment is because then-Chairman Risch made a 
commitment to hold a hearing on the topic. True to his word, that 
hearing was held in July 2019.
    I supported then, as I do now, the prerogatives of this committee 
to engage on these issues.
    However, I think the provision before us today is quite a bit 
different. Unlike last Congress, where we were dealing with potentially 
expanding authorities in the 2001 AUMF, we have before us this week a 
resolution to repeal and take back the authorities that we have granted 
the Executive Branch that are no longer required.
    I do not support calling the Secretary of State or others from the 
Administration to appear before this committee to discuss this topic 
because we already know where they stand.
    We have a Statement of Administration Policy [SAP] that clearly 
articulates the Administration's support for repeal--``As the United 
States has no ongoing military activities that rely solely on the 2002 
AUMF as a domestic legal basis, and repeal of the 2002 AUMF would 
likely have minimal impact on current military operations.''
    I brought up this very topic to Secretary Blinken during his 
confirmation hearing. To my question about the applicability of the 
1991 and 2002 AUMF he replied ``I think it is long past time that we 
revisit and review them. I think in many instances they have been cited 
and used in countries or against groups that were not part of the 
original authorization.''
    Taken together, it is clear that the Administration supports this 
committee taking this action. Delaying for additional hearings with 
members of the Administration is not necessary given the support they 
have expressed.
    That said, I do support my colleagues' expressed desire to better 
understand these issues in a classified setting.
    I would like to see the committee hold such a briefing before we 
move forward with a vote.
    Mr. Chairman, I would request that we work together get a 
classified briefing accomplished before this repeal is considered by 
this committee or is moved on the Senate Floor.
    Thank you.


    Senator Coons. I look forward to working with you and the 
Ranking Member on the health bill. I think it is critical we 
partner with State and AID to make sure we know their 
perspectives and we are well prepared for the pandemic. I would 
ask to be joined as a co-sponsor to S. 2000 and S.Res. 67, 154, 
and 176. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.
    Senator Cruz. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Senator Cruz?
    Senator Cruz. I likewise have some remarks that I would ask 
be submitted to the record on the committee's adoption of my 
amendments concerning Nord Stream 2 pipeline, on S. 14, the 
Combating Global Corruption Act. And so I would ask that they 
be submitted for the record.
    The Chairman. Without objection.

    [The information referred to follows:]


                  Statement Submitted by Senator Cruz

    I'd like to thank the Chairman, Ranking Member, and Senator Cardin 
on working with my team to include this important provision into this 
crucial bill, S. 14, Combatting Global Corruption Act.
    Putin's Nord Stream 2 pipeline will be a generational geopolitical 
catastrophe if it comes online.
    It is also one of the most corrupt infrastructure projects in the 
world. In 2018 there was a report published by Sderbank, the largest 
bank in Russia and Central Europe, about that corruption. No one will 
be surprised to learn that the report was very quickly pulled down.
    The report was damning regarding the pervasive levels of corruption 
around Nord Stream 2 and the company ultimately building it, Gazprom. 
It said that that Nord Stream 2 was ``deeply value-destructive,'' 
``foisted on the company by the government pursuing a geopolitical 
agenda,'' and ``employ[s] a closely knit group of suppliers in Russia, 
with little outside supervision.'' It repeatedly outlined how Nord 
Stream 2 has been used as an excuse to pay companies to expand Russian 
energy infrastructure internally, and bids went to that small group of 
oligarchs including shareholders under US sanctions.
    This Committee has led the fight to block it and impose costs on 
the companies building the pipeline. It has been a multi-year, 
bipartisan push. I'm proud that we are again taking action.
    Today's vote will send a strong signal: United States will not 
allow Russian corruption to continue without accountability. As long as 
Nord Stream 2 remains under planning, construction, and operation, 
those efforts will be extended and deepened. Anyone involved in this 
project should understand that their reputation and credibility are 
being put in breathtaking danger - and will continue to be - by the 
endemic corruption that surrounds it.


    The Chairman. With that, unless there is any other Member 
seeking recognition, this completes the committee's business.
    I ask unanimous consent that staff be authorized to make 
technical and conforming changes.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    And with that, the committee stands adjourned.


    [Whereupon, at 2:58 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]



                              ----------                              






                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                        THURSDAY, JUNE 24, 2021

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

                Summary of Action Taken by the Committee


                              LEGISLATION

  S. 65, Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, with an amendment--agreed 
        to by voice vote

     Substitute amendment--agreed to by voice vote

     Cruz 1st Degree amendment #1 as modified by Hagerty 2nd Degree 
            amendment #1--failed by roll call vote (7-15)

          Yeas: Johnson (proxy), Romney (proxy), Paul (proxy), Young 
        (proxy), Barrasso (proxy), Cruz, and Hagerty

          Nays: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen (proxy), Coons, Murphy 
        (proxy), Kaine (proxy), Markey, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van 
        Hollen, Risch, Rubio, Portman (proxy), and Rounds

  S. 1061, Israel Relations Normalization Act of 2021, with an 
        amendment--agreed to by voice vote (Cruz recorded as no and 
        asked to be removed as a cosponsor)

     Managers amendment--agreed to by voice vote

     Cruz 1st Degree amendment #1--failed by roll call vote (3-19)

          Yeas: Rubio, Cruz, Hagerty

          Nays: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen (proxy), Coons (proxy), 
        Murphy, Kaine, Markey, Merkley, Booker, Schatz (proxy), Van 
        Hollen (proxy), Risch, Johnson (proxy), Romney (proxy), Portman 
        (proxy), Paul (proxy), Young, Barrasso (proxy), Rounds

     Cruz 1st Degree amendment # 2--failed by roll call vote (11-11)

          Yeas: Risch, Rubio, Johnson (proxy), Romney (proxy), Portman 
        (proxy), Paul (proxy), Young, Barrasso (proxy), Cruz, Rounds, 
        and Hagerty

          Nays: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen (proxy), Coons (proxy), 
        Murphy, Kaine, Markey, Merkley, Booker, Schatz (proxy), Van 
        Hollen (proxy)

     Hagerty 1st Degree amendment #1--failed by roll call vote (11-11)

          Yeas: Risch, Rubio, Johnson (proxy), Romney (proxy), Portman 
        (proxy), Paul (proxy), Young, Barrasso (proxy), Cruz, Rounds, 
        Hagerty

          Nays: Menendez, Cardin (proxy), Shaheen (proxy), Coons 
        (proxy), Murphy, Kaine, Markey (proxy), Merkley, Booker, Schatz 
        (proxy), Van Hollen

                              NOMINATIONS

  The Honorable Michele Jeanne Sison, of Maryland, a Career member of 
        the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Career Ambassador, to be 
        an Assistant Secretary of State (International Organization 
        Affairs)--agreed to by voice vote

  The Honorable Larry Edward Andre, Jr., of Texas, a Career member of 
        the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be 
        Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United 
        States of America to the Federal Republic of Somalia--agreed to 
        by voice vote

  The Honorable Maria E. Brewer, 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 Lesotho--agreed to by voice 
        vote

  The Honorable Tulinabo S. Mushingi, of Virginia, a Career member of 
        the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Counselor, to be 
        Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United 
        States of America to the Republic of Angola, and to serve 
        concurrently and without additional compensation as Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Democratic Republic of Sao Tome and Principe--
        agreed to by voice vote

  Ms. Elizabeth Moore Aubin, 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 People's Democratic Republic of Algeria--agreed 
        to by voice vote

  Mr. Eugene S. Young, of New York, a Career member of the Senior 
        Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Republic of the Congo--agreed to by voice vote

  Mr. Christopher John Lamora, of Rhode Island, 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 Cameroon--agreed to by 
        voice vote

  The Honorable Todd D. Robinson, of New Jersey, a Career member of the 
        Senior Foreign Service, Class of Career Minister, to be an 
        Assistant Secretary of State (International Narcotics and Law 
        Enforcement Affairs)--agreed to by voice vote (Risch and Rubio 
        recorded as no)

  The Honorable Daniel J. Kritenbrink, of Virginia, a Career member of 
        the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be 
        an Assistant Secretary of State (East Asian and Pacific 
        Affairs)--agreed to by voice vote

                           Meeting Transcript

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:16 a.m., in 
Room SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert 
Menendez, Chairman of the committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Menendez [presiding], Cardin, Coons, 
Murphy, Kaine, Markey, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen, 
Risch, Rubio, Young, Cruz, Rounds, and Hagerty.

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

    The Chairman. This business meeting of the Foreign 
Relations Committee will come to order.
    Today we will be taking up two bills and nine nominations 
that were held over from our business meeting on Tuesday. And 
before I turn to the agenda, I would like to make some brief 
remarks about our committee and its practices.
    I am a believer in the ability of Senators on this 
committee to hold over an item. As Chair, I have always honored 
holdover requests, but we are seeing a new and unfortunate 
trend on the committee, one that is different than anything I 
have seen during my 14 years on the Foreign Relations 
Committee, one that is putting additional burdens on all of 
your time, and one that I find to be counterproductive to our 
collective cause: advancing the foreign policy and national 
security of the United States. I cannot recall a time when 
there was a blanket holdover on career nominees, people who 
have sacrificed to serve their country and then are held in 
limbo, presumably because of unhappiness over a policy that has 
nothing to do with the positions for which they have been 
nominated and over which they have no influence. I do not 
recall any Democratic Member doing that during the Trump 
administration. I certainly did not, and I would not have 
supported it despite deeply problematic policies and behavior 
at the most senior levels of that Administration.
    Similarly, I cannot remember any situation that is 
analogous to the holdovers of the Uyghur Forced Labor Act and 
the Israel Normalization Act. Both of these bills have been co-
sponsored by 50 or more Senators. Think about that: half of the 
Senate or more is on these bills, yet amendments on both with 7 
days' notice would, for some reason, not have been sufficient 
to move them out of committee without a holdover. We need to 
return to a place where we are moving strong bipartisan 
legislation, and career nominees in particular, in regular 
order and without holdovers.
    Finally, a housekeeping note. In consultation with the 
Ranking Member, I set amendment deadlines for each business 
meeting. These deadlines are shared with every Member of the 
committee and noticed publicly 7 days in advance. The purpose 
of the deadlines is to ensure that we are balancing Members' 
rights to offer amendments with the need for each Member to 
have the opportunity to adequately consider all amendments 
prior to the markup. We have run into several situations 
recently where Members have submitted amendments after the 
deadline, and while I have tried to be flexible within reason 
and have treated Democratic and Republican Members in the same 
manner, I am concerned that if this trend continues, it will 
ultimately undermine the purpose and utility of the amendment 
deadline to the detriment of all Members. As a matter of fact, 
there are several of our colleagues who have spoken to me in 
the past about the concerns they have of not having ample time 
to understand the amendments being offered. And that is what, 
in part, brought those deadlines.
    As a result, going forward, I do not plan to take up 
amendments that are filed after the applicable deadline. Please 
keep this in mind for future business meetings, and I will be 
rather firm on that proposition. I think every Member has a 
right to offer amendments, and I think everyone has a right to 
understand what amendments are being offered so they can cast 
an educated vote.
    With that, let me turn to today's agenda. The two bills 
before us are S. 65, the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, 
and S. 1061, the Israel Relations Normalization Act. As you all 
know, the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act was pending before 
the committee last year, and Senators Rubio and Merkley 
reintroduced a modified version this Congress. And while I am 
pleased that the sanctions provision from this bill passed out 
of our committee in the Strategic Competition Act and has now 
been approved by the full Senate, the bill is critical to 
addressing the genocide in Xinjiang. So I want to commend 
Senators Rubio and Merkley for their leadership on this issue, 
and particularly for their extensive engagement with the prior 
Administration and the current Administration on the technical 
aspects of the text.
    I would also note that the Administration announced 
yesterday that it is taking certain additional steps to combat 
forced labor in Xinjiang. Nonetheless, it is time for us to act 
on this piece of legislation, and I look forward to passing it 
out of the committee today with a strong bipartisan vote, and I 
intend to support it.
    Turning to the Israel Relations Normalization Act, I would 
like to recognize Senators Portman and Booker for their 
leadership on the bill, which represents important bipartisan 
support for the Abraham Accords and continued U.S. leadership 
in promoting Arab-Israeli cooperation. I am pleased that the 
substitute amendment we are considering today incorporates 
amendments filed in advance of our last markup by Senators 
Kaine, Van Hollen, Merkley, with the support of Senator Risch. 
This bill clearly has the support of many of our colleagues in 
the Senate, and I look forward to a swift passage.
    Finally, turning to the nominations before us today, we 
have a number of qualified nominees, including ambassadorial 
nominees, for Algeria, Angola, Sao Tome, Principe, Cameroon, 
Lesotho, the Republic of Congo, and Somalia. We also have 
before us three assistant secretary nominees for International 
Organization Affairs, International Narcotics and Law Enforce 
and Affairs, and East Asia and Pacific Affairs. I look forward 
to their quick confirmations. I also want to note that I 
believe the IO Bureau, in particular, is in dire need of 
strong, seasoned leadership. Many of us will recall the 
concerning reports of political retaliation and poor management 
that were documented by the State Department inspector general 
in a report issued by my office. I am confident that Ambassador 
Michele Sison has the skills and experience to rebuild morale 
and capably lead the IO Bureau.
    With that, let me recognize the distinguished Ranking 
Member for his remarks.

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

    Senator Risch. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 
First of all, let me briefly respond to your remarks on 
process. As you know, I have a no whining policy, and I 
recognize the Chairman's ability in the committee to run the 
committee, and having been in an institution like this for 41 
years, it is important, I think, that the Chairman have the 
ability to do that. What you are talking about is not a change 
of the rules, but a change of the procedure. The only 
suggestion I would have, and I think it is important that 
everyone have a full understanding where we are going, is that 
you do a memo maybe and put it in writing as far as what to 
expect in the future. I think that will make it----
    The Chairman. If I may. I am not changing the procedure. 
What I am doing is simply adhering to the procedure we are 
supposed to have, which has been bled over by people filing 
after the amendment deadline. So I am just notifying people we 
are going to live within the rules as we have adopted.
    Senator Risch. Fair enough. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman. We will work--as you know--we will work with you 
every way we can to make this work.
    Turning to the business meeting very briefly because we 
have already worked this over quite a bit. On the Israel bill, 
as I mentioned on Tuesday, I am glad to see that Senate Bill 
1061, the Israeli Relations Normalization Act, will be voted on 
by the committee. The last time I checked, the bill had over 50 
co-sponsors. In particular, I want to recognize Senators 
Portman, Booker, Cardin, Young, and Menendez for their 
leadership on this bill, which emphasizes the importance of 
normalization agreements between Israel and its Arab neighbors. 
This has wide support within this body, and rightfully so. Many 
of us have concerns that the Administration lacks the resources 
to further the Accords. This important legislation requires a 
strategy to strengthen and expand the Abraham Accords and an 
assessment of resources required to do so. These agreements and 
agreements like them have the potential to transform the Middle 
East, and I hope Congress will act swiftly to approve this 
bill.
    As to the Uyghur Forced Labor bill, let me start by 
thanking Senators Rubio and Merkley, recognizing them for their 
work on this certainly important work. It is another bill that 
has broad bipartisan support. The atrocities and human rights 
abuses being committed by the Chinese Government in Xinjiang 
are truly abhorrent. The PRC Government's endorsement of forced 
labor in Xinjiang is detestable, and this bill will focus on 
our government's diplomatic and economic efforts to address 
this practice. Senate Bill 65 will require the Administration 
to work with the private sector and provide comprehensive 
guidance to ensure U.S. companies are not using forced labor in 
their supply chains. It would significantly strengthen our 
government's ability to restrict the importation of goods made 
with forced labor in Xinjiang. I urge my colleagues to support 
this bill.
    With that, I want to thank you and yield back. Thank you, 
Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Risch. With that, we will 
now consider nine nominations on the agenda, en bloc. They are 
Michele Sison to assistant secretary of state for International 
Organization Affairs; Larry Andre, Jr., to be ambassador to 
Somalia; Maria Brewer to be ambassador to Lesotho; Tulinabo 
Mushingi to be ambassador to Angola and to serve concurrently 
as ambassador to Sao Tome and Principe; Elizabeth Moore Aubin 
to be ambassador to Algeria; Eugene Young to be ambassador to 
the Congo; Christopher Lamora to be ambassador to Cameroon; 
Todd Robinson to be assistant secretary of state for 
International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs; and Daniel 
Kritenbrink to be assistant secretary of state for East Asia 
and Pacific Affairs.
    Do any Members have any comment that they wish to make on 
any of these nominations?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, is there a motion to approve these 
nominations en bloc?
    Voices. So move.
    The Chairman. So moved. Seconded?
    Voices. Second.
    The Chairman. Moved and seconded. The question is on the 
motion to approve the nominations en bloc.
    All in favor will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All those opposed will say no.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it, and the nominations are 
agreed to.
    Okay. We will now consider S. 65, the Uyghur Forced Labor 
Prevention Act. Are there any Members who wish to comment on 
the bill?
    Senator Rubio. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Senator Rubio?
    Senator Rubio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the Ranking 
Member, for bringing this up. I want to thank Senator Merkley 
who has been a phenomenal partner in this. I do not think this 
issue needs a lot of explanation, by the way, with 53 co-
sponsors, many Members of this committee. Just briefly, for 
those who may be watching or thinking about--wondering why this 
is coming up, the Chinese Communist Party has turned Xinjiang 
into a huge labor camp. If you look at the satellite imagery, 
it indicates that there are more than 100 mass detention 
facilities in the area. They have--researchers have identified 
15,000 companies that are located in or near these facilities 
that are exporting products to places around the world, and 
that actually just scratches the surface about what we know 
because auditors are not allowed to conduct proper due 
diligence in China. In fact, last--a report from last September 
noted that there are at least five organizations that they will 
not help companies audit their supply chain in Xinjiang because 
the police state and the Government of the Chinese Communist 
Party makes it impossible to determine whether factories or 
farms are relying on forced labor. This is slavery, simple as 
that.
    American companies argue that their supply chains are 
clean, and what this bill says is prove it, especially if it is 
coming out of Xinjiang. It says if you want to import something 
to the United States from this region, you have to prove that 
those goods were not made with forced labor; otherwise, it is 
presumed that it was. And that presumption applies to 
everything, every good everywhere, every article, every 
merchandise, everything that is mined, produced, manufactured, 
wholly or in part. Everything is presumed to be made with 
forced labor unless they can prove otherwise, which will be, I 
think, in most cases, nearly impossible to do, if not all 
cases, because the Chinese Communist Party does not allow those 
kinds of audits to occur.
    So that is what the bill does. I hope we can pass it. We 
have had to work with the House to get the language lined up. 
We really just want to make this a law. Can we always make it 
better and stronger? I imagine you always could argue that, but 
if we do not get this thing past the finish line and over to 
the House, there is a chance it will take another year to pass 
it. And I think it is time to act on this, and I hope we will. 
Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you. I commend both you and Senator 
Merkley on your work here. Senator Merkley?
    Senator Markley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and a huge thanks 
to Senator Rubio for leading this effort. I have been pleased 
to partner with him on that. The Senator from Florida also was 
Chair of the Congressional Executive Commission on China, and I 
am Chair now. We have worked--been working together on these 
human rights issues, and I appreciate the support of the 
Commission team in helping develop insights and strategies for 
this bill.
    The scope and scale of forced labor in Xinjiang demands 
bold action. The Chinese Government is systematically and 
pervasively exploiting the forced labor of Uyghurs, Kazakhs, 
and other predominantly Muslim ethnic minorities through labor 
and mass internment camps, prisons, labor transfers, and so 
forth. This is part of a larger pattern of oppression that 
includes restrictions on reproductive possibilities for Uyghurs 
and other groups.
    The former Secretary of State went through the process and 
found that the actions of China constituted genocide. Our 
current Secretary of State's team has done the same and reached 
the same conclusion. This labor abuse occurs--is involved in a 
staggering range of industries and products, so it taints the 
supply chain if American companies and consumers are buying 
products from that region. It makes us complicit in this 
horrific abuse of human rights, and, thus, this bill is 
absolutely necessary to sustain our values. It comes a week 
after we recognized Juneteenth as a holiday, Juneteenth a 
holiday that celebrates the end of slavery, forced labor in 
America. Let us follow up on that by recognizing and acting on 
the issue of slavery, forced labor in China.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Merkley. Anyone who wishes 
comment on this bill at this point? Senator Cruz?
    Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment 
on this bill that I want to call up. It is Cruz First Degree 1.
    The Chairman. I would ask the gentleman to withhold. I was 
looking for comments. We are going to have a substitute and 
then your amendment would be in order.
    Senator Cruz. Okay. Then I will withhold, and I will 
discuss my amendment at the appropriate time.
    The Chairman. Okay. If there are no other Members looking 
to comment on the bill, I would ask that there be a motion to 
approve the substitute amendment by voice vote. Is there so----
    Voice. So moved.
    The Chairman. So moved. Seconded? I will second it myself. 
It is moved and seconded.
    The question is on the motion to approve the substitute 
amendment.
    All those in favor will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. There are no noes. The ayes have it, and the 
amendment is agreed to.
    Okay. All right. Now, are there any further amendments? 
Senator Cruz?
    Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At this point, I 
call up Cruz First Degree 1. Let me say the underlying bill is 
an important initiative, and I am proud to support it. I 
commend the Members on both sides of the aisle who have worked 
on it. This is--there is an existing and deepening bipartisan 
consensus that you--if you have got a product with metals or 
minerals from Xinjiang, that it was made with forced labor, 
that it was made with slavery. However, there is one major 
potential exception to this bill that has the potential to 
dramatically undermine its effectiveness and weaken it, and 
that concerns electric vehicles.
    Right now, China, according to the most recent 
authoritative report on this issue published just a few days 
ago, ``China leads across the electric field--vehicle value 
chain, from critical mineral inputs, to battery production, to 
vehicle manufacturing, and even increasingly to EV brands. The 
global transition to EVs relies on Chinese inputs. More 
specifically, Chinese manufacturers account for over 50 percent 
of global EV production. China also leads global battery 
production and has developed outsized control over the critical 
materials inputs."
    EVs and the inputs for EVs are being manufactured in 
Xinjiang, manufactured with forced slave labor, manufactured 
with horrific human rights conditions. What my amendment does 
is make clear that we cannot import electric vehicles from 
Xinjiang. Now, one of the objections to this amendment is the 
amendment is redundant, but I am going to tell you why it is 
not redundant, because there is countervailing legal authority 
that we have, and, in particular, it is that President Biden 
signed Executive Order 14008 directing the Administration to 
use the full extent of all legal authorities to import electric 
vehicles.
    The mandates in Executive Order 14008, they are vast. They 
require officials to subordinate all domestic and foreign 
priorities to the requirements in the order. The order applies 
to all executive officials, including explicitly the Secretary 
of Homeland Security, who oversees Customs and Border 
Protection, and they are ordered to use all legal means and 
``all available procurement authorities to acquire EVs for the 
government fleet.'' They are ordered explicitly to prioritize 
these mandates in their contracting and procurement.
    Today, the House Appropriations Committee is advancing a 
fiscal year 2022 bill that creates a $300 million electric 
vehicles fund for agencies to purchase EVs. If my amendment is 
not adopted, here is what I believe will happen. This bill will 
pass into law, and the Administration will follow the terms of 
this executive order and grant an exemption for EVs coming from 
Xinjiang, and we will begin bringing in hundreds of millions of 
electric vehicles manufactured by slave labor in grotesque 
circumstances. I do not believe that is justified. I think this 
committee should speak clearly that we are not going to be 
importing vehicles made through slavery. And so I would urge 
adoption of my amendment.
    Senator Rubio. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Who seeks recognition? Senator Rubio?
    Senator Rubio. I, too, do not want us to see us import 
anything from Xinjiang because I think everything that is made 
there, we have to presume is made with slave labor, and that is 
what this law does. This law would prohibit it. Senator Cruz 
makes an important point about executive orders, and I, too, am 
concerned about that executive order, which is why passage of 
this bill is so important because legislative language 
implemented into law by the House, the Senate, signed by the 
President, would supersede. Now, could they obviously issue an 
executive order and ignore the law? They could. That is why we 
have courts, but, ultimately, they would be in violation of the 
law.
    By its own terminology--I do not have it in front of me, 
but I imagine it reads ``all legal authorities.'' This takes 
away the legal authority to import anything--anything--from a 
plastic toy to an electric car from Xinjiang, unless you can 
prove a bunch of things, the most important being that the good 
was not mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part by 
forced labor. So I actually think that this bill is needed in 
order to make sure that that executive order cannot be used in 
the way that the Senator is concerned about, and I oppose this 
amendment because I just think the bill covers everything. It 
says everything is banned from Xinjiang, and the bear--the bar 
for meeting the presumption is so high given the nature of the 
Chinese Government in particular, it is practically impossible 
to conduct proper due diligence in Xinjiang because of the 
Government's control. They will not allow it. And so I just do 
not--I do not believe this amendment is necessary, but--and I 
actually think that it speaks to the importance of the bill as 
a whole.
    The Chairman. Senator Merkley?
    Senator Markley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I echo my 
colleague's points. The structure of the bill presumes that 
goods have been built with forced labor, with slave labor, but 
it provides an opportunity for corporations to show otherwise 
and prove their case, referred to as rebuttable presumption. 
That rebuttable presumption should be applied equally across 
all industries, which it would not be if that was stripped from 
one particular industry. And so for those reasons, I join my 
colleague in opposing the amendment.
    The Chairman. Any other Member seeking recognition on this 
amendment?
    Senator Hagerty. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Senator Hagerty. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Senator Hagerty, yes?
    Senator Hagerty. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I would like to 
compliment my colleagues, Senators Merkley and Rubio, for the 
hard work that they put into this amendment, which I supported, 
but I also share Senator Cruz's concerns about this executive 
order. And I would like to call up an amendment, Hagerty Second 
Degree 1 to Cruz First Degree 1.
    This amendment, which I introduced earlier this week, seeks 
to explicitly prohibit the importation of solar panels, which 
similarly would be covered under the executive order that 
Senator Cruz mentioned, and prohibit the importation of those 
panels that are produced or manufactured in Xinjiang with slave 
labor, keep them from entering the United States. There is 
growing bipartisan consensus that China's supply chain, with 
respect to solar panels, heavily relies upon forced labor. 
Indeed, the Biden administration just put out a fact sheet this 
morning highlighting the issue and authorizing our Customs and 
Border Patrol to detain shipments that contain products made by 
Hoshine. That is a Chinese company that uses forced labor to 
make solar panels. So I suggest that we should expand the ban 
and make it explicitly clear that solar panels made in China 
with forced labor will not enter the United States. Mr. 
Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote.
    The Chairman. Anyone seeking recognition? Senator Markey?
    Senator Markey. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at 
the desk, and I would like to offer my second degree amendment 
to--depending upon the----
    The Chairman. In procedure--in procedure, we have the 
Hagerty amendment before us as a second degree. We are going to 
have to vote on that first.
    Senator Markey. Well, may I speak on the Hagerty amendment 
and Cruz amendment----
    The Chairman. Yes, you may.
    Senator Markey [continuing]. As they are both pending 
before I make my amendment. So I--my amendment and, you know, 
my objection to these two amendments is that each of these 
amendments is selectively targeting electric vehicles and solar 
technologies. My amendment will replace the unnecessary Cruz 
amendment language with a requirement that the United States 
Government address the true source of the problem that leads to 
the importation of goods implicated in Chinese forced labor, 
the fact that these items are no longer produced in the United 
States. Senator Cruz's amendment to prohibit exceptions only 
for electric vehicles is so selective, so targeted, that its 
true purpose is undeniable. It is aimed at slowing and 
demonizing the transformative clean energy economy, which is 
saving consumers money and saving us from the existential 
threat of carbon pollution energy. If we want to protect human 
rights, let us look at the big picture problem. Millions of 
items come into the United States from China every year, yet we 
are supposed to believe the only special concerns relate to 
solar panels and electric vehicles.
    What do these two items have in common? Well, they pose a 
threat to the big oil industry, and I would like to direct my 
colleagues' attention to the July 2020 Business Advisory issued 
by the Trump Administration--the Trump administration--
identifying specific sectors implicated in forced labor inside 
Xinjiang. Here is what Donald Trump says. It is agricultural 
items. Cellphones. Every one of us is carrying a cellphone on 
us right now that is cited by the Trump Administration. 
Cleaning supplies, construction, cotton, electronics assembly, 
extractives, hydrocarbons, oil, uranium, zinc, fake hair and 
wigs, food processing, noodles, printing products, footwear, 
sugar, textiles, toys. That is a lot of products. That is a lot 
of products, yet this amendment targets one particular 
industry.
    Senator Cruz targets the electric vehicle industry; Senator 
Hagerty, the solar industry. Every single one of us has an 
iPhone as we are sitting here. Did you shop on Amazon Prime for 
a day? Did you check your email using Microsoft technology? 
These companies all reportedly provided web services to Chinese 
surveillance firms that help repress religious minorities. So 
we have to, in my opinion, have a--an ability to deal with all 
of these issues. So that is what my amendment does. It 
reinforces the fact that we are truly looking to halt the 
import of false--of forced labor products, then we need to be 
ready to investigate all products that may be produced by 
forced labor in China. But we also have to recognize the other 
side of this coin. United States companies have abandoned 
American workers to bring their businesses to China. They have 
just abandoned our own workers where they are then complicit in 
human rights abuses, and that is across the board. If we want 
to stop the cycle of U.S. businesses facilitating and 
benefiting from forced labor and other abuses, we have to bring 
the production back home. And that is why my amendment will 
require the United States Government to offer a concrete 
proposals to increase United States domestic production to 
replace all imports we know are being made by forced labor.
    We need to be honest in the pursuit of human rights 
internationally. We just cannot be selective. We have to do 
this as a policy in our country, and we should not be backing 
any commercial interests that have a track record of putting 
personal profit over the lives of Americans and foreign 
workers. So I would say to my colleagues, I want to work with 
you. If you want to do something here domestically to protect 
the electric car industry or the solar industry to create 
production incentives, let us do it. Let us work together. Let 
us have a plan. China has a plan. We need a plan here 
domestically if we are going to win. And so my amendment 
basically says that our job here should be to not only to be 
condemning what is going on, but to simultaneously put a plan 
together in order to make sure that we do not have to do this 
again in the future. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Now, before I call on Senator 
Cardin, the second vote is about to be closed, and I am 
understanding that they--I am not sure how much longer they are 
going to keep it open, and we need to maintain this quorum. I 
would ask Senator Van Hollen if he could just stay with us a 
moment so that we can--so that we can--well, my purpose is to 
try to move to a vote on the amendment so that we can move 
forward, but we will need to keep the quorum or else we will 
not be able to do that.
    Senator Van Hollen. Mr. Chairman, I do not know if they are 
going to close to vote, but I do have to vote there as well as 
here.
    Senator Schatz. I think we all----
    Senator Van Hollen. Are we all the same vote?
    Senator Schatz [continuing]. We all have to vote.
    Senator Van Hollen. Oh, I did not realize that no one here 
has voted. Okay.
    The Chairman. Yes, no one, including the Chair, has voted.
    Senator Van Hollen. Okay.
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. One moment, please. Senator Cardin, yes?
    Senator Cardin. And will be brief. We had a subcommittee 
hearing on the circumstances with the Uyghurs. This is genocide 
what is happening there. I really applaud Senator Rubio and 
Senator Markey--Merkley for bringing us this bill. This bill is 
critically important for us to get done. It is drafted properly 
to deal with any product. Any product. This is not the debate 
on the climate agenda, so the amendments actually, I think, 
weaken the bill. Any one of the versions would weaken the bill. 
Now, I am very much opposed to any of these amendments. I think 
the Markey amendment is the best of the three, so I would 
support it as to what we should vote on, but I hope that we 
reject all these amendments. The bill is drafted for all goods. 
We should not be getting into a climate discussion on a bill 
that is so important to deal with a global human rights 
urgency.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Cruz, I will give you 
another shot here, and then we are going to go to a vote.
    Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me, first of 
all, thank Senator Hagerty for his amendment. I think it is a 
good and positive amendment, and I am willing to accept it as a 
friendly amendment and incorporate it into my amendment because 
I think it is consistent with the spirit and objective of my 
amendment, and I think it improves it.
    Addressing the arguments that have been made in response to 
this amendment, I do not think the arguments withstand even the 
slightest scrutiny. There are two possibilities. One, Senator 
Rubio suggested this amendment is unnecessary. The bill already 
prohibits electric vehicles made with slave labor. If the bill 
already does it, if it is purely redundant, then it ought to be 
easy to accept this amendment. The problem is that argument is 
not true. The bill explicitly contains a provision for the 
commissioner of Customs and Border Patrol to make exceptions. 
If it were redundant, it would be easy for everyone to vote for 
it. The reason why this is contested, the reason why this--
there is disagreement is because it is not redundant. Several 
Senators have asked, why would you directly address electric 
vehicles or solar panels? It is not complicated. Because the 
Biden administration has made clear that its priority is 
electric vehicles and that priority trumps everything else. So 
there is a reason to anticipate that the Biden administration 
will invoke that exception.
    I would note, Senator Markey, in his language, I think 
perhaps grabbed the wrong folder walking in and got his talking 
points from the 1970s when he said that Texas does not 
understand alternatives to energy. I will point out the State 
of Texas is the number one producer of wind energy in the 
country. The State of Texas produces far more solar energy than 
does the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Tesla is now building 
electric vehicles in Texas. I am a big believer of all of the 
above. I think electric vehicles have enormous potential, I 
think solar has enormous potential, I think wind has enormous 
potential, and Texas is leading the front on all of those. But 
if this committee votes on a party-line basis right now to 
reject the amendment, I want people to understand the 
consequences of that because history is long. In particular, 
the votes in this committee last through history.
    If this amendment is voted down, the underlying bill will 
pass, and then mark my words, the Biden administration intends 
to waive these provisions for electric vehicles. And what any 
Member of this committee who votes ``no'' on this amendment 
will be saying is that a political commitment to the Green New 
Deal matters more than stopping slave labor, because Members of 
this committee will be deciding you are willing to bring in 
electric vehicles that were produced by slave labor in horrific 
human rights outcomes.
    The Chairman. I think the gentleman has made his point. 
Gentlemen, I do not--I do not----
    Senator Markey. Point of personal privilege. One minute.
    The Chairman [continuing]. I do not want to mitigate 
debate, but the option is going to be to recess, go vote, and 
come back, and then I do not know that we will have a quorum--
--
    Senator Markey. I can do it in----
    The Chairman [continuing]. Which may be the object of some 
not to have a quorum. Therefore, a vote cannot take place. But 
I will recognize the gentleman.
    Senator Markey. I thank the Chairman very much. I will just 
say this. Texas does produce oil, Texas does produce natural 
gas, but it does not produce solar panels or wind turbines. 
That is important. That is what we are talking about. We are 
talking about the imports, not our exports from the United 
States, which is something that I think the Senator from Texas 
wants to increase. A lot of the stuff that we are importing, it 
is made with slave labor, okay? That is what we are talking 
about.
    Senator Schatz. Mr. Chairman?
    Senator Markey. Texas does not manufacture those goods. 
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Schatz. I have to preside at noon, and that is not 
a commitment I can avoid.
    The Chairman. I understand.
    Senator Schatz. So I would like to take the vote, with all 
due respect to all the Members and their rights.
    The Chairman. With that----
    Senator Markley. Mr. Chairman, 1 minute?
    The Chairman. Less than 1 minute, please.
    Senator Markley. Less than 1 minute. The solar industry has 
already worked to start moving its production out of Xinjiang 
because of the important work that we are undertaking. If they 
were, in fact, accused of producing in that region, then they 
have the right and ability to demonstrate under the rebuttable 
presumption that that data is outdated and they have shifted 
their production. If you remove the rebuttable presumption, you 
basically take away the ability of any company to show that 
they have done what we have asked them to do, which is to move 
their production. The waiver that Senator Cruz speaks to is 
not--is a waiver in which the company must prove that they have 
altered their behavior, and that is a very tough bar we are 
going to make sure the Administration enforces. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Based on Senator Cruz's 
suggestion, I will entertain that the vote be on the Hagerty 
amendment to the Cruz amendment, as amended by Hagerty. Is that 
acceptable to Senator Cruz?
    Senator Cruz. It is certainly acceptable to have a vote on 
the amendment as modified by the Hagerty amendment.
    The Chairman. All right. Thanks. So that is the vote, the 
Cruz amendment as modified by Hagerty.
    The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
    The Chairman. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    The Chairman. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    The Chairman. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    Senator Markey. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Markley. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    Senator Booker. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schatz?
    Senator Schatz. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Senator Van Hollen. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    Senator Risch. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Rubio. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Young?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cruz?
    Senator Cruz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rounds?
    Senator Rounds. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hagerty?
    Senator Hagerty. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 7; the nays are 15.
    The Chairman. And the amendment is not agreed to. I would 
ask if we can--does the Senator withhold his amendment based 
upon----
    Senator Markey. Yes, I do.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much. The question then is a 
motion to approve S. 65, as amended.
    All those in favor will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All those opposed will say no.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it, and the legislation is 
approved, as amended, and reported to the Senate in favorable 
consideration.
    Now, without objection, we will consider S. 1061, the 
Israel Relations Normalization of 2021.
    Is there a motion to approve the substitute amendment?
    Voice. So moved.
    The Chairman. So moved. Is there a second?
    Voices. Second.
    The Chairman. All those in favor will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed, say no.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The noes--the ayes have it, and the motion to 
approve the substitute amendment is agreed to.
    Are there any amendments to this legislation? Senator Cruz?
    Senator Cruz. Mr. Chair, I have two amendments on this, 
which will take some time. So I know we have a vote, but I 
think these amendments need to be considered, so I do not know 
if the committee wants to recess or how the Chairman wants to 
handle it.
    The Chairman. Well, I do not think that the floor will keep 
the vote open anymore, so we will--we will recess and 
immediately come back. I urge Members--this is the only piece 
left. It is an important piece of legislation, but obviously we 
need the appropriate quorum for it to be considered.
    So the committee stands in recess subject to the call of 
the Chair.
    [Recess.]
    The Chairman. This meeting will come to order.
    When we recessed, Senator Cruz was offering an amendment, 
and I do not see him here.
    Senator Hagerty. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Senator Hagerty?
    Senator Hagerty. May I call up----
    The Chairman. If you could put your microphone on, please.
    Senator Hagerty. It is----
    The Chairman. Oh, there it is.
    Senator Hagerty. Can you hear me?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Senator Hagerty. Okay. Now we got it. Sorry about that. Mr. 
Chairman, I would like to discuss Hagerty Second Degree 2, 
Hagerty Second Degree 1, and Hagerty First Degree 1. I intend 
to call for a recorded vote only on my first degree amendment. 
Hagerty Second Degree 2, which is the Iran Sanctions Relief 
Review Act, is what I would like to talk about first. This 
amendment would enable Congress to approve or block any 
Administration effort to suspend or terminate U.S. sanctions 
against the Iranian regime.
    U.S. law empowers Congress to vote on supporting or 
blocking sanctions relief to Vladimir Putin and his regime in 
Russia. We need the same for the Iranian supreme leader and his 
regime. U.S. law empowers Congress to vote on supporting or 
blocking sanctions relief to Vladimir Putin and his regime in 
Russia. We need the same for the Iranian supreme leader and his 
regime, including the supremely hardline new president who was 
placed into power less than a week ago in a rigged election. 
Meanwhile, the Biden administration is reportedly ready to lift 
sanctions on Iranian oil and shipping in an effort to reenter 
the flawed Nuclear Deal. This will provide billions of dollars 
to the Iranian regime, which will continue to fund Hamas and 
other terrorist organizations. In lieu of a vote on this 
amendment, I would request that the Chairman and the committee 
work with me to address this issue.
    Now, I would like to turn to discuss Hagerty Second Degree 
1. This amendment would help our Israeli allies replenish their 
highly-effective Iron Dome rocket system. In Israel, I 
inspected the devastation caused by the rocket attacks of Hamas 
and other Iran-backed terrorists. Resupplying the lifesaving 
Iron Dome interceptors must be a top priority for Congress. The 
bill that I introduced with Senators Rubio, Cotton, and Cruz 
would redirect U.S. foreign assistance to replenish Israel's 
missile defense interceptors. This is not a partisan issue. 
This is about standing with Israeli allies and protecting 
innocent lives from terrorism. In lieu of a vote on this 
amendment, I also ask that the Chairman and committee work with 
me to address this crucial issue.
    Now to Hagerty First Degree 1. Mr. Chairman, this first 
degree amendment would reaffirm that we must prevent any U.S. 
assistance to the Palestinian territories from being diverted 
to terrorists. This is especially important for Gaza, which is 
under the control of the Iranian-backed terrorist group, Hamas. 
On my recent visit Israel, top Israeli officials briefed me on 
many troubling examples of how Hamas diverts foreign assistance 
from the United States and from other donor nations. Too often 
this happens at the expense of the Palestinian people. Hamas 
diverts foreign assistance to fund their terrorist acts, and we 
must put an end to it. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote 
on this amendment to prevent the diversion of foreign 
assistance to Hamas. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Is there anyone who wishes to 
speak to this amendment?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Well, let me just briefly speak to it. First, 
let us be clear. I do not believe anybody on this committee 
supports sending funds to terrorist organizations. This 
Administration does not support sending funds to terrorist 
organizations. Secondly, while I appreciate the Senator's 
arduous advocacy for oversight, there are numerous laws on the 
books that prevent diversion of funds to terrorist 
organizations. Indeed, the Middle East Partnership for Peace 
Act is one such law that includes a provision that explicitly 
says none of the authorized funds can go to a terrorist 
organization or anyone involved in terrorist activity. So it 
would seem this amendment, like some others, has been drafted 
for a purpose that is either redundant or an effort to tweet 
against those who are voting against it.
    And while I do not have substantive objections since this 
is already the law, there is absolutely no value added to S. 
1061 or legitimate purpose, from my view of the amendment. This 
bill was carefully negotiated. It has garnered the support of 
more than half of the Senate, and therefore, I will oppose the 
amendment.
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Senator Risch?
    Senator Risch. Well, Mr. Chairman, I take a little 
different view of this, and that is that I really believe, as 
you stated, we already have laws that prevent this. 
Unfortunately, these laws are frequently waived, ignored, or 
simply not followed, and I guess I view this as ``we really, 
really mean it language'' going forward, so I am going to vote 
for this. This despicable practice that they have over there 
that the terrorists have of the pay-for-slay program is just 
atrocious. And we keep pushing back against it, and, of course, 
the argument that, well, we do not use that exact language. 
Well, money is fungible, and as long as they have got that 
program, it is our money that is going into that. And I want to 
commend Senator Hagerty for bringing this up. I think it is 
something we need to talk about publicly, regularly, all the 
time, and until they get rid of that pay-for-slay program, I do 
not think we can say this enough. So I am going to vote for 
this.
    The Chairman. The Senator has asked for a recorded vote, as 
I understand it.
    Senator Hagerty. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    The Chairman. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
    The Chairman. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    The Chairman. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    The Chairman. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Markley. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    Senator Booker. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schatz?
    The Chairman. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Senator Van Hollen. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    Senator Risch. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Rubio. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Young?
    Senator Young. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cruz?
    Senator Cruz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rounds?
    Senator Rounds. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hagerty?
    Senator Hagerty. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 11; the nays are 11.
    The Chairman. And the amendment fails. Is there any other 
amendments to be offered? Senator Cruz?
    Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would call up Cruz 
First Degree 1, and I am going to have two different amendments 
on this bill, but we will start with Cruz First Degree 1.
    Over the last few years, we have seen an incredible 
flowering of peace in the Middle East, culminating in the 
signing of the Abraham Accords. The reason for the success of 
the Abraham Accords is worth understanding. For years, U.S. 
foreign policy, both Democratic foreign policy and Republican 
foreign policy, began from the premise that there must be a 
full and permanent solution to the Israel-Palestinian dispute 
before any other peace accords could be reached. Resolving that 
conflict was viewed as the first and preeminent concern.
    Hand-in-hand with that, both Democratic and Republican 
administrations engaged in a pattern of consistent and 
deliberate ambiguity where they would blur the lines in terms 
of whether they would support Israel or whether they would 
support the Palestinians, and the enlightened wisdom in 
Washington was that ambiguity somehow furthered peace. After 
decades of failure, we have seen that that path does not work. 
In the last 4 years, the Trump administration changed path in a 
way that I urged them to do so, which is clearly and 
unequivocally supporting the Nation of Israel, moving our 
embassy to Jerusalem, pulling out of the Iran deal, and that 
clarity, in turn, produced the Abraham Accords.
    Unfortunately, in the first 5 months of the Biden 
administration, they have reverted to the same failed approach 
that did not work in the Middle East. They have begun 
undermining the State of Israel. They have begun sending 
hundreds of millions of dollars to the Palestinian Authority 
that is in bed with Hamas. They are discussing opening a 
consulate in Jerusalem directed to the Palestinian people to 
undermine Israel's claims of sovereignty on Jerusalem. That 
approach--and, indeed, the Biden administration has gone so far 
in the State Department, they have prohibited employees from 
the State Department from using the words ``Abraham Accords.'' 
Those words are now--there is a blacklist at Foggy Bottom. You 
are required to call them now ``normalization agreements'' and 
not the ``Abraham Accords,'' not the historic peace deal that 
they were.
    What Cruz 1 does is it strikes one provision of this bill 
that was not in there until the very, very end, and I am a co-
sponsor of this bill. But this--at the very end there were a 
couple of things added to the bill that were not there, and as 
a condition of my support were not there, and then at the very 
last minute, they were added to this bill. What this amendment 
does is it strikes the provision of the bill that says, ``It is 
U.S. policy to support a negotiated solution to the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict resulting in two states living side by 
side in peace, security, and mutual recognition.'' My view is 
we may well see a two-state solution, but it is not America's 
place to arrogantly lecture Israel that that has to be the 
resolution.
    I think what this change and the other amendment that I am 
going to offer are doing, what the changes are to this bill are 
to codify the new Biden administration pivot towards the 
Palestinian Authority and away from Israel. And so I believe we 
ought to allow the Israelis and the Palestinians to negotiate 
and arrive upon a peace deal. We saw that with UAE. We saw that 
with Bahrain. We had the first peace deals between Israel and 
Arab nations in decades. And by declaring that it is United 
States policy to support a two-state deal, we are going 
backwards on the progress we made in the last 4 years. I think 
we are decreasing the chances of peace, and I believe America 
should not be presuming to dictate the terms of peace to 
Israel.
    Nobody wants peace more than the people of Israel, and the 
barrier to peace is the Palestinian Authority's consistent 
support of Hamas, support of terrorists. We saw Hamas just 
launch over 4,000 rockets into Israel. You cannot have peace 
when the other side of the negotiation demands your destruction 
and seeks your death. That is the barrier to peace. I think the 
people of Israel are eager for peace, but not peace with 
terrorists who will continually seek to murder them. And so I 
think this is a step backwards that hampers the peace process, 
and so my amendment simply strikes that provision.
    The Chairman. Anyone else seeking recognition ?
    Senator Kaine. Mr. Chair?
    The Chairman. Senator Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. The language that Senator Cruz objects to 
was language that I recommended with colleagues that was 
included in the manager's package. But contrary to his 
statement, this is not the U.S. imposing anything. This has 
been U.S. policy since it was part of the U.N. mandate that 
created the Nation of Israel. A U.N. mandate, following up 
courageous activity by Israelis, created the Nation of Israel 
with a two-state solution, led President Truman to overturn his 
own State Department and immediately recognize the State of 
Israel under those conditions. The notion of a two-state 
solution is the preferred policy of every Israeli politician 
that I have ever spoken with in all of my visits to Israel.
    So this is not an imposition of anything. There is an 
attempt to strip the language, and Senator Cruz read it 
accurately: U.S. policy is to support a negotiated solution. 
Are we now against negotiated solutions to the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict? Are we against a resolution to that 
conflict resulting in two states? Are we promoting one state 
now after 80 years of a U.N. mandate that the U.S. and other 
nations have supported, resulting in two states living side by 
side in peace, security, and mutual recognition? Do we have 
problems with peace or security or mutual recognition? This 
language is a restatement of the very conditions that 
surrounded the creation of the Nation of Israel and the U.S.'s 
immediate recognition of the State of Israel.
    I am proud to co-sponsor this resolution because I came out 
immediately upon the Trump administration's announcement of the 
Abrahamic Accords and said that it was a very positive step, 
and I believe that, and I think it has already borne some fruit 
in some ways. And I think those accords actually add additional 
resources and even momentum to potentially finding the just 
resolution with the two-state solution and Israel and Palestine 
living side by side as peaceful neighbors. So I do not think 
this is about imposing anything. I just think it is a matter of 
stating what I believe would be the desires of virtually 
everyone on this committee. So for that reason, I would oppose 
the amendment.
    The Chairman. Is there any other Member seeking 
recognition?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not----
    Senator Cruz. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, I would like to 
very briefly respond to something Senator Kaine said.
    The Chairman. And it will be brief.
    Senator Cruz. I would like to very briefly respond to----
    The Chairman. It will be brief. Yes, go ahead.
    Senator Cruz. Senator Kaine just said a moment ago, and I 
am sure he said it in good faith, that he was not aware of any 
Israeli politician who opposed a two-state solution. As the 
Members of this committee are well aware, there is a new prime 
minister in Israel. His name is Naftali Bennett. I want to read 
you the title of an op-ed Naftali Bennett wrote in the New York 
Times on November 5th, 2014. The title of it is, ``For Israel, 
Two-State is No Solution.'' And I would ask unanimous consent 
to enter that op-ed into the record.
    The Chairman. Without objection.

    [The information referred to follows:]


                  For Israel, Two-State Is No Solution

                    by naftali bennett, nov. 5, 2014
    https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/06/opinion/naftali-bennett-for-
israel-two-state-is-no-solution.html


    JERUSALEM--Recent events in the Middle East are a reminder of how 
the old models of peace between Israel and the Palestinians are no 
longer relevant. The time has come to rethink the two-state solution.
    This past summer, Hamas and its allies fired over 4,500 rockets and 
mortars at Israel, demonstrating once again what happens when we 
evacuate territory to the so-called 1967 lines and hand it over to our 
adversaries. Peace is not obtained. Rather, we are met by war and 
bloodshed.
    The rise of the Islamic State, also known as ISIS, and other 
extreme elements in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, make the risks just as 
clear. Israel cannot afford to gamble with its security. There are no 
second chances in the volatile Middle East.
    That is why, for its security, Israel cannot withdraw from more 
territory and cannot allow for the establishment of a Palestinian state 
in the West Bank. If we were to pull out of the West Bank, the entire 
country would become a target for terrorists who would be able to set 
up rocket launchers adjacent to the Old City of Jerusalem and on the 
hills above the runways of Ben-Gurion International Airport and the Tel 
Aviv Stock Exchange.
    Take the Jordan Valley. The Palestinians demand that Israel 
withdraw from this narrow piece of land, which borders Jordan. But if 
we do so in today's climate, we potentially open the door for the 
Islamic State and other extremists to flood into the new Palestinian 
state. We cannot take that risk.
    How do I know? Because it happened. Not once, not twice, but three 
times.
    In the mid-1990s, we pulled out of Palestinian cities as part of 
the Oslo agreement. In 2000, the second intifada erupted and over 1,000 
Israelis were killed in attacks carried out by terrorists, many of whom 
came from the very cities we had evacuated.
    When we pulled out of Lebanon in 2000, we saw a significant 
strengthening of Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed militia. During the 
second Lebanon war six years later, Hezbollah fired more than 4,300 
rockets at our cities.
    And in 2005, we withdrew from the Gaza Strip and handed it over to 
the Palestinian Authority. We were told that Gaza would turn into the 
Singapore of the Middle East and that peace would grow out of the 
greenhouses the Jewish residents had left behind.
    Instead, those greenhouses were used to cover up terrorists' 
tunnels dug across the border into Israeli towns and villages. Gaza 
quickly turned into a fortress of terror.
    But this does not mean all hope is lost. There is still much we can 
do to improve ties with our Arab neighbors, to generate peace and to 
cultivate economic prosperity for all people who live in this land.
    The secret is bottom-up peace. After more than two decades of 
working on a single solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict--the 
establishment of a Palestinian state--it is time to realize that 
coexistence and peaceful relations will not be obtained through 
artificial processes imposed on us from above. Instead, I propose a 
four-step plan.
    First, we would work to upgrade the Palestinian autonomy in the 
West Bank, in the areas largely under Palestinian control (known as 
Areas A and B, according to the Oslo Accords). Ideally, this will be 
done in coordination with the Palestinian Authority.
    The Palestinians will have political independence, hold their own 
elections, select their own leadership, run their own schools, maintain 
their own social services and issue their own building permits. They 
should govern themselves and run their day-to-day lives. Israel should 
not interfere. Much of this already exists, but we can do better.
    This Palestinian entity will be short of a state. It will not 
control its own borders and will not be allowed to have a military.
    Gaza already functions like a state, but the Hamas Government in 
control there is bent on Israel's destruction. As long as Gaza remains 
on this path, it cannot be a party to any agreement.
    The second step will see the massive upgrade of roads and 
infrastructure, as well as the removal of roadblocks and checkpoints 
throughout the West Bank. The objective will be to ensure freedom of 
movement for all residents--Palestinian and Israeli--and to improve 
their quality of life.
    No peace, though, can last without economic viability. So the third 
step will be to build economic bridges of peace between Israelis and 
Palestinians.
    In my former career as a high-tech entrepreneur, I saw how diverse 
people from different backgrounds could learn to work together in 
pursuit of economic prosperity. Already, there are 15 industrial zones 
in the West Bank where Israelis work alongside about 15,000 
Palestinians. These zones pump about $300 million a year into the 
Palestinian economy. Imagine what another 15 industrial zones could do.
    Lastly, I propose applying Israeli law in Area C, which is the part 
of the West Bank controlled by Israel under the Oslo agreement. The 
Palestinians who live there would be offered full Israeli citizenship. 
We can start with the known settlement blocs that everyone agrees will 
remain part of Israel even under a final status agreement. By applying 
Israeli law and asserting national sovereignty in those blocs, while 
upgrading Palestinian autonomy in Areas A and B, we will reduce the 
scope of territory in dispute, making it easier to reach a long-term 
agreement in the future.
    I am aware that the world will not immediately accept this 
proposal. It seems to go against everything Israel, the Palestinians 
and the international community have worked toward over the last 20 
years. But I will work to make this plan government policy because 
there is a new reality in the Middle East, which has brought an end to 
the viability of the Oslo peace process.
    The regional upheaval and disintegration of nation states oblige us 
to act responsibly. We must work toward realistic goals that are 
capable of providing real security and economic prosperity.


    Senator Cruz. Given that the current prime minister of 
Israel has been explicitly on record raising concerns about a 
two-state solution, particularly a two-state solution forced 
from outside of Israel, I think the Senator was mistaken when 
he said Israeli officials have not made this case. And I 
believe we should be agnostic. We should allow Israel and the 
Palestinians to achieve peace on their own terms without 
presuming to dictate the terms of peace or without presuming to 
dictate the terms of security.
    The Chairman. The Senator from Texas is opposed to language 
that reaffirms longstanding bipartisan U.S. policy to support 
direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians in 
support of a two-state solution, but I am not totally really 
clear on the Senator's position here. Is it that he no longer 
believes a two-state solution is the most viable and 
sustainable path for Israel's long-term national security and 
democratic character? I would also point out that the Senator 
is a co-sponsor of the base bill, which includes the following 
finding: ``These historic agreements could help advance peace 
between Israel, the Arab states, and relevant countries and 
regions, further diplomatic openings and enhance efforts 
towards a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian 
conflict resulting in two states, a democratic Jewish state of 
Israel and a viable democratic Palestinian state living side by 
side in peace, security, and mutual recognition.'' So I look at 
this, and I will ask unanimous consent that the rest of my 
statement be included in the record.

    [The information referred to follows:]


             Statement Submitted by Senator Robert Menendez

    Last month's violence between terrorists in Gaza and Israel offered 
yet another reminder that the status quo is not tenable for the safety 
and security of Israelis or Palestinians.
    While the United States should not--and indeed cannot--impose a two 
state solution or any final status agreement, it remains in our 
interest to support those efforts. Israelis and Palestinians deserve to 
live in peace, security, and dignity--and the best way to achieve that 
is through continuing the longstanding, bipartisan objective of 
supporting a two-state solution.
    I oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.


    The Chairman. The base bill that the gentleman ultimately 
co-sponsored before anything was changed talked about that. So 
with that, the question is----
    Senator Cruz. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. The question is on the Cruz amendment.
    Senator Cruz. Mr. Chairman, you just raised something about 
what I said. I would like to be able to respond to it.
    The Chairman. The gentleman has had--the gentleman has had 
two rounds to make----
    Senator Cruz. You just raised something about--you asked 
why I sponsored something. I would like the ability to respond 
to the charge you made.
    The Chairman. I asked--the gentleman has had two rounds, 
and it is time to vote on the Cruz amendment.
    Senator Cruz. So a point of personal privilege. If you are 
going to say something about me and what I support, then I 
should have the ability to respond to it.
    The Chairman. I said--I said nothing about the gentleman. I 
asked a question as to what is his ultimate goal.
    Senator Cruz. So you are afraid of a response? You are 
unwilling to allow me to respond?
    The Chairman. Senator Cruz, this committee has had a long 
history which you are blackening.
    Senator Cruz. I am blackening it by wanting to respond to a 
charge you directed at me.
    The Chairman. By virtue of turning--of turning the 
committee's----
    Senator Cruz. You want to make charges and not have----
    The Chairman [continuing]. Of turning the committee's 
business for a political purpose.
    Senator Cruz. What political purpose----
    The Chairman. We have had no history of that.
    Senator Cruz [continuing]. What political purpose is that?
    The Chairman. We have had no history of that.
    Senator Cruz. Mr. Chairman, what political purpose is that?
    The Chairman. You understand the political purpose very 
well.
    Senator Cruz. No, I really do not.
    The Chairman. Maybe it is your presidential aspirations, I 
do not know, but you are turning it into political purposes.
    Senator Cruz. Mr. Chairman----
    The Chairman. You held over every nominee. Every nominee. I 
have never seen that.
    Senator Cruz [continuing]. Well, and I did so for a policy 
that, Mr. Chairman, you supported----
    The Chairman. It has no policy issue.
    Senator Cruz [continuing]. That the Biden administration 
has deliberately undercut and given a gift to Putin and Russia. 
And at least in the prior Administration, you agreed with that. 
You leveled a charge against me. Apparently you do not want a 
response to that.
    The Chairman. But I never in the prior Administration held 
up all of the nominees on an agenda because I had a policy 
difference. You are the first Member that I know of to do that. 
In any event, I will give you 2 minutes to respond, and then we 
are going to vote on your amendment.
    Senator Young. Can we turn to something easier, like AUMF, 
Mr. Chairman?
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. I hope you can make that easy.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. Two minutes. The gentleman is recognized.
    Senator Cruz. Mr. Chairman, the language you that read from 
the base bill, I did agree to because the base bill discussed 
that the Abraham Accords could lead to a negotiated two-state 
solution. I agree with that. It could lead to that. And that 
language, my staff specifically negotiated with your language 
as being agreeable, then in the manager's package at the last 
minute, that language was changed. Now, people are entitled to 
change the language, but I disagree with the change of the 
language, and it went from saying it could lead to a negotiated 
two-state solution to it is U.S. policy to support that. Making 
it U.S. policy to try to impose a two-state solution, I 
believe, is a material change. I think it is a harmful change. 
I think it is harmful to the peace process, and that is why I 
believe this bill should not have that language. I would be 
very happy going back to the original language that was there 
before it was changed.
    The Chairman. The vote is on the Cruz amendment, and the 
clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
    The Chairman. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    The Chairman. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    The Chairman. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Markley. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    Senator Booker. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schatz?
    The Chairman. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen?
    The Chairman. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    Senator Risch. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Rubio. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Young?
    Senator Young. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cruz?
    Senator Cruz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rounds?
    Senator Rounds. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hagerty?
    Senator Hagerty. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the ayes are----
    The Chairman. Senator Markey wishes to be recognized as 
voting?
    Senator Markey. In person.
    The Chairman. No, in person. The clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 3 and the noes are 
16.
    The Chairman. And the amendment fails. Senator Cruz, you 
have another amendment?
    Senator Cruz. I do. I call up Cruz First Degree 2. When it 
comes to the Abraham Accords and the Biden administration's 
policies, in the last several months the Biden administration 
has sent hundreds of millions of dollars to the Palestinian 
Authority. They have sent $75 million for general economic 
support. They sent $150 million for UNRRA. They have sent $15 
million for COVID-19. Secretary Blinken announced $360 million 
after meeting with Palestinian President Abbas, and on Monday, 
they sent the committee notification for another $275,000. This 
money is flooding into the Palestinian Authority, even though 
the Palestinian Authority is unabashedly in bed with Hamas, 
even though Hamas just finished raining 4,000 rockets down on 
the people of Israel, and even though the Palestinian Authority 
continues the so-called pay to slay policy, where they pay 
ransoms to the families of suicide bombers who murder Israelis 
and murder Americans. And they continue to pay them, and they 
continue to pay them in recent weeks.
    Now, money is fungible. Unfortunately, it appears the 
Administration treats the Taylor Force Act as a problem to 
circumvent, so they made the determination they are willing to 
pay one account, but not another account, even while the 
recipient of those funds continues paying to encourage 
terrorism and the targeting of innocent Israeli civilians, 
innocent American civilians. I believe the American taxpayers 
are rightly horrified at the idea that U.S. taxpayers' money 
goes to support, on an ongoing basis, to reward and celebrate 
terrorists who have murdered innocent people, and yet that is 
exactly what the Palestinian Authority is doing.
    And so the Second Degree amendment--Cruz First Degree 2 
rather--adds the words, ``should the Secretary of State certify 
that the Palestinian Authority, the Palestine Liberation 
Organization, and any successor affiliated organizations where 
such entities have ceased payments for acts of terrorism by 
individuals who are imprisoned after being fairly tried and 
convicted for acts of terrorism, and by individuals who died 
committing acts of terrorism as described by the Taylor Force 
Act.'' And this ensures that the provisions of the Taylor Force 
Act are honored and that we do not have funds that are 
continuing to go for people to carry out acts of terrorism.
    The Chairman. Any other Member seeking recognition? Senator 
Risch?
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman, briefly. I am going to support 
this for the reasons I stated previously. And, again, I cannot 
underscore enough that we have laws, and we have executive 
orders, and everything else, and this money continues to leak 
for payments to the terrorists. I think there has been some 
recent proposals that indicate that there needs to be a third 
party independent group that oversees the disbursements of 
funds that are needed for humanitarian relief because this is 
not working. Hamas is pulling money off of this. They are 
taxing the people, and it is U.S. taxpayer dollars that are 
going for this. And we cannot say it enough: this has got to 
stop. There is a way to stop it, and that is for some type of a 
third party entity that oversees the disbursal of these funds 
so it goes to where we intend it to go. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    The Chairman. While this amendment is somewhat inartfully 
drafted, I believe the intention is try to impose a new 
standard on the Middle East Partnership for Peace Act. However, 
the amendment is written in such a way that can only be 
described, from my view, as a partisan ``gotcha'' attempt to 
come away with some sort of statement that those who vote 
against it are voting against the Taylor Force Act or its 
requirements. Personally, I have had enough of that.
    The Middle East Partnership for Peace Act, or MEPPA, which 
92 Senators voted for, already has a provision specifically 
stating that all funds will comply with all U.S. laws and 
regulations regarding assistance, including to the 
Palestinians. By definition, this includes the Taylor Force 
Law. Indeed, this text was negotiated specifically with those 
concerns already in mind. MEPPA also explicitly prohibits 
funding to PA, the PLO, or, like all U.S. assistance, to 
terrorist organizations. Its goal is, in fact, to work outside 
the parameters of governmental entities to support private 
enterprise, economic partnerships, and people-to-people 
connections. MEPPA was carefully negotiated and garnered the 
support of nearly 535 members of the House and Senate, and S. 
1061 has support from more than half of the Senate. So I, for 
those and many other reasons, will oppose the amendment.
    Senator Kaine. Mr. Chair, thank you. You have done a good 
job of explaining. But just for colleagues, MEPPA is designed, 
as indicated, to fund the work of nonprofit or NGO groups to 
support economic development and peacebuilding efforts among 
Israelis and Palestinians. These are the kinds of groups that 
we should be trying to help and support because they can have a 
significant impact for good among Israelis and Palestinians. 
The effect of the Cruz amendment would be, unless the Secretary 
of State said the PLO was done with terrorism, all of these 
good actors that are trying to do good things would no longer 
be able to receive funds under MEPPA. We should be helping good 
people do good things and stopping bad people from doing bad 
things. But we should not hold the bad things that some people 
do against those who are trying to do good in a region that 
needs more organizations trying to do good. And for that 
reason, I oppose the amendment.
    The Chairman. Is there anyone seeking recognition?
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman, for a second time, briefly.
    The Chairman. Senator Risch?
    Senator Risch. With all due respect, Senator Kaine, you 
know, it is ironic that we are sitting here defending or 
debating this when we all agree on MEPPA and what it is trying 
to do and wants to do. The difficulty is that these payments 
just flat are not working. We got a GAO report that says the 
law is not being followed and this money is going to places we 
did not intend it to go. Why have a GAO if we do not follow 
that? In addition to that, I will bet everybody in this room 
has read the story about Abbas himself taking money to one of 
the terrorist's families and delivering it right after the U.S. 
cache hit them. That is the problem, it is not working. As far 
as the goals of MEPPA, we all agree on that. I could not agree 
with you more as far as trying to get the right people to do 
it. The problem is we do not have the right people right now. 
The cash is not being administered to the right people. Thank 
you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Is there any other Member seeking 
recognition?
    Senator Hagerty. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Senator Hagerty?
    Senator Hagerty. I would just like to echo the statement of 
the Ranking Member. I was just in Israel. This is continuing. 
This is not working. I saw it with my own eyes on the ground. 
This is not working.
    The Chairman. With that, the vote is on the Cruz amendment.
    The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
    The Chairman. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    The Chairman. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    Senator Markey. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Markley. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    Senator Booker. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schatz?
    The Chairman. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen?
    The Chairman. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    Senator Risch. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Rubio. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Young?
    Senator Young. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cruz?
    Senator Cruz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rounds?
    Senator Rounds. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hagerty?
    Senator Hagerty. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No.
    The clerk will report.
    The Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 11; the noes are 
11.
    The Chairman. And the amendment fails. Any other Member 
seeking recognition for the purpose of an amendment?
    Senator Cruz. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Yes?
    Senator Cruz. I ask unanimous consent that my name be 
removed as a co-sponsor of this bill.
    The Chairman. Without objection.
    Is there a motion to approve S. 1061, as amended?
    Voice. So move.
    The Chairman. So moved. Is there a second?
    Voice. Second.
    The Chairman. Seconded.
    Senator Murphy. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. I am sorry.
    Senator Murphy. Before we vote----
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Senator Murphy [continuing]. Could I just have two moments? 
I am very supportive of the underlying resolution. I just 
wanted to advance one important equity of this committee moving 
forward as we try to incentivize through this legislation 
additional recognition agreements. Senator Cruz laid out his 
sort of version of the reasons for which these agreements 
became possible. That is a complicated story, but we should be 
really honest that one of the reasons is that the United States 
was prepared to do things for the parties to these agreements 
that we were not prepared to do, for instance, the recognition 
of Morocco's claims over the Western Sahara, the decision to 
sell F-35s and Reaper drones to the UAE, something that we had 
never done before to any ally in the Middle East not named 
Israel. And so as we move forward this resolution, I just want 
to protect our equity as an institution to make sure that these 
agreements, to the extent the U.S. is an official or unofficial 
party, are transparent. It may be that if we saw all of the 
pieces on the table, we would still all be very supportive, but 
it is pretty clear that commitments were made by the United 
States that this committee, in particular, and Congress did not 
get a chance to review.
    One, you know, final comment on the first Cruz amendment. I 
am glad we rejected it in a bipartisan fashion. But, you know, 
frankly, this idea that expressing U.S. policy is arrogance, 
you know, runs counter to decades and centuries of U.S. foreign 
policy. It is not arrogance for the United States to express a 
preference about how we believe our interests would be 
protected anywhere in the world, even when it comes to our 
closest allies. We do it all the time in Europe. We have done 
it historically when it comes to U.S.-Israel relations. I think 
while there are all sorts of dangerous precedents that would be 
created if we had adopted the Cruz amendment, if that is the 
reason behind it, I would add that to the list. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Senator Risch?
    Senator Risch. Senator Portman is a sponsor of this bill, 
and he has a statement he would like entered into the record. I 
ask unanimous consent.
    The Chairman. Without objection.

    [The information referred to follows:]

    
    
    The Chairman. The question is on the motion to approve S. 
1061, as amended.
    All those in favor will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All those opposed will say no.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it, and the legislation, as 
amended, is----
    Senator Cruz. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be recorded as 
voting no.
    The Chairman. Senator Cruz shall be recorded as a voting 
no.
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Senator Risch?
    Senator Risch. Before we close today, I would like to have 
myself and Senator Rubio recorded as a ``no'' on the Robinson 
nomination, please, for the record.
    The Chairman. It shall be so recorded.
    Senator Risch. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Any other Members want to be recorded a 
certain way on anything?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, with the thanks of the Chair, this--
oh, I am sorry--completes the committee's business.
    I ask unanimous consent that staff be authorized to make 
technical and conforming changes.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    And with that, the committee stands adjourned.


    [Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]



                              ----------                              






                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, JULY 28, 2021

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

                Summary of Action Taken by the Committee


                              LEGISLATION

  S. 2297, International Pandemic Preparedness and COVID-19 Response 
        Act, as amended--agreed to by voice vote

     Manager's amendment--agreed to by voice vote

     Cruz 1st Degree amendment #2--ruled out of order; appeal failed 
            by roll call vote (7-15)

          Yeas: Rubio, Johnson, Paul, Young (proxy), Barrasso (proxy), 
        Cruz, and Hagerty (proxy)

          Nays: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, Kaine 
        (proxy), Markey, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen, Risch, 
        Romney (proxy), Portman (proxy), and Rounds (proxy)

     Paul 1st Degree amendment #2--not agreed to by roll call vote (4-
            18)

          Yeas: Johnson, Paul, Barrasso, Cruz

          Nays: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, Kaine 
        (proxy), Markey, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen, Risch, 
        Rubio, Romney, Portman (proxy), Young (proxy), Rounds (proxy), 
        Hagerty (proxy)

  S. 812, A bill to direct the Secretary of State to develop a strategy 
        to regain observer status for Taiwan in the World Health 
        Organization, and for other purposes--agreed to by voice vote

  S.Res. 310, Expressing solidarity with Cuban citizens demonstrating 
        peacefully for fundamental freedoms, condemning the Cuban 
        regime's acts of repression, and calling for the immediate 
        release of arbitrarily detained Cuban citizen, as amended--
        agreed to by voice vote

     Manager's Resolving Clause amendment--agreed to by voice vote

                              NOMINATIONS

  The Honorable Gentry O. Smith, of Virginia, to be an Assistant 
        Secretary of State (Diplomatic Security)--held over

  Ms. Monica P. Medina, of Maryland, to be an Assistant Secretary of 
        State (Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific 
        Affairs)--held over

  The Honorable Rena Bitter, of the District of Columbia, a Career 
        member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-
        Counselor, to be an Assistant Secretary of State (Consular 
        Affairs)--held over

  Mr. Marc Evans Knapper, of California, a Career member of the Senior 
        Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Socialist Republic of Vietnam--held over

  The Honorable Brian Nichols, of Rhode Island, to be an Assistant 
        Secretary of State (Western Hemisphere Affairs)--held over

  Dr. Karen Donfried, of the District of Columbia, to be an Assistant 
        Secretary of State (European Affairs and Eurasian Affairs)--
        held over

  The Honorable Mary Catherine Phee, of Illinois, a Career member of 
        the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be 
        an Assistant Secretary of State (African Affairs), a member of 
        the Board of Directors of the African Development Foundation, 
        and a member of the Board of Directors of the African 
        Development Foundation--held over

  Ms. Anne A. Witkowsky, of Maryland, to be an Assistant Secretary of 
        State (Conflict and Stabilization Operations), and to be 
        Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization --held over

                               FSO LISTS

  Jeanne Frances Bailey, et al., dated April 13, 2021 (PN 359)--agreed 
        to by voice vote

  Russell Anthony Duncan, et al., dated April 27 2021 (PN 477)--agreed 
        to by voice vote

  Marc Clayton Gilkey, dated April 27, 2021 (PN 478)--agreed to by 
        voice vote

   Gabriel J. Allison, et al., dated June 22, 2021 (PN 724)--agreed to 
        by voice vote

  Wade C. Martin, et al., dated June 22, 2021 (PN 727)--agreed to by 
        voice vote

                           Meeting Transcript

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:00 a.m. in Room 
SD-G50, Hon. Robert Menendez, Chairman of the committee, 
presiding.
    Present: Senators Menendez [presiding], Cardin, Shaheen, 
Coons, Murphy, Kaine, Markey, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van 
Hollen, Risch, Rubio, Johnson, Romney, Paul, Barrasso, and 
Cruz.

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

    The Chairman. This business meeting of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee will come to order.
    I acknowledge that we have our nominees for the subsequent 
hearing before us, so we just ask you to sit and hold tight.
    Today we will be marking up three legislative items, and 
voting on five Foreign Service Officer Promotion lists. As you 
all know, today's business meeting will be followed immediately 
by a nominations hearing.
    Now I have to make some remarks about today's meeting. We 
were also set to vote on a number of nominations today but, 
unfortunately, we have another request to hold over the entire 
slate of nominees.
    This has now happened several times this Congress, with all 
of the requests coming from the same Member of the minority. 
These holdovers are not a game. They can have serious and 
negative consequences for the State Department, U.S. personnel, 
and for our constituents.
    Just look at two of the nominees from today's list that 
were held over. Absent the holdover we would have voted on 
Gentry Smith's nomination. Mr. Smith is a nominee to head the 
State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security. His 
nomination has been pending for over 90 days, and it will be 
further delayed due to this holdover. So I ask, why stop the 
person whose job it is to keep our people safe?
    We would have also voted on Rena Bitter, the nominee to be 
Assistant Security of Consular Affairs. Every one of us has 
constituents who are desperate to get passports, and are 
frustrated by the enormous backlog at the State Department.
    Ms. Bitter is a proven leader and committed to focusing 
like a laser on eliminating the backlog. She has been pending 
in the committee for over 90 days, but she will have to wait 
longer due to the holdover, and as a result, our constituents 
will likely have to wait longer as well.
    For decades Members of this committee have used holdovers 
sparingly and, overall, responsibly, generally, when they have 
a question that needs to be answered, or they need a little 
more time to engage on the nominee. These constant and blanket 
holdovers are unprecedented, and in my view, unjustified in 
this committee.
    No Member of this committee has weaponized a holdover as 
has happened today, and over the last several months. As 
Chairman, I have returned the committee to operating under 
comity. That means that the Ranking Member has cleared every 
item on every markup agenda, including all nominees. Given the 
extensive minority input, input that often, you know, 
understandably slows the process on the front end, it is clear 
that these holdovers serve no purpose, other than delay. They 
are bad for the country, they are bad for our constituents, and 
they are testing the bounds of comity.
    We now have almost 30 nominees pending in the committee 
with completed files, and we will likely have more than 50 
nominees pending by the end of the August recess. It takes some 
hard work, but I am looking forward to working with the Ranking 
Member who has been, I must say, very cooperative and helpful 
in this regard, in trying to get more nominees up before the 
committee and hopefully to the floor before the recess.
    Now let me turn to the legislative items on our agenda, we 
have before us today, S. 2297, the International Pandemic 
Preparedness and COVID-19 Response Act; S. 812, a bill 
championing Taiwan's observer status in the World Health 
Organization; and S.Res. 310, a resolution expressing 
solidarity with Cuban citizens and condemning the Cuban 
regime's latest acts of repression.
    I am pleased that we will be marking up S. 2297, the 
International Pandemic Preparedness and COVID-19 Response Act. 
Senator Risch and I agreed to collaborate on this bill a few 
months ago, and today we have before us a bipartisan global 
health bill that includes a number of important measures to 
both enhance current COVID-19 response efforts and to ensure 
that we are better prepared for the next pandemic, whenever it 
may occur.
    COVID-19 is continuing to rage in many countries around the 
world, most recently as the Delta variant is showing us, the 
novel coronavirus continues to pose a threat to American lives 
and livelihoods as long as it persists anywhere in the world. 
And as we have learned from the pandemic, this dark chapter in 
which we have lost so many lives, only with better planning and 
better preparation here in the United States and around the 
world can we protect ourselves, our communities, and future 
generations from emerging pathogens.
    So I want to thank Senator Risch and his staff for their 
work on this bill, and the dedication to this critical issue. 
It is one of the issues the Ranking Member has made a central 
one with me, and I am glad that his name goes first on the 
bill.
    We will also be considering S. 812, which I introduced with 
Senator Inhofe in support of Taiwan's observer status in the 
World Health Organization. Efforts by the People's Republic of 
China to block Taiwan from gaining observer status at the World 
Health Assembly are narrow-minded and endanger the 
international community, particularly as we work to recover 
from the COVID-19 pandemic.
    This bill makes clear that the United States must do more 
to champion Taiwan's engagement in the international community 
and, particularly, at the World Health Organization at this 
time.
    Finally, we will be marking up S.Res. 310, which I 
introduced along with Senators Rubio, Risch, Kaine, Cardin, and 
several other Members, to demonstrate our bipartisan support 
for the Cuban people at a time when the Diaz Canel regime is 
desperately unleashing a campaign of violence, human rights 
abuses, and forced disappearances against the Cuban people.
    We must make sure that U.S. actions are aimed solely at 
helping the Cuban people and holding the regime to account for 
its brutality. This is a bicameral, bipartisan resolution that 
shows the United States Congress is united in its unflinching 
support for Cubans' fundamental human and social rights. We are 
speaking in honor and admiration of the work being carried on 
by brave freedom fighters in Cuba, and we are making a solemn 
promise not to ignore the suffering and subjugation of the 
Cuban people as they inch closer to realizing a future of 
freedom and prosperity.
    I look forward to the strong support on this and the other 
two legislative items before that.
    And with that, let me recognize the distinguished Ranking 
Member, Senator Risch.

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

    Senator Risch. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 
This bill, as you pointed out, has been a long time in coming. 
I started the first draft of this very, very early on in the 
pandemic when it became obvious that the world really was not 
equipped to deal with this.
    We had the World Health Organization that all of us thought 
would be the appropriate way to respond to this, but this 
pandemic was different. The WHO had done very good work in 
helping with PEPFAR, and the AIDS epidemic. It did very good 
work on polio, it did very good work on smallpox, but it was 
pretty evident right from the beginning that they were not 
prepared to respond to something that was moving as quickly as 
this was.
    So as I started to draft this, I went back and forth on a 
lot of different provisions and as most of us would recall, it 
was pretty political right at the beginning.
    And the then President weighed in on the WHO, which raised 
that issue to a political level that made it somewhat difficult 
to deal with.
    I want to thank Senator Murphy. I had the first 
conversation with him, in which he did not discourage me, but 
it was a spirited conversation, as to which direction we should 
go with this. And I kept an open mind throughout as to how we 
should do this. Then of course we have struggled to put a bill 
together that would be a strong bipartisan bill. This has to be 
bipartisan, something of this magnitude. Indeed, it is of the 
magnitude that at some point in world history, it may be the 
most important thing that everyone on this committee had done, 
because this is going to happen again.
    There is absolutely no question. This is going to happen 
again. And how we respond to it is going to be very important. 
After the Chair changed, Senator Menendez was kind enough to 
lend his ear to this, and his good graces. And we set about, 
again, resetting the bill, and getting it on a bipartisan track 
to accomplish what we wanted to accomplish.
    And what we wanted to accomplish, the object was not rocket 
science. It was very simple. And that is to have an 
organization that acted as a fire department, that when the 
house caught fire, somebody was there to answer the phone and 
respond. That was the model I set up for this at the very 
beginning. And I am pleased to say that I think we have reached 
that.
    And I want to thank every Member of this committee, whether 
you vote for the bill or against the bill, everybody has had 
thoughts about it, they have had input into it, and people have 
been very generous in a give and take.
    Obviously, like every bill, particularly one of this 
magnitude to pass this Congress, there is not one of us here 
that would vote for every provision stand alone, but together, 
I think it does do what is an important thing for this Congress 
to do. We are leading the world on this. The world looks for 
this.
    As I talk to people, as all of you do on this committee, 
from all over the world, they all agree that there needs to be 
a different way of responding than the way we responded to 
this. And so this is important in that regard. This bill 
elevates global health as a national security imperative, we 
know that that has been around for some time as when we look at 
the world threats from the intelligence committee every year, 
pandemic has always been one of those threats. It has been 
given kind of short shrift, because we have not had it, but it 
has been on there.
    This bill enables more effective diplomatic engagement and 
program coordination, builds upon the success of other models 
and effective foreign aid, PEPFAR and the Millennium Challenge 
Corporation to ensure--that those are examples to ensure 
transparency, accountability, self-reliance, and results. We 
stole every good idea we could from those other models that 
have been used before.
    It promotes burden sharing and partnerships through an 
innovative financing mechanism, which incentivizes eligible 
countries to more effectively identify threats, and invest in 
their own health security, and authorizes funds to carry out a 
strategic plan with clearly-defined roles and responsibilities 
to help countries close the gaps in health security, that keep 
us all vulnerable to pandemic threats.
    We all know what happens there affects us here, that that 
has become so obvious and apparent over the last 20 months. I 
want to thank the Chairman and our other co-sponsors, Senator 
Murphy and Senator Portman, for their important contributions. 
And again, I want to reiterate every Member of this committee 
who participated in this in one way or another.
    On the Cuba resolutions and the Taiwan bill I want to 
associate myself with the Chairman's remarks.
    And, with that, I will yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Risch.
    Without objection, we will now consider en bloc, five 
Foreign Service Officer Promotion lists, and two legislative 
items. They are, PN 359, PN 477, PN 478, PN 724, PN 727, S. 
812, and S.Res. 310, as amended by the Managers Resolving 
Clause amendments.
    Would any Members like to comment on any of these items 
before the vote?
    If not, is there a motion to approve these items en bloc 
with a resolution as amended by the Notice amendment I just 
referenced?
    Senator Risch. So moved.
    The Chairman. So moved. Is there a second?
    Senator Kaine. Second.
    The Chairman. So moved and seconded.
    The question is on the motion to approve the items as 
amended.
    All in favor, we will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes]
    All those opposed will say no.
    The ayes have it. With the majority of Members having voted 
in the affirmative, the ayes have it, and the items as amended 
are agreed to.
    Without objection, we will now consider S. 2297, the 
International Pandemic Preparedness and COVID-19 Response Act.
    Is there a motion to approve the substitute amendment?
    Senator Risch. I will move, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. They are so moved. Is there a second? Is 
there a second to approve the substitute amendment?
    Senator Cardin. Motions enthusiastically.
    Senator Rich. Thank you for the enthusiasm.
    The Chairman. Senator Cardin is very gracious.
    So moved and seconded. The question is on the motion to 
approve the substitute amendment?
    All those in favor will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes]
    All those opposed will say no.
    The majority of Members present, having voted in the 
affirmative, the ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.
    At this point, I just want to very briefly say, we are 
proud of the work that this bill has, I am pleased that the 
manager's amendment that we just voted to include, includes 
numerous contributions from our colleagues.
    And that is including Senators Cardin, Coons, Murphy, 
Markey, Merkley, Schatz, Van Hollen, Rubio, Paul, Portman, and 
Senator Hagerty. And I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
    Are there any amendments to this legislation?
    Senator Paul? Yes.
    Senator Paul. My amendment would reduce foreign aid by 10 
percent. Foreign aid welfare has been increasing at a rapid 
rate over nearly 70 percent increase over the past decade. 
Meanwhile, our overall debt approaches $30 trillion. I think it 
is time we reconsider paving roads overseas and consider paving 
roads here at home.
    The author, Dr. M.G. Quibria, in the Georgetown Journal of 
International Affairs writes, ``The history of foreign aid has 
been inextricably linked with corruption.'' He quotes Dambisa 
Moyo, who has a book called Dead Aid, which argues that the 
root cause of much of the development affliction of Africa can 
be traced to the large inflow of foreign aid that generates a 
cycle of corruption that results in slower growth and poverty.
    All of us have seen the stories where aid has come in and 
destroyed local markets, and destroyed local farmers, but this 
is not the exception, but the rule.
    Former U.N. Secretary, Ban Ki-moon, says that corruption 
devours about 30 percent of all development assistant money or 
aid. If you give more aid, you will get more corruption, if you 
give less aid, maybe you will get less corruption.
    The Mubarak family is a great example of the corruption of 
foreign aid. Over a couple of decade period they got somewhere 
around $30 to $40 billion. They managed to steal about half of 
it. The Elder Mubarak was estimated to be worth between $15 and 
$20 billion, even his kids were estimated to be worth about $5 
billion each. This is the history of foreign aid. It is a 
history of corruption. It is a history of money going from poor 
people in rich countries, to rich people in poor countries. And 
I think we should consider reducing foreign aid by 10 percent.
    And now I would ask for a recorded vote.
    The Chairman. Is there any other Senator wishing to be 
recognized on this amendment?
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Senator Risch?
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman, I am going to vote no on this 
amendment. I think, first of all, Senator Paul has to be 
commended. He has been a tireless advocate to review not just 
foreign aid assistance, but the entire U.S. budget. There is 
absolutely no doubt that there are things in here that need to 
be reviewed, that need to be cut out, that need to have 
sideboards on them, that need to be followed more closely.
    I think, though, that an across-the-board 10 percent cut is 
not the way to do this. I think it needs to be taken on, on a 
piece-by-piece basis. But I share his concern. I share his view 
on the waste and corruption, but I am going to vote no on this 
amendment.
    The Chairman. Any other Member seeking recognition?
    Very briefly, this amendment caps the Fiscal Year 2022 
appropriations for foreign assistance at a specific amount, 10 
percent below FY 2021 appropriations across all foreign 
assistance programs.
    With the pandemic surging here at home, thanks, in part, to 
the Delta variant, this amendment would reduce U.S. support for 
global efforts to combat COVID-19. And if we retreat in this 
regard, China will fill the void that we create.
    I commend the Senator for his constant commitment to making 
sure U.S. taxpayer dollars are used in the most effective way, 
but I cannot support this amendment.
    The Senator has asked for a recorded vote. The clerk will 
call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    Senator Markey. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    Senator Booker. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schatz?
    Senator Schatz. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Senator Van Hollen. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    Senator Risch. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Rubio. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Johnson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
    Senator Romney. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    Senator Risch. No, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Young?
    Senator Risch. No, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cruz?
    Senator Cruz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rounds?
    Senator Risch. No, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hagerty?
    Senator Risch. No, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No. The clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 4; the nays are 18.
    The Chairman. And the amendment is not agreed to.
    Senator Cardin, I understand you want to be recognized?
    Senator Cardin. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I had an amendment that 
dealt with Section 107. I am not going to offer that amendment, 
but I do want to raise the issue.
    And first, let me thank the Chairman and Ranking Member, 
particularly Senator Risch for all your efforts in trying to 
reach out and work with all of us on this particular bill. I 
thank you for the input of allowing some of our issues that we 
raised to be included in the manager's package.
    I still have a concern on Section 107, and let me express 
it, because I hope we can work this out as the bill works its 
way through the United States Senate. Section 107 says, 
``Governments using the COVID-19 pandemic as a pretense for 
repression have undermined democratic institutions, debilitated 
institutions for transparency and public integrity, quashed 
legitimate dissent, and attacks journalists, civil society, 
organization, activists, independent voices, and vulnerable and 
marginalized populations, including refugees and migrants, with 
far reaching consequences that will extend beyond the current 
crisis.''
    That is absolutely accurate. And we have to deal with that. 
And I applaud you for including that section in the bill. It is 
very important that we do it.
    You then go on to say that, program priorities, including 
programs that support democratic institutions, human rights 
defenders, civil societies, and freedom of the press, should be 
targeted to the extent feasible towards civil societies, 
organizations, in countries in which emergency government 
measures taken in response to COVID-19 pandemic, have violated 
internationallyrecognized human rights.
    My problem with that section is, I certainly want to fund 
this, but I do not want to take money away from programs that 
are currently underfunded, that are targeting the development 
of democratic institutions, and dealing with problems that we 
have.
    I have raised, several times, that we are not appropriating 
enough of the foreign assistance programs for good governance, 
the anti-corruption, to deal with the decline of democratic 
states.
    And I am concerned that this language could be interpreted 
to take money away from that program.
    Now, I know we have the distinguished Chairman of the 
subcommittee, the Senator from Delaware, on our committee, and 
I am sure he will protect that during the appropriation 
process, but I just really want to raise the issue that we do 
not take money away from programs that are already underfunded 
to meet this very desperate need. I would have been more 
comfortable if we would authorize additional funds for this 
purpose, which I think we should have.
    And I look forward to working with the Chairman and Ranking 
Member as this bill goes forward. And I will not press my 
amendment.
    Senator Risch. Thank you, Senator Cardin.
    I will respond briefly. First of all, I think that is a 
legitimate concern that you have. We have gone back and forth 
on funding on this bill, to a large degree, and settled on what 
I think is an appropriate number, but that, that number is 
written on paper for this year. It is not written in stone.
    There is no doubt in my mind that if we wind up with 
another one of these pandemics, that the money we are talking 
about here is peanuts compared to what we will wind up 
spending, just like this pandemic is. My idea is, that I really 
think these institutions will do better if we do not throw a 
whole bunch of money at it at the beginning that they are 
trying to spend when they are not really prepared to spend it.
    It is my idea that this thing get up, get running, we take 
the training wheels off next year, and then we keep going 
forward. But I fully intend, and I assume other Members of this 
committee are in the same position, and that is, we are going 
to be looking over the shoulder of this. We are going to be 
watching what this organization does as a new organization, 
because its newness, as everyone knows, can cause real 
difficulty sometimes.
    So I agree with you. I hope to join you in future years as 
we go forward.
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, if I could just respond very 
briefly. The concern is, we are dealing with the general fund 
foreign aid appropriations that go for democracy institutions. 
In the American Rescue Plan there are some funds available, and 
you have dealt with that in a different section, which I think 
you have handled the right way. I am concerned about the future 
appropriations being compromised, because there is just not 
enough funds available for this purpose.
    Where I want to see this purpose funded, I think we should 
be looking at how much additional funds are needed, or how we 
reallocate funds in order to meet al lthese priorities. That is 
the only reason I raise this. It should not be put ahead of 
other priorities that are currently being funded that are, in 
my view, underfunded.
    The Chairman. Thank you. I, first of all, appreciate the 
Senator withholding his amendment. Secondly, if the effect of 
the language would create the result that the Senator is 
concerned about, then I would share his concern, and we look 
forward to working with you as we move to the floor to refine 
it.
    Any other Senators wishing to offer an amendment, or 
recognition? Senator, Murphy.
    Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Very 
quickly, let me thank you for your leadership, along with 
Senator Risch. No small thing to make this substantial bill 
bipartisan, I appreciate your willingness to work with all of 
us. In particular, I want to draw our attention to Section 3 of 
this bill, which sets up some new, creative financing 
mechanisms.
    This comes from legislation Senator Risch and I had 
developed last year, modeled after the Millennium Challenge 
Corporation, public-private partnerships, working with 
individual nations to use U.S. dollars in order to leverage 
domestic policy changes, which can strengthen local public 
health systems. I think that is a smart usage of U.S. taxpayer 
funds.
    I did a couple of amendments I had offered here in the 
manager's package, and thank you for that. I did have an 
amendment relative to funding for the Coalition for Epidemic 
Preparedness that I will not call up. But it is really 
important that the United States make a substantial 
contribution to CEPI, I know only half of us voted for the 
American Rescue Plan, but in that bill I think it was commonly 
understood that there was an amount of money set aside for this 
organization.
    We were very fortunate this time around that it was 
American companies that were able to develop vaccines that 
right now are saving lives all across the country, and the 
world. CEPI, though, is an international organization that 
works both in a public and private sector manner to develop 
vaccines. And it may be the next pandemic comes with a vaccine 
that is developed through that international group. And the 
United States should be a substantial player there, just to 
make sure that if we do not develop the vaccine, if the 
international group does, that we have a seat at the table.
    And so I look forward to working with the Chair and the 
Ranking Member in continuing to make sure that we have an 
adequate contribution that we are at the table on CEPI's work. 
And at this time I will not call for an amendment requiring 
that contribution to be made, but I look forward to working 
with folks on that project.
    The Chairman. I thank the Senator for withholding his 
amendment. And we look forward to working with you. I share 
your views on CEPI.
    Senator Risch.
    Senator Risch. Very briefly. Thank you, Senator Murphy for 
withdrawing that. I think CEPI is going to be a player in this 
no matter what, and how it works with this new organization 
will be important. I think we are going to continue to review 
that as we go down the pike.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cruz seeks recognition.
    Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I call up Cruz first 
degree two. This is an amendment that would prohibit U.S. 
participation in the creation of a vaccine passport. And let me 
say, I think there are a lot of Texans, I think there are a lot 
of Americans across the country that are very frustrated at the 
Government responses to COVID-19. And I think the decision 
yesterday by the CDC to reverse its guidance, and to mandate 
masks for vaccinated people is the kind of decision that is 
infuriating people across this country.
    I believe the CDC's decision yesterday was politics. It was 
not science. It was a decision that somehow pretends vaccines 
do not work. The CDC months ago, rightly concluded that 
vaccinated people do not need to wear masks because the whole 
purpose of a vaccine is not to get the disease.
    That decision was right. The science has not changed, the 
only thing that has changed is the politics. A-year-and-a-half 
ago the CDC was one of, if not, the most respected, scientific 
and medical organization in the country. Today, the credibility 
of the CDC is in tatters, because leadership of the CDC has 
been willing to allow science to become politicized.
    We have seen Dr. Fauci take virtually every position, on 
virtually every subject under the sun. We have seen Dr. Fauci 
in his emails explain his view that masks do not work, and are 
not effective in preventing COVID-19. We then see Dr. Fauci 
changes positions over and over again. We have seen Dr. Fauci 
say that when he told people masks did not work, he actually 
believed masks did work, but he wanted people not to wear masks 
because he wanted first responders to have them first.
    I believe that when government scientists and health 
experts allow politics to trump the science, it does enormous 
damage to the willingness of the American people to believe 
anything they have to say. I think one of the aspects of 
yesterday's decision that illustrates the arbitrariness of this 
is the brand new decree that everyone in schools must wear a 
mask. It does not matter if you are vaccinated or not. If you 
enter a school, you must wear a mask.
    Now there is no great new scientific discovery that 
mandates this new edict. Indeed, we have seen throughout this 
crisis, that while COVID-19 can be very, very serious for 
vulnerable populations, for the very elderly, for those with 
significant comorbidities, that we have seen the incidence of 
serious disease with COVID-19 among children is very, very low. 
And there is no credible demonstration that children are a 
significant vector for spreading the disease.
    But the CDC, nonetheless, said anyone who steps in a school 
must be masked. It is not complicated why. They did so because 
the Teacher Union bosses demanded. That is a political 
decision. Political players can make political decisions. It 
would not surprise me to see elected officials deciding, I am 
going to give the union bosses what they demand. But that is 
not what the Center for Disease Control should be doing.
    My view on COVID is, it is serious. We should take serious 
steps to combat it. We have taken extraordinary steps to combat 
COVID-19, including an unprecedented effort to develop 
vaccines, hundreds of millions of which have been administered 
as we have come together and fought against this disease. But 
we have also seen stupid policies. We have seen lockdowns 
across this country that have shut down small businesses, 
destroyed restaurants, destroyed bars, destroyed generational 
businesses.
    We have seen schools shut down. Tens of millions of 
children sent home for over a year, children who are falling 
behind academically, who are falling behind in reading, who are 
falling behind in math, and the children being hurt are 
disproportionately low income, they are disproportionately 
Hispanic and African-American, and nonetheless, the edicts to 
shut down schools have continued. They were utterly 
unjustifiable.
    My view is simple. We should not have mandates. What does 
that mean? That means no mask mandates, that means no vaccine 
mandates, and I will say, you know, it was interesting, as I 
was reading through this COVID bill, Section 107, talking about 
what foreign governments are doing, an awful lot of the 
description of foreign governments can apply to our own 
government. So section 107 of this bill says, ``Certain foreign 
governments have taken measures in response to COVID-19 that 
violate the human rights of their citizens without clear public 
health justification.''
    Well, I think you could delete the word ``foreign'' in that 
because we have seen governments here, domestically, 
arbitrarily exercising power as well. This Section 107 also 
says, ``Government is using the COVID-19 pandemic as a pretext 
for repression, and undermine democratic institutions,'' check, 
``Debilitated institutions for transparency and public 
integrity,'' check, ``Quashed, legitimate dissent.''
    I might remind you that Anthony Fauci in those emails asked 
Facebook to silence anyone who said anything different than the 
government directive on speech, including if you suggested the 
origin of the Wuhan virus was actually in Wuhan China in a 
Chinese government lab. And Facebook willingly complied, 
censored that view, you are not allowed to have that view that 
this escaped from the government lab.
    Then miraculously, a couple of months ago, the 
Administration was forced to recognize, well, yeah, there is 
actually very significant evidence that the Wuhan virus escaped 
from a Chinese Government lab in Wuhan, and beyond that, that 
it may well have been developed with government research, with 
American taxpayer funding on gain-of-function research. Those 
views that were banned for a year are now acknowledged as 
having very significant scientific basis behind them.
    My view, there should be no mandates. No mask mandates, no 
vaccine mandates, and no vaccine passports. And what my 
amendment focuses on, is just the last piece of it, vaccine 
passports. And I will say, finally, this should be a 
proposition that is bipartisan. The Biden administration at 
least claims to oppose vaccine passports.
    Jen Psaki at the White House said, ``Let me be clear on 
this. I know there is a lot of questions, Psaki said, ``The 
government is not now, nor will we be supporting a system that 
requires Americans to carry a credential.'' If that is right, 
if that is credible, then I would urge the committee to adopt 
my amendment, prohibiting U.S. taxpayer funds from going to, or 
the American Government participating in, an international 
body, creating a vaccine passport that would be required for 
Americans traveling abroad.
    The Chairman. I have a number of questions and concerns 
about the substance of this amendment. However, the text of 
this amendment is clearly outside the scope of the Foreign 
Relations Committee's jurisdiction. Indeed, the text is drawn 
directly from S. 1932, a bill sponsored by the Senator from 
Texas that has been referred to the HELP Committee.
    ``This amendment prohibits the use of federal funds for the 
creation of a vaccine passport system or vaccine tracking 
database, including at the state level. And it requires that 
COVID-19 vaccination records be destroyed by all federal 
departments and agencies.''
    Neither of these issues fall within our committee's 
jurisdiction. Accordingly, I rule this amendment out of order.
    Senator Cruz. Mr. Chair. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. The Senator from Texas.
    Senator Cruz. Mr. Chairman, I think that jurisdictional 
argument is not justifiable based on the underlying bill. The 
underlying bill is about policies engaging in a bilateral basis 
in response to COVID. This amendment is prohibiting 
participating in an international organization creating a 
vaccine passport.
    This bill talks about vaccine monitoring, and this 
amendment ensures that we are not establishing a federal 
government vaccine database that is monitoring U.S. citizens in 
violation of their privacy rights. This bill talks about 
enhancing transparency of health data, and I think the 
amendment would protect the privacy of health data from a 
vaccine passport. And this bill also talks about establishing 
partnerships with the private sector to improve pandemic 
preparedness and response.
    This amendment addresses the same topic. To prevent the 
U.S. Government from working with a third party in the private 
sector to develop a vaccine passport and force it on the 
American people. And so accordingly I appeal the ruling of the 
Chair that the amendment is out order.
    The Chairman. The Senator appeals the ruling of the Chair 
that the amendment is not in order because it is outside of 
this committee's jurisdiction.
    The question for the committee is, shall the decision of 
the Chair be overturned? A ``yes'' vote means you wish to allow 
the amendment. A ``no'' vote means you agree with the Chair, 
that the amendment should not be allowed. As such, I will vote 
``no.''
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Senator Risch is recognized, then Senator 
Shaheen.
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman, likewise, I am going to 
support the ruling of the Chair.
    First of all, Senator Cruz makes a passionate and 
legitimate case about some very clear domestic issues that we 
are wrestling with. I think every state is wrestling with it. 
My state is having the same arguments about vaccinations, about 
passports, about masks, and everything else.
    But this is a bill dealing with the creation of an 
international institution for dealing with these things. It in 
no way requires the United States, or any state, or any 
locality, to follow any regulations that are adopted in an 
international forum.
    Really, if we are going to get this thing passed, it needs 
to have bipartisan support of the general proposition that we 
have here. If we get down into dealing with these, that really 
are, as the Chairman points out--[Technical issue.]
    Senator Risch. But if this Rule 15 of the Senate says that 
we are getting the Standing Committee, the language, that they 
submit that they are not within the jurisdiction of the 
committee, and as the Chairman pointed out, these matters 
clearly have been in the jurisdiction more broadly. So I 
respect the Chair's----
    The Chairman. Senator Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. Well, Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I also 
intend to support the ruling. But I want to respond to--I guess 
everybody gets the word, some of the misstatements that you 
made, I think too many of us, for too long, have been unwilling 
to correct misinformation that is out there. I think it is very 
clear, and the CDC said that, that they are responding to new, 
scientific information about what is happening with the 
coronavirus.
    It is the spread of the Delta variant, and the increasing 
amount of contagion and virus that comes with that Delta 
variant, that has produced this response from the CDC. And I 
would argue that we are where we are now, because the previous 
administration did not follow science, what they did is 
politicize the virus in a way that has gotten us to where we 
are today.
    You know, when I enrolled my kids in school they all had to 
produce vaccination records that showed they had been 
vaccinated for serious illnesses, in order to go to school. I 
was happy to do that, because I wanted my kids to be safe. I 
want my grandchildren to be safe. That is why I have encouraged 
all of them to get vaccinated, and they are at this point.
    And I think it is incumbent on us as political leaders to 
be clear with our constituents. You have a lot of people who 
look up to you, Senator Cruz, in Texas, and your unwillingness 
to acknowledge the coronavirus and the need for vaccinations, I 
think is one of the reasons that we see Texas is one of the 
third highest states in the country with the spread rate, 
because of the Delta variant.
    We need to encourage people to get vaccinated. Now it is 
their own choice, I agree with that, but when they understand 
the threat that faces them if they are not vaccinated, and we 
take the politics out of it, I think we have a much better 
chance of protecting people in this country, and that should be 
our goal.
    So I recognize your ability to offer this amendment, I 
intend to vote against it. And I think it is, again, it is not 
helpful to the debate to not have accurate information when we 
are talking to people.
    The Chairman. Senator Paul? Senator Paul seeks recognition.
    Senator Paul. You know, I think the Senator is right. The 
facts are very important, but I think also, it is very 
important as we discuss the facts of the virus that we realize 
that someone's opinions, we should not be discussing--believing 
your opinion is the truth, and no one else can be heard on it. 
But this is the real problem, I think it is not the real thing. 
So I will give you a couple of examples, if you want to malign 
Texas for taking them a lighter touch than some of the other 
states.
    The highest death rate in the world is New Jersey and New 
York. States with the heaviest touch in the entire world, New 
Jersey and New York have the highest death rates by far. No one 
is going to exceed them.
    As far as the facts of the Delta virus, the Delta variant, 
Public Health England looked at 92,000 people who got the Delta 
variant. Many, many articles have shown it to be more 
transmissible. I do not think anybody disputes that, but when 
you look at the death rate of the Delta variant, both 
vaccinated folks and unvaccinated folks who died from it, the 
death rate was a great deal lower than the wild variant.
    For those who were vaccinated and over 50, the death rate 
was about 1.4 percent, for those over 50 who were unvaccinated 
was about 3.4 percent. This is much lower than the wild 
variant, the wild variant above 50 was about a 5 to 6 percent 
death rate for all-comers last year.
    So there is a great deal of evidence, but when one side 
presumes that you know the truth, and that, oh, everything says 
that the Delta variant is more deadly. No, there are facts that 
on both sides, you can argue what science you see and what we 
see. But the real danger in our country is people presuming to 
know the truth and calling other Senators misinformation, and I 
presume this would be the argument.
    Well, why don't we shut down Ted Cruz? Why don't we not let 
him speak at all, that is what is going on in our country, 
that----
    Senator Shaheen. I did not suggest----
    Senator Paul. It is not your time. When it is your time, 
you can have your time back. It is not your time to interrupt.
    But here is the point. The point is, is this is going on 
across America. There are people on your side of the aisle 
introducing legislation to tell Facebook that my opinion cannot 
and should not be heard. I quote from scientific literature 
every day, and you can disagree with it, but the thing is, your 
side is wanting to take down the argument and have your way 
imprinted on the American mind with no objection. That goes 
against everything with regard to free speech that we know of 
our country. Mr. Chair?
    The Chairman. The Chair will remind Members, that when they 
have their time it is their time. And corrections can be made 
subsequently. I will take the opportunity to correct the 
Senator with reference to New Jersey, at the height of the 
pandemic, yes, we did have a high death rate, but now as a 
result of vaccinations, where nearly 60 percent of the 
population is vaccinated, we have the lowest of any place in 
the nation, we have the lowest transmission rate, even though 
we are now facing the challenge of the Delta variants. So 
everything has to be put in the appropriate context.
    Senator Johnson. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Senator Kaine has asked for recognition. I 
will get back to you.
    Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to be 
brief. I also wanted to make a quick correction of Senator Cruz 
to go to the point Senator Shaheen mentioned. This is not about 
shutting off debate, or keeping people from expressing their 
opinions, but Senator Cruz, at the beginning of his comment, I 
do not have the court reporter's transcript ahead of me, but he 
said, that the CDC action yesterday to recommend mask wearing, 
the only thing that had changed was politics.
    That was what he said.
    The only thing that justified the CDC's guidance was 
politics. And that is frankly ridiculous.
    It is ridiculous because in your comment, you never said 
anything about the Delta variant. You never said anything about 
the rising caseload in Texas, and Virginia, and everywhere. You 
did not acknowledge that the Texas Department of State Health 
Services before the CDC, is still recommending that people wear 
masks because of the Delta variant. You can have opinions about 
the potency of the Delta variant, we can debate those. But when 
you say that the CDC action yesterday was based purely on 
politics, and was unrelated to the surge in the Delta variant 
that is hospitalizing people at near-record numbers, and 
killing far too many Americans, I just worry about folks who 
are watching a hearing like this. When they think that their 
representatives of government are trashing the institutions of 
government, and asserting that they are only acting by 
politics, when we are in the middle of such a challenging spike 
in the pandemic, the effect of those comments is to weaken 
people's belief in the institutions of this country.
    And these institutions are not perfect because humans are 
not perfect, but I have lived in a military dictatorship, I 
have seen how other people live, and I just do not feel that we 
should be needlessly trashing our health agencies, as they are 
trying to recommend, in a difficult circumstance, ways for 
people to be safe.
    This is not about politics, what the CDC did yesterday, 
just as the Texas State Health Department's recommendation, 
which, like the CDC's, is not a mandate. It is a recommendation 
about how people should stay safe. We are just trying to do the 
very best we can to keep people safe, and I do not know why 
folks would want to undermine that.
    The Chairman. Senator Johnson?
    Senator Johnson. Mr. Chairman, I just had to push back. 
When we hear accusations from the other side that Republicans 
have politicized COVID. I mean, go back to March, April, May, 
June of 2020, who was politicizing COVID? It is the current 
President and Vice President in their campaign that expressed 
skepticism over a Trump vaccine. So I cannot stand by and let 
the other side accuse Republicans of politicizing COVID. It has 
been your side that has done that.
    And you did it, and you won the campaign, you won the 
presidency. Congratulations. Now my point with the agencies is 
they have not been forthright. I listened to Jen Psaki 
yesterday. Well, it is all based on data. Okay, show us the 
data. Be transparent. There is a law on the books that says if 
five members of the Homeland Security Committee, which I 
formerly chaired, sign an oversight request, the agencies shall 
not say ``would you kind of maybe do it,'' they shall turn over 
the information.
    We have five members of the Homeland Security Committee 
asking the Health and Human Services Department to turn over 
the emails from Anthony Fauci, unredacted, unredacted. What we 
got yesterday was the 4,000 pages of redacted emails. The 
agencies are not being transparent. And I would argue that that 
is the reason you are seeing people hesitant. It is not vaccine 
hesitancy.
    I held an event in Wisconsin on June 28th, with five women 
and a 13 year old girl who believed they were vaccine injured. 
The CDC, NIH, the vaccine manufacturers are ignoring these 
people. They are casting them aside. They just want to be seen, 
they want to be heard, they want to be believed so that 
somebody might just acknowledge that maybe it is the vaccine 
that was the problem, so they can get effective treatment.
    Where is the ounce of sympathy for the truth? So again, we 
want transparency. We want data. It is not our side that has 
politicized this. It is the Democrats that have politicized 
this. I am getting tired of hearing the false accusations 
coming from the other side. I am getting sick of being attacked 
for just asking legitimate questions.
    You know, as long as I have been alive, when it comes to 
health matters, it has always been stated, get a second 
opinion. I do not know when all of a sudden the CDC, NIH, and 
the FDA have become the gods of information, and we should 
never question their considered judgment. There is plenty of 
other people have different views. Those views should be 
respected, and they should be allowed to be aired.
    And I totally agree with Senator Cruz. I am completely 
opposed to mandates and passports. We have given up enough 
freedom during this pandemic. It is time for Americans to 
reclaim their freedom. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Cruz seeks recognition. And then I am going to call 
a question. We have had a robust discussion on this. And after 
Senator Cruz, Senator Risch will have a chance. Then we will 
have a vote.
    Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Shaheen impugned my integrity. And she claimed, 
falsely, that I was somehow suggesting vaccines are not 
effective. That was an absolute falsehood, whether it was 
deliberate or not, I will not speculate. But it is precisely 
the opposite of what I was saying, and had been saying, 
vaccines are effective. I have been vaccinated, my wife has 
been vaccinated, my parents have been vaccinated, my wife's 
parents have been vaccinated.
    I have been urging Americans to get vaccinated. But I also 
believe in individual liberty. I believe in freedom. It is your 
damn choice whether you get vaccinated. I think it made sense 
for me in consultation with my doctor, but you have the ability 
to make your choice. And the irony is, it is the Biden 
administration that is doing what Senator Shaheen accused me of 
doing.
    When they put out, the CDC puts out this rule, even if you 
have been vaccinated, you got to put a mask on, it is the Biden 
administration that are telling people, vaccines do not work. I 
actually understand vaccines do work, which is why that is an 
arbitrary rule to require people who have been vaccinated to 
put a mask on.
    And by the way, we see the Kabuki Theater here, everyone 
here has been vaccinated. As soon as the CDC said that we saw 
Democrats putting on masks, not because the vaccine suddenly 
stopped working yesterday, but it was working two days ago, 
nope, because now it is a virtual signal of submissiveness to 
wear a mask.
    I would note. None of the Democrats who spoke, said one 
word about my point of the arbitrary demand that everyone in a 
school wear masks, even though kids have not gotten, by and 
large, seriously ill, or been a provable vector for spreading 
this disease in significant amounts. This was done because the 
teachers unions, the union bosses demanded it, politically.
    But Senator Shaheen also said that that our constituents 
deserve clarity. I agree with that. She described how happy and 
eager she was when schools required kids to get vaccinated. And 
you are right, there are vaccine requirements, there are 
different diseases, and each state can determine what is 
required concerning vaccine. So in the interest of clarity, I 
would just ask Senator Shaheen, do you believe there should be 
a vaccine mandate for COVID-19? And do you believe the 
Government should issue or participate in a vaccine passport?
    I answered those unequivocally, no. And I would ask Senator 
Shaheen to have the same transparency. Do you support a vaccine 
mandate for COVID-19? Do you support a vaccine passport?
    The Chairman. Time has expired.
    Senator Risch?
    Senator Risch. Well, Mr. Chairman, you know, I am right 
back to where I started on this thing. The very first time I 
sat down on the draft of this bill, President Trump had just 
announced that he had no confidence in the WHO, et cetera, et 
cetera. It became incredibly political, and heated, just as 
this has become.
    This bill has nothing to do with mandatory vaccinations. It 
has nothing to do with the Government collecting information on 
people, and with all due respect to my good friend from Texas, 
I would respectfully ask that we keep that out of this bill. 
This is to create an agency, an international agency that will 
respond differently and better than the WHO responded.
    We have tried to keep the politics out of this. I think the 
issues that you have raised are absolute legitimate issues, 
issues that should be taken up on a bill that actually deals 
with that. This bill does not. And indeed, under the Rule 15 of 
the Senate, I have to agree with the Chairman that it is not 
appropriate for this bill.
    I would plead with people to focus on what this bill does, 
and what an important thing we are doing here for the world, if 
we get another one of these pandemics. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Look, I think we all believe in 
liberty, we all believe in freedom, but my freedom to live when 
it clashes against those who ultimately choose not to get 
vaccinated, and to put my life and the life of my constituents, 
and the life of my family at risk, that is a clash there of our 
individual freedoms.
    The reason for the CDC's announcement is not that vaccines 
do not work, it is that the Delta variant can be carried even 
by the vaccinated. And if you care about your fellow man, as 
the Bible teaches us, then ultimately you would choose to wear 
a mask so that you mitigate the possibility of infecting your 
fellow man. That is what the recommendation is all about.
    But in any event, I will remind our colleagues, the 
question for the committee is, shall the decision of the Chair 
be overturned? A yes vote means you wish to allow the 
amendment, a ``no'' vote means you agree with the Chair that 
the amendment should not be allowed.
    As such, I will vote, ``no.''
    All those in favor, who say ``aye'' will, in essence, say 
they, they wish the amendment to proceed.
    So, with that----
    Senator Cruz. Mr. Chairman I ask for a recorded vote.
    The Chairman. A recorded vote is requested.
    The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. No.
    Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    The Chairman. No, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    Senator Markey. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    Senator Booker. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schatz?
    Senator Schatz. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Senator Van Hollen. No.
    Mr. Risch?
    Senator Risch. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Rubio. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Johnson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
    Senator Risch. No, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    Senator Rischn. No, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Young?
    Senator Risch. Aye, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Risch. Aye, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cruz?
    Senator Cruz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rounds?
    Senator Risch. No, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hagerty?
    Senator Risch. Aye, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No. The clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 7; and the nays are 
15.
    The Chairman. The decision of the Chair is not overturned. 
The amendment is not in order on the committee.
    Is there anyone else seeking recognition?
    Senator Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I 
want to go to a completely different part of this, which is 
whether we are being ambitious enough in this bill.
    I would like to enter in the record a letter from 60 health 
and advocacy organizations, that is addressed to President 
Biden. And we have been provided with copies here in Congress.
    And they lay out the vision that I think is consistent with 
this bill, that we need to aggressively help the world take on 
this disease, that we have a huge stake from a humanitarian 
perspective, we have a huge stake from an economic perspective, 
and we certainly have a huge stake from our own healthcare 
perspective, because as long as the disease is raging around 
the world, it is going to be returning to the U.S. in all kinds 
of ways, and affecting us here, including our health and our 
economy.
    These groups laid out a vision that I put into my first-
degree amendment number three, which I will not ask for a vote 
on, but I want to make the point that they are saying. They are 
saying for us to be able to have a significant impact on this 
disease around the world, it will take about a $25 billion 
investment, and furthermore, distribution expenses, and that 
will add up to another 9 billion. And so they suggest an 
investment of $34 billion.
    And I am glad we have increased the number from $3 to $5 
billion in this bill. But I want to point out that I have not 
found any analysis that shows that $1 billion per year over the 
next five years is at all adequate to the incredible challenge 
before us. I do appreciate that two of the points made by these 
groups have been adopted notionally into the bill.
    One is that we have to support the establishment of 
regional manufacturing hubs around the globe. And second, that 
we need to facilitate technology sharing and licensing of 
intellectual property necessary to ensure adequate and timely 
supply of vaccines and vaccine components. So these two ideas 
are incorporated into the bill, but it is going to take a lot 
more resources.
    Think about where we are right now. And that is that only 
1.1 percent of individuals in lowincome countries have received 
a single dose, meaning almost 98 percent have received no doses 
at all.
    The current strategy, we will not reach widespread 
vaccination until 2024. That means years of this disease raging 
around the world and returning to the United States of America. 
Even this process is one in which we have a big stake, and this 
bill, philosophically, is on the right track, but I need to 
emphasize that we are going to have to think much more boldly, 
much more aggressively, if we are going to tackle this 
challenge. And that the United States is really the country 
that has the influence, the ability to lead the world in this 
effort.
    And thus, we should ponder it in that context that no other 
country is going to step forward and lay out the vision to 
aggressively do this. This bill lays out a vision. We need to 
put a lot more horsepower behind it if we are going to fulfill 
that vision.
    The Chairman. Without objection, the Senator's request for 
letters will be included in the record.

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

    The Chairman. We appreciate the Senator's views. And we 
look forward to working with you in the appropriation and other 
process to have as robust a presence as possible.
    I am going to observe the five-minute rule, for any other 
comments and amendments. In order to move forward; we have a 
panel that is been waiting before us; we have colleagues who 
are waiting to introduce them.
    Is there anyone else seeking recognition, or to offer an 
amendment?
    If not, is there a motion to approve S. 2297 as amended?
    Senator Risch. So moved.
    The Chairman. So moved by Senator Risch. Is there a second? 
Seconded by Senator Cardin.
    The request is on the motion to approve S. 2297 as amended.
    All those in favor, will say, aye.
    [Chorus of ayes]
    All those opposed will say no.
    The ayes have it, and the legislation is agreed to.
    With that, the resolution is agreed to.
    That completes the committee's business. I ask unanimous 
consent that staff be authorized to make tactical conforming 
changes without objection, so ordered.
    With that, the committee will stand adjourned. We will 
reconvene, for today's nominations hearing.


    [Whereupon, at 10:11 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]



                              ----------                              


           Additional Material Included in the Meeting Record


        Letter from 60+ Groups Urging President Biden to Launch
                  Global Vaccine Manufacturing Program

sent to president biden by publiccitizen and included in the record at 
        the request of senator merkley and by unanimous consent.
                                     April 13, 2021


President Joseph R. Biden,
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Washington, DC. 20500.

    Dear President Biden, Thank you for your leadership strengthening 
the U.S. response to the coronavirus pandemic. We appreciate your 
administration's commitment to COVAX and the recently announced Quad 
partnership, to support vaccine access abroad. Yet without much more 
ambitious leadership, the scale of global vaccine need will not be met.
    Even as our country expands access to Covid-19 vaccines through the 
broadest vaccination campaign in U.S. history, for most of the world, 
there is no relief in sight. Few of the billions of people living in 
low- and middle-income countries will be vaccinated against Covid-19 
this year. Many may not be vaccinated until 2024, if ever. Virus 
variants threaten to deepen and prolong the crisis.
    The only way to get the pandemic under control is to accelerate 
global vaccine manufacturing. The United States has capabilities to 
help the world make billions more doses of Covid-19 vaccine for about 
$3 a dose, a fraction of the cost of inaction, and shorten the 
pandemic.
    We urge your administration to announce in your fiscal year 2022 
budget an ambitious global vaccine manufacturing program to end the 
pandemic and build vaccine infrastructure for the future.

                                Proposal

    The United States should help the world produce billions more 
vaccine doses within approximately one year.
    For example, modest capital investments (about $2 billion) can 
retrofit vaccine manufacturing facilities and install additional mRNA 
production lines. Doses can then be manufactured for less than $3 each. 
U.S. leadership is likely to inspire co-funding by other governments 
and international organizations. A total investment of less than $25 
billion, including whole-of-government efforts to source raw materials 
and provide technical assistance, can support the rapid production of 8 
billion doses of mRNA vaccine, enough for more than half the world's 
population.
    The U.S. should support a massive expansion of manufacturing and 
establish hubs for vaccine production with the World Health 
Organization, including hubs located in Africa, Asia and Latin America. 
These hubs will democratize production and improve global health 
security, particularly if they are accountable to the public and 
equipped with adaptable technologies, such as mRNA platforms, believed 
critical to defeating the next pandemic.
    The United States should ensure that technology is shared openly, 
including via the WHO Covid-19 Technology Access Pool, so that 
scientists and manufacturers worldwide can support vaccine delivery and 
development. Where necessary, the U.S. government should use its power 
under existing law to license technology, ensuring its availability and 
affordability now and for the future. Notably, taxpayers made 
substantial investments in Covid-19 vaccine research and development, 
and the U.S. Government owns a key patent relied on by the major 
vaccine makers.
    Without a vaccine manufacturing plan of global ambition, millions 
more people may die, with tens of millions pushed into extreme poverty. 
Black and Brown communities will bear the brunt of this preventable 
suffering. The progress achieved through decades of U.S. overseas 
development assistance will be reversed. People living in the United 
States may feel the ripple effects with ongoing threats of virus 
mutations. The economic costs to the United States are estimated at 
$800 billion to $1.4 trillion.
    U.S. history demonstrates that by mobilizing extraordinary 
resources and the country's full capabilities, while working closely 
with global partners, the country can solve complex technical 
challenges and support humanity in times of great need. This is one 
such moment, and there is no time to lose. We urge you to launch an 
ambitious vaccine manufacturing program in your FY 22 budget to help 
end the global pandemic.

                  Signed,

    Public Citizen

    Access Challenge

    Action Against Hunger

    American Jewish World Service

    American Medical Student Association

    American Medical Women's Association

    American Society of Tropical Medicine & Hygiene

    Amnesty USA

    PAVAC

    Be a Hero Fund

    BRAC USA

    Buddhist Global Relief (USA)

    Center for Popular Democracy

    Center for Policy Analysis on Trade and Health (CPATH)

    ChildFund USA

    Chinese-American Planning Council

    Christian Connections for International Health (USA)

    CORE Group

    Doctors for America

    Drugs for Neglected Diseases initiative, North America

    Episcopal Relief & Development

    Families USA

    FHI 360

    Foundation for Integrative AIDS Research (FIAR)

    Friends Committee on National Legislation

    FXB Center for Health and Human Rights, Harvard University

    GOAL USA

    Health GAP

    Helen Keller International

    Help Age USA

    Human Rights Watch

    Incentives for Global Health

    International Medical Corps

    International Rescue Committee

    International Treatment Preparedness Coalition

    Islamic Relief USA

    Jesuit Refugee Service

    JustActions

    Last Mile Health

    Management Sciences for Health

    Medecins Sans Frontieres, USA / Doctors Without Borders

    MSI United States

    National Council of Churches USA

    Network Lobby for Catholic Social Justice

    Oxfam America

    Partners In Health

    Pathfinder International

    People's Action

    Physicians for Human Rights

    Planned Parenthood Federation of America

    PrEP4All

    Prescription Justice

    RESULTS

    Right to Health Action

    Salud y Farmacos

    Social Security Works

    Sojourners

    SumOfUs USA

    The Borgen Project

    Treatment Action Group (TAG)

    Union for Reform Judaism

    Universities Allied for Essential Medicines (UAEM)

    Yale Global Health Justice Partnership



                              ----------                              






                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                    WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 4, 2021--a.m.

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

                Summary of Action Taken by the Committee


                              LEGISLATION

  S.J.Res.10, A joint resolution to repeal the authorizations for use 
        of military force against Iraq, and for other purposes--agreed 
        to by roll call vote (14-8)

          Yeas: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, Kaine, 
        Markey, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen, Portman (proxy), 
        Paul, and Young

          Nays: Risch, Rubio (proxy), Johnson (proxy), Romney, 
        Barrasso, Cruz, Rounds, and Hagerty

     Cruz 1st Degree amendment #1--failed by roll call vote (9-13)

          Yeas: Risch, Rubio (proxy), Johnson (proxy), Romney, Portman 
        (proxy), Barrasso (proxy), Cruz, Rounds, and Hagerty

          Nays: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, Kaine, 
        Markey, Merkley (proxy), Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen, Young, and 
        Paul

     Hagerty 1st Degree amendment #1--failed by roll call vote, en 
            bloc (7-15)

         Hagerty 2nd Degree amendment #1 to Hagerty 1st Degree 
            amendment #1

     Hagerty 1st Degree amendment #2

         Hagerty 2nd Degree amendment #1 to Hagerty 1st Degree 
            amendment #2

     Hagerty 1st Degree amendment # 3

         Hagerty 2nd Degree amendment #1 to Hagerty 1st Degree 
            amendment #3

                  Yeas: Risch, Rubio (proxy), Johnson (proxy), Romney, 
                Barrasso, Cruz, and Hagerty

                  Nays: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, 
                Kaine, Markey, Merkley (proxy), Booker, Schatz, Van 
                Hollen, Portman (proxy), Paul, Young, and Rounds

                              NOMINATIONS

  The Honorable Gentry O. Smith, of Virginia, to be an Assistant 
        Secretary of State (Diplomatic Security)--agreed to by voice 
        vote

  Ms. Monica P. Medina, of Maryland, to be an Assistant Secretary of 
        State (Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific 
        Affairs)--agreed to by voice vote (Johnson, Barrasso, and Cruz 
        recorded as no)

  The Honorable Rena Bitter, of the District of Columbia, a Career 
        member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-
        Counselor, to be an Assistant Secretary of State (Consular 
        Affairs)--agreed to by voice vote

  Mr. Marc Evans Knapper, of California, a Career member of the Senior 
        Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Socialist Republic of Vietnam--agreed to by 
        voice vote

  The Honorable Brian Nichols, of Rhode Island, to be an Assistant 
        Secretary of State (Western Hemisphere Affairs)--agreed to by 
        voice vote

  Dr. Karen Donfried, of the District of Columbia, to be an Assistant 
        Secretary of State (European Affairs and Eurasian Affairs)--
        agreed to by voice vote

  The Honorable Mary Catherine Phee, of Illinois, a Career member of 
        the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be 
        an Assistant Secretary of State (African Affairs), a member of 
        the Board of Directors of the African Development Foundation, 
        and a member of the Board of Directors of the African 
        Development Foundation--agreed to by voice vote (Rubio, 
        Johnson, Barrasso, and Cruz recorded as no)

  Ms. Anne A. Witkowsky, of Maryland, to be an Assistant Secretary of 
        State (Conflict and Stabilization Operations), and to be 
        Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization--agreed to by 
        voice vote

  The Honorable Kenneth Lee Salazar, of Colorado, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the United Mexican States--agreed to by voice vote

  The Honorable Christopher Lu, of Virginia, to be Representative of 
        the United States of America to the United Nations for U.N. 
        Management and Reform, with the rank of Ambassador, and to be 
        the 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 Representative of the United 
        States of America to the United Nations for U.N. Management and 
        Reform--Held Over

  Ms. Jessica Lewis, of Ohio, to be an Assistant Secretary of State 
        (Political-Military Affairs)--Held Over

  The Honorable Donald Lu, of California, a Career member of the Senior 
        Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Assistant 
        Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs--Held Over

  The Honorable Marcela Escobari, of Massachusetts, to be an Assistant 
        Administrator of the United States Agency for International 
        Development (Latin America and the Caribbean)--Held Over

  The Honorable Rufus Gifford, of Massachusetts, to be Chief of 
        Protocol, and to have the rank of Ambassador during his tenure 
        of service--Held Over

  Ms. Lee Satterfield, of South Carolina, to be an Assistant Secretary 
        of State (Educational and Cultural Affairs)--Held Over

  The Honorable Isobel Coleman, of New York, to be a Deputy 
        Administrator of the United States Agency for International 
        Development (Policy and Programming)--Held Over

  Ms. Paloma Adams-Allen, of the District of Columbia, to be a Deputy 
        Administrator of the United States Agency for International 
        Development (Management and Resources)--Held Over

                               FSO LISTS

  Maureen E. Cormack, dated April 13, 2021 (PN 358-2)--agreed to by 
        voice vote

  Mark W. Libby, dated April 13, 2021 (PN 357-2)--agreed to by voice 
        vote

                           Meeting Transcript

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:20 a.m., in 
Room SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert Menendez, 
Chairman of the committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Menendez [presiding], Cardin, Shaheen, 
Coons, Murphy, Kaine, Markey, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van 
Hollen, Risch, Johnson, Romney, Portman, Paul, Young, Barrasso, 
Cruz, Rounds, and Hagerty.

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

    The Chairman. This business meeting of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee will come to order.
    Today we are marking up S.J.Res. 10, a bill to repeal the 
1991 and 2002 authorizations for the use of military force. Let 
me commend Senators Kaine and Young for their persistent 
leadership on this issue. I know that others as well have been 
interested--Senator Murphy, Senator Cardin. I would also like 
to thank them for their patience in seeing this bill marked up, 
particularly since Senator Risch and I had agreed to a markup 
of this bill in June soon after our House colleagues voted in 
favor of repealing the 2002 AUMF.
    I agreed to accommodate the requests from Senator Romney 
and other of our colleagues on the Republican side to hold a 
classified briefing on the issue as well as a public hearing on 
repealing the 2002 AUMF because I believe that votes related to 
the use of force issues are weighty ones, ones that no Member 
of Congress should take lightly. And I am pleased that all 
Members of this committee have had an opportunity to fully 
understand the reasons for and implications of this profoundly 
important bill.
    As I have made clear, I believe it would be a grave mistake 
if we do not act now to repeal the 1991 and 2002 AUMFs. As we 
heard very clearly from the Administration yesterday in 
testimony from the Deputy Secretary of State and two senior 
lawyers on this matter, repeal of these AUMFs will have no 
impact whatsoever on our operations or detention activities. 
There is scenario under which the United States could or would 
need to use force for which the Administration would rely on 
the 1991 or 2002 AUMFs. They either have the authority, in 
their view, under Article II of the Constitution or the 2001 
AUMF, or they would come back to Congress to ask for additional 
authority, and that is the way it should be, and that will help 
ensure that the 2002 AUMF is not abused by any future 
administration.
    To those who believe that repealing the 1991 and 2002 AUMFs 
would somehow demonstrate a lack of resolve in Iraq or in the 
Middle East more generally, I would again point out to you the 
comments made by our Administration witnesses yesterday. Deputy 
Secretary Sherman stated clearly, ``The 2002 AUMF against Iraq 
has outlived its usefulness and should be repealed.'' She also 
noted that as a result of the United States strategic 
partnership with Iraq, ``The United States is poised to have a 
different relationship with Iraq and in the Middle East, and 
rather than speak to weakness, this speaks to strength.''
    I also point out to those colleagues who are concerned 
about this in our current reality, which is that any U.S. 
troops currently in Iraq are there at the invitation of the 
Iraqi Government. And let us be very clear: repealed or not, 
the 2002 AUMF does not--does not, emphasize--authorize any 
military activity against Iran. That is not to say that the 
United States will not or should not show resolve against Iran 
as it continues to threaten our people and our national 
security interests, but the 2002 AUMF provides no authority to 
do that. There is no longer any legitimate purpose for the 1992 
or 2002 AUMFs, and the time has come for this committee to stop 
dealing in hypotheticals and to act responsibly. I am grateful 
to the Administration for being responsive to our requests for 
briefings and a public hearing, and I look forward to a strong 
vote in support of S.J.Res. 10 today.
    Turning briefly to nominations, I am pleased that we will 
be voting on a number of nominees today. Unfortunately, we 
again have a blanket holdover request for seven newly-noticed 
nominees, and I must say this is stretching the bounds of 
comity, only to understand that there will be a 2:00 p.m. 
markup. So, the only thing that is being done is, you know, 
inconveniencing the Members of the committee to come back at 
2:00 p.m. to have a vote, a meeting that both the Ranking 
Member and I have set. If this continues, then I will have a 
conversation with the Ranking Member about how we are going to 
pursue this because this is beyond the pale. It is not what was 
meant. The purposes of holdover of a nominee was to get more 
information, to have questions answered, to get the 
Administration to deal with those questions through the State 
Department, but blanket holdovers of all nominees, that 
undermines the national interests and security of the United 
States. We have a holdover of the person who is supposed to be 
the head of our diplomatic security abroad, supposed to help us 
protect our people abroad. God forbid something happens while 
this holdover continues. I would not want to be the person 
responsible for doing that. So, we will have a meeting at 2:00.
    We have one more nominee that we will consider for this 
morning, which also will be held over: Chris Lu to be the 
Ambassador to U.N. for Management and Reform. And we will apply 
the holdover to Lu and then make up--take up his nomination 
with the others at 2:00 p.m. this afternoon. I am not going to 
speak to each of these nominees right now, but I do want to say 
I believe they are all well qualified and deserving of their 
nominations, and I look forward to their swift confirmations.
    I would also ask for unanimous consent to enter nine 
letters of support that my office has received in support of 
the nomination of Secretary Kenneth Salazar to the hearing 
record. And due to COVID precautions, we will email the letters 
to the committee's Clerk.
    Without objection, those letters shall be included.

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

    The Chairman. With that, let me recognize the distinguished 
Ranking Member for his remarks, Senator Risch.

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

    Senator Risch. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 
First of all, I want to speak to the markup on the repeal of 
the AUMFs. I am going to vote against this, and I want to say 
that we have spent a tremendous amount on this. The AUMF area 
of concern is something that all--many of us on this committee 
have spent a long, long time dealing with. This is really 
nibbling at the edge of what the real issues with AUMF, and 
that is, of course, the tug between the first and the second 
branch of government as to who has what authority and what 
power. This does not do--so that everybody understands, that is 
really not what we are arguing about here. Virtually all of us 
have the same agreement as to what that should look like. The 
difficulty is putting it in the writing, and I have seen dozens 
or more drafts of language to try to get us there, and we 
cannot seem to get there.
    But speaking just to this, with all due respect to the 
Chairman, I would disagree that this has no useful purpose, and 
I think that the purpose of this is to communicate our resolve 
in the region and, particularly, as it affects Iran. And we 
spent the hearing that we had the other day with each party 
talking about what effect this will have. First of all, I will 
be first to concede that whether 2002 exists or does not exist, 
gets repealed or not get repealed, it will have zero effect on 
the decision by a chief executive, whether it is this one or 
another one, to take action that the chief executive thinks 
needs to be taken. I will be the first to admit that it makes 
no difference whatsoever. So then, we come down to messaging, 
and what we did was we argued at length about messaging, and 
everyone said, well, I think they are going to think this, and 
the fact of the matter is everybody is right.
    When it comes to the messaging, there are people that are 
going to look at this and say, aha, the U.S. is getting weak on 
the region. The U.S. is not committed--not keeping the same 
commitment it has had to the region, and there will be others 
who will argue the other side. I, frankly, come down on this 
that there is just no reason to repeal it at this time that in 
any way endangers sending a message that we are committed to 
the region and committed to protecting our troops and American 
interests, and that we will do so. And I was delighted to hear 
the Chairman say and others say who are going to vote the 
opposite on this that they share the same view that we are 
committed, regardless of how we vote on this. And I think that 
is a message I want loud and clear as long we are messaging.
    I understand what the vote is here and where this thing is 
going to go, but I really believe that it would be a bad 
message to send as far as repealing this AUMF that gives even 
the slightest inclination to anyone that we are backing away 
from this.
    So, for that reason, I am going to vote no on that. I heard 
no reason whatsoever that we--that we should repeal it, that it 
will make a difference. We have laws, executive orders, and 
everything else on the books that are hundreds of years old 
that are--that are totally stale, that do not make a difference 
anymore, and I think that is where I come down on this. It can 
sit on the shelf just as well as not.
    Regarding the nominations, I want to say that I appreciate 
working with the Chairman on that. I think we have worked 
together quite well on them. We have had an issue, and this 
does not affect your comments regarding the blanket hold, but 
as to--what we are finding from the State Department is their 
answers are getting less and less responsive to the questions 
for the record, and that is the reason for the one hold that I 
asked to have this afternoon, and I appreciate the Chairman 
understanding that. But I hope that this will be a message to 
the State Department that they--these are not--they are getting 
handled more cavalierly than what they have in the past, and 
that is the reason why we are where we are with the one I am 
holding over, and that is, the first answers were wholly 
unresponsive and borderline insulting with the way they were 
answered. They were sent back. We did not get answers until 
11:00 last night, so I do not feel really badly about holding 
over until this afternoon. But hopefully the Department will 
take this more seriously as we go forward. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman. I yield back.
    The Chairman. Well, I want to--I want to thank the Ranking 
Member for his collaborative and cooperative work on these 
nominations. And I agree with him that when do questions for 
the record, certainly I expect, and I expect any Member's 
questions for the record to be fully answered, not to be vacant 
of any substance. So, I respect the Senator's desire to do 
that, and I appreciate him putting them on the agenda for this 
morning, and we will honor your holdover until this afternoon.
    With that, first, since we have a majority, before we get 
to the legislation, unless there is a question on nominations. 
Yes?
    Senator Johnson. Mr. Chairman, I am going to have to leave 
for another markup. I have not really spoken to this, but I 
would like to just make my----
    The Chairman. Sure.
    Senator Johnson [continuing]. The rationale for my vote 
public. I truly appreciate the deliberate process here. I mean, 
I think that the secure briefings, the hearing, I think they 
were excellent. I am in this process really inclined to repeal 
these because I agree with the both of you that they are really 
not necessary. But I think I was persuaded by just the bad 
timing here, the weakness that has been shown, whether it is 
acceding to Nord Stream 2, bugging out of Afghanistan. We are 
already seeing the atrocities occurring there. This looks bad, 
and we should be sending a signal of strength rather than 
weakness. So, again, I am completely sympathetic with the--
repealing these, but this is a really bad time to do it. And I 
agree with the--Senator Risch. I mean, these things can sit on 
the shelf. They do no harm, other than the fact by repealing 
them I think does harm. So, again, I am going to be voting no 
on this resolution as well, and I just appreciate the time to 
be able to state my rationale. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, and other Members will have the 
opportunity to speak when we get to the legislation. But for 
now, since we have the appropriate quorum, without objection, 
we will now consider en bloc two Foreign Service officer 
promotion lists and nine nominations that had previously been 
held over. They are PN 385-2, as modified, PN 357-2, as 
modified; Gentry Smith to be Assistant Secretary of State for 
Diplomatic Security; Monica Medina to be Assistant Secretary of 
State for Oceans and International Environment and Scientific 
Affairs; Rena Bitter to be an Assistant Secretary for Consular 
Affairs; Mark Knapper to be Ambassador to Vietnam; Brian 
Nichols to be Assistant Secretary of State for Western 
Hemisphere Affairs; Karen Donfried to be Assistant Secretary 
for European and Eurasian Affairs; Mary Catherine Phee to be 
Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs and a member 
of the Board of Directors of the African Development 
Foundation; Anne Witkowsky to be Assistant Secretary for 
Conflict Stabilization Operations and Coordinator for 
Reconstruction and Stabilization; and Ken Salazar to be 
Ambassador to Mexico.
    Would any Members like to speak to these items before we 
vote?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, I will entertain a motion that these 
items be approved en bloc.
    Voice. So move.
    The Chairman. All in favor will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All those opposed will say no.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it, and the nominees are 
reported favorably to the Senate.
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Yes?
    Senator Risch. I would ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Rubio be recorded as a ``no'' on the Phee nomination, please.
    The Chairman. Senator Rubio will be recorded as a ``no'' on 
the Phee nomination.
    Senator Cruz. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that I be recorded 
as a ``no'' on the Monica Medina nomination and on the Mary 
Catherine Phee nomination.
    The Chairman. Senator Cruz will be so recorded on Medina 
and Phee.
    Senator Barrasso. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to be 
recorded as a ``no'' on both of those same nominations.
    The Chairman. Senator Barrasso will be recorded a ``no'' as 
well on both of those, Medina and Phee.
    With that, the nominees are favorably reported to the 
Senate as well as the Foreign Service officer promotion list.
    We will now turn to S.J.Res. 10. Without objection, we will 
now consider S.J.Res. 10, a joint resolution to repeal the 
authorizations for the use of military force against Iraq. Are 
there any amendments or any Member seeking recognition? Senator 
Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, I do have an amendment that I 
will offer, but will not seek a vote, and I would ask that my 
amendment that was--second-degree amendment be considered as 
the first-degree amendment, but with the understanding that I 
am not going to seek a vote on the amendment.
    Mr. Chairman, my amendment, and I support the repeal of the 
2002 and 1991 resolutions, and I applaud Senator Kaine and 
Young for their extraordinary patience and leadership in 
regards to that resolution. My amendment I am not going to 
offer for two reasons. First, I do not think it will be 
approved, but secondly, if it got onto the resolution, it would 
make it more difficult for the resolution to pass, and I would 
like to see the resolution have the best opportunity to pass. 
And, quite frankly, I was going to seek a vote on my amendment, 
which would put a sunset on the 2001 authorization, but a long 
delay before that would take effect in order for us to be able 
to pass a substitute or updated authorization.
    I must tell you I have been impressed by the committee's 
process here. I think the classified briefing and hearing was 
important, and I think yesterday's hearing was important. And I 
was impressed by the sincerity of the Biden administration, 
particularly Secretary Sherman's comments about her working 
with us to get a replacement resolution for the 2001, but I 
want to make a comment on that. If we leave it up to the 
decisions at State or Defense, we will never get a resolution 
that I will support because I think it will be a blank check. 
That is what they want. They want a blank check. They would 
just as soon to see the legislative branch of government take a 
pass on the authorization for force or the oversight of that 
authorization, and that is normal. I understand that. I do 
believe the Biden administration is sincere in working with us 
on a realistic authorization, and I have confidence that 
President Biden understands what he needs in order to keep 
America safe in regards to our fight against the terrorist 
groups in the Middle East.
    So, I am prepared to work with the Biden administration, 
but I must tell you I think that we are going to have an 
extremely difficult time with the lawyers at Defense and State 
as we look to replace the 2001 authorization. So, I am willing 
to give some time to the Biden administration to work with us 
and to come up with a resolution that we can support. I 
mentioned at yesterday's hearing we need to deal with the 
geographical aspects and whether there are further requirements 
for consent by Congress before additional actions are taken. 
What is the mission that we are trying to seek? Is there going 
to be a sunset on the new authorization? Those are issues that 
I think we have to talk about and come to agreement, and I hope 
we can do that with the Biden administration and reach a 
consensus here in our committee, and in the Senate, and the 
House. But I think that without imposing a sunset on the 2001, 
us reaching that point will be even more difficult.
    So, I will introduce as a separate legislation, separate 
resolution, a sunset of the 2001, but sufficient time for us to 
let this process reach a conclusion as to what substitute 
resolution should be considered. I think that puts more direct 
interest by the Biden administration to come to an agreement 
with Congress on where we need to be. So, for all those 
reasons, I will not press a vote today on that. I strongly 
support the resolution that is before us, but I do think if we 
are going to assert the role of Congress, if we listen to some 
of our discussions on the fear of repealing the 2002 resolution 
and the 1991 resolution, we recognize that what we are doing on 
the fear of repealing the 2002 resolution and the 1991 
resolution, we recognize that what we are doing is really 
saying that Congress will have no role in this, that we are 
going to let the executive branch make all the decisions here 
and we are giving a blank check. That is not what was 
envisioned in our Constitution. That is not our responsibility. 
We need to take the responsibility for the introduction of 
troops on a more permanent basis. That is our responsibility to 
give that authorization. There is clearly adequate protection 
for the American people in regards to urgent use of the 
military under Article II. I think that is pretty clear, but I 
do believe we have to reassert our position, and it cries out 
for us to update the 2001.
    As the Chairman has talked about, the 2002 and the--looking 
at the 1991, it clearly does not apply to today's 
circumstances. But I would point out the 2001 does not apply to 
the current situations. As Senator Paul pointed out, reading 
the 2001--read it. Read what it says. We are not using it 
today--the Administration is using it today for force against 
entities that did not exist in 2001 and were not responsible 
for the attack of our country on September the 11th, and that 
is what it says specifically in the 2001 authorization. So, we 
have a responsibility to update that, and I hope that we will 
take advantage of that at--during this Congress, and I intend 
to offer legislation to give us that opportunity and have those 
discussions. And I really appreciate the Chairman and Ranking 
Member making time available for us to deal with this most 
important issue.
    The Chairman. Let me thank the Senator for his sentiments 
and also for withholding today, and we look forward to working 
with the Senator. The author of the resolution along with 
Senator Young, Senator Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I want to thank 
you and the Ranking Member for this process and for 
accommodating the desire of our colleagues for the closed 
session and public hearing before this vote. I especially want 
to thank Senator Young for his steadfast work as the co-sponsor 
of this bill.
    Let me humbly suggest 10 reasons why this is a good idea. 
Number one, the two AUMFs supporting military action to counter 
the malignant activity of an Iraq governed by Saddam Hussein 
were rendered unnecessary more than a decade ago when he was 
toppled and executed and a new Government of Iraq was 
constituted. Second, Iraq is now a partner of the United 
States, and both nations want that relationship to continue as 
was evidenced by the recent positive meeting between President 
Biden and Prime Minister Kadhimi. In the aftermath of war, we 
didn't maintain war authorizations against Germany or Japan or 
Vietnam. Instead, we worked to try to make partners and allies 
of them, and we are having success on that with Iraq, and I 
think we should try to continue on that path.
    Number three, the 1991 and 2002 Iraq AUMFs are not used as 
the legal basis for any current U.S. military activity, nor are 
they needed to justify the detention of even a single detainee 
now in U.S. custody. Fourth, the repeal of the AUMFs will have 
no effect on the U.S.'s ability to keep Americans safe. Fifth, 
the powers conferred on the President by Article I of the--by 
Article II of the Constitution enable the President to 
undertake military action against any entity who poses a direct 
and imminent threat to the U.S. or to our possessions, 
territories, or armed forces, including the militias in Iraq 
and Syria. In addition, the 2001 AUMF expands upon that power 
to undertake military action against non-state terrorist 
organizations who have a connection to al-Qaeda or ISIS.
    Sixth, Congresses of both parties have abdicated our 
responsibility regarding the power to declare war and allowed 
presidents of both parties to act unilaterally. Congressional 
action to repeal these authorizations will represent a step 
toward Congress taking its most solemn responsibility 
seriously. Seven, some Members of Congress were here in 2002 
and voted against the Iraq War. Anyone who voted against the 
war should have no trouble repealing these outdated 
authorizations. Eighth, some Members of Congress have stated 
that knowing what we know now, the Iraq War was a mistake. 
Anyone who believes the Iraq War was a mistake should have no 
trouble repealing these outdated authorizations. Ninth, 
allowing outdated authorizations to persist in perpetuity 
invites the prospect of serious abuses in the future. And 10th, 
the commander-in-chief, who spent 36 years dealing with war 
powers issues as a Member of this committee, supports the 
repeal of these authorizations.
    I ask this committee to send a clear and bipartisan message 
that a Congress that initiated military action against Iraq can 
also recognize the end of hostilities against Iraq. I urge the 
support of this bipartisan resolution.
    The Chairman. I thank the Senator. Senator Paul?
    Senator Paul. It is much easier to start a war than to end 
a war. I have been trying for over 10 years to bring an 
official end to the Iraq War. In 2011, I forced a vote on this. 
In 2013, I reintroduced it. In 2016, I reintroduced it and as 
recently as 2017. I lost every time. I am hoping I will be on 
the winning side this time, but I think it is a win for the 
American people. And I do not accept that it is meaningless. I 
do not think it changes what a President does in immediate sort 
of short-lived military actions. I think Presidents will do 
what they are going to do in those cases, but this 
authorization authorized 170,000 people to go to Iraq, a big, 
large land war. That is still on the books. If it authorized it 
once, it would authorize it again.
    So, I think the vote today is not meaningless and symbolic. 
It is to say that we do not give any President--Republican or 
Democrat--permission for a large-scale land war in Iraq. We are 
taking away that permission. If you want to come back, come 
before the people. It is a big important vote. We all say it is 
the most important vote. Well, let us take it back and make it 
part of the Senate. So, I applaud the efforts of all those 
involved with this, and I am a wholehearted ``yes.'' Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Paul. As someone who voted 
against the Iraq War in 2002, I totally agree with you. Senator 
Young?
    Senator Young. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for how you 
have conducted these proceedings and this entire process. And 
I, of course, want to thank Senator Kaine for his longstanding 
leadership on this issue and other colleagues, like Senator 
Paul, who have been strong voices for ensuring that in this, as 
it is being characterized, invitation to struggle, which is how 
some have characterized the constitutional allocation of war 
powers. Congress is struggling. We are asserting ourselves and 
our constitutional prerogatives. So hopefully this can be a 
successful re-initiation of that long history of Congress 
speaking with a loud voice on matters of war powers.
    All of America's five major declared wars ended by treaty, 
but not all of the more than 40 congressional authorizations 
for the use of military force have been repealed. The 1991 and 
2002 AUMF against Iraq resolutions remain in force, even though 
their purpose has, by all accounts, been accomplished. These 
authorities authorized the Gulf War and military action against 
the government of Saddam Hussein, respectively, and repealing 
them would not affect--I think we all agree here again, would 
not affect the 2001 AUMF, the primary domestic statutory 
authority for prosecution of the war against al-Qaeda, the 
Taliban, ISIS, and associated forces.
    The 2001 AUMF is not what today's business meeting is 
about. Acquiescence in the area of war powers relieves Congress 
of their responsibility to decide whether to authorize war or 
repeal outdated authorizations at a time when the American 
people, the military, our allies, and enemies need to hear from 
Congress on issues of war and peace. Some of my colleagues are 
rightly concerned about the threat posed by Iran. I share that 
concern. However, I believe that the threat from Iran is so 
significant and so different from the wars since 9/11 or Saddam 
Hussein's Iraq that we must pass a new AUMF should the 
situation require it. Nothing about the 2002 AUMF or its repeal 
changes that fact. Those advocating for leaving 2002 in place 
as a means of deterring Iran, when that was in no way the 
intention of this authorization, would be building on past 
abuses and advocating for precisely the kind of expansion of 
war power authorities that ultimately makes Congress and this 
committee irrelevant.
    The Soleimani strike last January was carried out via the 
President's Article II powers to prevent an imminent attack. 
The 2002 AUMF was cited merely as a secondary authority, not 
the primary authorization. I candidly believe it should not 
have been cited at all. Soleimani needed to be taken out, but 
this was not--this was another misapplication of the authority 
granted by Congress.
    I ask unanimous consent that an article that--by a scholar 
who has helped educate me on the issues of war powers in recent 
years, Charles Cawley Stimson of the Heritage Foundation, 
entitled, ``Why Repealing the 1991 and 2002 Iraq War 
Authorizations is Sound Policy,'' be entered into the record.
    The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.

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

    Senator Young. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Any other Member seeking recognition or have 
amendments? Senator Cruz?
    Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I call up my 
amendment, Cruz First Degree 1.
    Let me start by commending the authors of this resolution. 
I agree with what you are trying to do. I think it is 
important, number one, to reassert Congress' authority over war 
making. Far too many Congresses, both Republican and Democrat, 
have willingly abdicated our constitutional authority over 
declaring war and over supervising the conduct of war to the 
executive, and we have allowed executive, both Republicans and 
Democrats, far too much leeway in exercising the awesome might 
of calling into battle the U.S. armed forces. I also am one of 
those who has long believed that the Iraq War was a mistake, 
that the world was made more dangerous by going in and toppling 
a horrific dictator and leaving a power vacuum that allowed 
even more dangerous enemies of America to rise up. So, the 
endeavors that we are doing today are endeavors I very much 
support. I am a critic of the endless wars we have been in, and 
I think we should be far more reluctant to use U.S. military 
force than we have been previously.
    That being said, this resolution is not being debated in a 
vacuum. It is instead being debated in the context of an 
Administration that is exercising a hard pivot towards Iran, 
that has decided one of, if not its preeminent, foreign policy 
objectives is to reenter some variant of the Iran Nuclear Deal, 
which I believe was a catastrophic deal, and in furthering that 
endeavor, it has consistently been turning a blind eye to 
malign acts from Iran. In just 6 months, the Biden 
administration has revoked terrorism sanctions against Iran's 
terrorist proxies in Yemen. It has removed Iranian officials 
from sanctions. They have dialed back enforcement of oil 
sanctions, including violations related to the Chinese 
Communist Party. They have unlocked Iranian accounts worth 
billions of dollars to allow Iran to pay down its debts. They 
have repeatedly declined to respond to Iranian attacks against 
our troops, and they have not imposed even a single significant 
new sanction.
    And Iran has noticed. I believe weakness is provocative and 
is an invitation to violence, and in this instance, that has 
proven true. We have seen in the opening weeks of this 
Administration Iranian proxies in Hamas raining over 4,000 
rockets down on Israel that I think was directly provoked by 
what they perceive to be weakness towards Iran. We have seen 
the Iranians attacking U.S. forces repeatedly and killing an 
American military contractor, a U.S. citizen.
    We have seen the Iranians try to conduct terrorism on U.S. 
soil, including sending a kidnap team to the United States of 
America to kidnap a U.S. terrorist--a U.S. journalist. We have 
seen them launch multiple attacks on our Arab allies. We have 
seen them launch multiple attacks on civilian vessels, 
including an attack on an Israeli citizen, and we have seen 
them kill citizens from two of our close allies, Britain and 
Romania. That pattern is significant and it is concerning.
    Now, in the course of all of these debates, the 
Administration and the advocates of this resolution have said, 
as Senator Young just said a minute ago, that the ability to 
respond to Iranian aggression is contained within Article II. I 
agree with that as an abstract matter. All this amendment does 
is memorialize that in this resolution. So, if that argument is 
in good faith and genuinely believed by the proponents of this 
resolution, my amendment should be something easily adopted by 
both sides.
    What I do not want to see is this resolution adopted, these 
AUMFs repealed, and I believe that is going to happen. The 
votes are clearly there to repeal them. I think that is a good 
thing. But what I do not want to see is 3 months, 6 months, 9 
months from now when the Iranians launch yet another attack on 
U.S. forces, when they murder soldiers, or sailors, or airmen, 
or marines, I do not want to see the argument put forth by the 
Administration that our hands are tied now that the AUMF has 
been repealed. We need another AUMF so we can act. What I do 
not want to see is if, in some time in the future, we discover 
Iran is on the verge of acquiring a nuclear weapon, a nuclear 
weapon that could be used to take the lives of millions of 
Americans or millions of our close allies, I do not want to see 
the Administration saying, well, Congress repealed these AUMFs, 
so we have no power to act to protect American lives.
    And so, I accept and embrace the arguments put forth by the 
proponents of this resolution that Article II gives the 
commander-in-chief the authority to protect American troops on 
the battlefield and to act to protect our national security 
interests. This resolution simply memorializes that in the 
resolution, and I encourage Members of both sides to vote for 
it.
    The Chairman. I thank the Senator. This amendment describes 
the scope of the President's Article II authority in a way that 
I consider far too expansive. Under this amendment, we would be 
declaring that the President not only has inherent 
constitutional authority to use force to protect the Nation 
from an attack or threat of an imminent attack, but also to 
protect against unspecified important national interests. With 
reference to the concerns about the Biden administration coming 
forth and saying I do not have the authorities, in February and 
June of this year, using Article II, the President has already 
struck at Iranian-backed military militia, so I do not think he 
is going to be hesitant to do that.
    Embracing such a sweeping claim of presidential authority 
to use force, including for the purposes of ``important 
national interests,'' which is an undefined category frequently 
invoked by the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel 
without any limiting principle, would present a significant 
renunciation of Congress' own war power prerogatives. The point 
of this exercise is to remove two outdated AUMFs from the 
books, not to endorse a further tilt towards the executive 
branch and the use of force issues. And for those reasons, I 
will oppose the Senator's amendment.
    Is there anyone else seeking recognition? Senator Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe that 
there are two things I have concern with here. One is the 
solidification of Article II power, and the second is 
essentially inserting an authorization into this resolution. I 
am very struck that our second President, John Adams, was very 
concerned about the French seizing our commercial ships in 
1797, and so he sought permission of Congress to respond, and 
Congress did not act. So, in 1798, the following year, he again 
sought permission of Congress to act, and Congress did act in 
May of 1798. Our third President, Thomas Jefferson, was very 
concerned about commercial ships being seized in the 
Mediterranean by the Bey--B-e-y--the ruler of Tripoli, and so 
he sought permission from Congress, and Congress acted 2 months 
later to give him that authorization to use our forces to 
protect our commercial ships. In 1815, President Madison was 
very concerned about the Regency of Algeria seizing our 
commercial ships, so he sought congressional action to 
authorize the ability to respond, and Congress did grant that 2 
weeks later.
    My point here is that in the early phase of the United 
States, there was great respect for our constitutional 
requirement for Congress to authorize the ability to use 
forces. It was very much understood that the commander-in-chief 
directed those forces subsequent to authorization by Congress. 
We have had a challenge in keeping that line in place, and we 
had Presidents of both parties--Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon--that 
ignored the need for a congressional authorization in Vietnam 
and led to the 1973 War Powers Act that tried to strike an 
arrangement to be able to respond quickly to concerns about our 
national security, but still embed congressional authority.
    I would say to my colleague from Texas that the right thing 
to do in regard to Iran is to arrange for this committee to 
have a debate over authorization, a full debate because it is 
that important. It is not something that should be put in kind 
of through an amendment into a completely different bill. It 
merits a full examination by this committee, any use of force 
in that manner. And I also would caution that we not be parties 
to continuing to corrupt the U.S. Constitution by embedding and 
strengthening the idea that a President has power to act 
without congressional authorization, and certainly not 
something as broad as conducting and directing attacks on our--
in response--in response to Iran without clear authorization 
from Congress.
    The Chairman. Senator Markey?
    Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think you put 
your finger on it, Mr. Chairman, when you referred to the 
language here, which says that the President has the ability to 
protect ``important national interests.'' The inherent 
vagueness of that term makes this amendment just completely 
unacceptable. We are having a markup of legislation--and thank 
you, Senator Kaine, and Senator Young, and all who have worked 
on it--to try to reassert congressional authority, to reclaim 
our authority. Here in this amendment, there would be an 
abdication of our authority. We would be saying to the 
President, any President, that they would just have the ability 
to protect important national interests undefined or defined 
only by the Office of Legal Counsel in the White House.
    So, from my perspective, this is a very dangerous 
amendment. We need to absolutely give the attention to Iran 
that it deserves. This would be a much too casual and 
ultimately dangerous way to deal with that subject, especially 
if the goal is ultimately to ensure that the Congress asserts 
its powers under the Constitution, so I would urge a ``no'' 
vote on this amendment.
    The Chairman. Senator Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would 
argue on the merits that it would be a terrible idea for this 
committee to authorize an open-ended war with Iran. But I would 
plead with my colleagues that even if you believe that is the 
right course for this committee, do not do it by sticking a 
``whereas'' clause in the middle of a de-authorization of 
military force relative to 2002. This will sort of spin legal 
scholars in circles. I have read this seven different times, 
and I am not clear what it authorizes and what it does not. It 
certainly appears to be an open-ended, limitless authorization 
of war against Iran, but, man, if you are going to make this 
commitment as a body, we should not be doing it in a 
``whereas'' clause. It should be its own piece of legislation 
subject to significant hearing and discussion.
    So, I am ready for a conversation about how to better 
authorize the military actions that have taken place against 
Iranian-backed proxies in Iraq and other places. This is just a 
tremendously irresponsible way to do it.
    The Chairman. Senator Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Yes, I also oppose the amendment, and I 
support the underlying resolution. As I said before, I voted 
against the 2002 authorization when I was in the House of 
Representatives, and I will vote to repeal it now. I mentioned 
earlier the 2001, and the reason I mentioned that, look how 
four Administrations have interpreted the language we put in 
the 2001 resolution. If we were to adopt the amendment, think 
about how this could be interpreted by Administrations as 
basically a blank check to do whatever they want to without 
Congress's approval. We are taking Congress out of the 
equation. So, I agree with my colleagues. We should be talking 
about the appropriate use of force in regards to the threat of 
Iran. It needs to be done as its own separate debate and its 
own separate deliberations, and I would encourage my colleagues 
to reject this amendment.
    The Chairman. Does the Senator seek a recorded vote or a 
voice vote?
    Senator Cruz. I would like a recorded vote, but I would 
like a chance to respond to the arguments that have been made.
    The Chairman. The Senator will have that opportunity. 
First, let me recognize the Ranking Member, Senator Risch.
    Senator Risch. Well, thank you, and I am going to be very 
brief on this. I am going to vote for this, and the reason I am 
voting for this is because of messaging. As I said, all we are 
talking about here is messaging, in my judgment. I would be 
very reluctant to vote for this if it was not a--simply a 
``whereas'' that was added. A ``whereas'' clause has no legal 
effect whatsoever. And so, if indeed we were going to adopt 
this as substance, as suggested by my good friends from the 
other side, I think this would take a lot more deliberation on 
our part, getting the lawyers in here and picking it apart word 
by word. But where it is a message in a ``whereas'' clause to 
Iran, I think it----
    The Chairman. Senator Cruz, you can--you can sum up.
    Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, this is 
the second time in several weeks that Members of this committee 
have presented two inherently contradictory arguments in 
response to amendments that were offered. A couple of weeks ago 
I offered an amendment to our bill dealing with China forced 
labor saying that the Administration should not be able to 
import electric vehicles that were manufactured by Chinese 
slave labor in concentration camps. That was amended with 
Senator Hagerty's amendment to include solar panels. The 
arguments of Members of this committee against that amendment 
were twofold. Number one, it was unnecessary, that the 
underlying bill prohibited it already, but number two, that if 
we added the amendment, it would be a poison pill and destroy 
the underlying legislation. Now, those two arguments cannot be 
both be correct. If it is unnecessary, it is not a poison pill.
    We are seeing the exact same argument style concerning this 
resolution. Multiple proponents of this resolution have said 
that nothing in the repeal of the AUMFs would constrain the 
ability of the commander-in-chief to defend our troops in the 
field, to act against Iran. Indeed, in the June 14th statement 
of Administration policy, the White House stated that, ``The 
United States has no ongoing military activities that rely 
solely on the 2002 AUMF as a domestic legal basis, and repeal 
of the 2002 AUMF would likely have minimal impact on current 
military operations.''
    Likewise, numerous proponents of the repeal have said this 
would not have constrained the ability of the U.S. Government 
to go after General Soleimani. Again, Senator Young made that 
argument a few minutes ago. Yesterday in this hearing room, the 
Biden administration made that argument that you did not need 
the AUMF, that Article II gave the authority to go after 
General Soleimani. I will point out the language that numerous 
Democratic Senators have taken which is quoted verbatim from 
the order authorizing going after General Soleimani. It is 
memorializing those sentiments. If those sentiments are, in 
fact, what this committee believes, voting for this amendment 
should be easy. But I suspect those sentiments are not what the 
Biden administration believes and not what numerous Members of 
this committee believe.
    When the previous Administration went after General 
Soleimani and took out the world's most dangerous terrorists, 
numerous Democratic Senators criticized that decision 
vociferously. And so now we have already seen just a few 
minutes ago Senator Merkley argued, well, if we need to respond 
militarily to Iran, the Administration should come to Congress 
and we should have a debate and consider whether to authorize 
it. Well, that argument is not consistent with the argument 
everyone else is saying that Article II gives him the power to 
do it already. And I will tell you this: the Ayatollah is 
listening to this debate.
    Look, if this amendment is adopted, I will vote ``yes'' on 
the underlying resolution to repeal the AUMFs. I want to vote 
``yes.'' If the amendment is not adopted, I am going to be 
forced to vote ``no,'' because the Ayatollah is listening to 
what is happening. We have been seeing him testing the Biden 
administration over and over and over again, escalating, 
raining rockets down on Israel, sending a kidnap team into the 
United States of America. That is a big damn deal. That is not 
the act of a friend. And when the Ayatollah hears Democratic 
Senators say, even in the face of hostilities, that the 
Administration cannot act unless they come back to Congress and 
we have an endless debate that never happens, I believe that 
will invite more aggression. I believe U.S. servicemen and 
women, their lives are jeopardized if the Ayatollah looks at 
this debate and concludes that the power of the American 
President is so limited that there will be no response to 
military aggression.
    I think we should be very reluctant to use military force, 
but that does not mean you ignore an attack on American 
citizens. That does not mean you fail to defend our servicemen 
and women, our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who are 
in harm's way. And when you telegraph that the commander-in-
chief's hands are tied and he will not act even in the face of 
hostile aggression, you invite more hostile aggression and more 
American blood shed by the enemies of our Nation. I know that 
none of us want to see that outcome.
    The Chairman. I would just comment and then we will call a 
vote, I know the Senator thinks that he is in the mindset of 
the President of the United States. The President of United 
States in February and June took action, which some Members 
have concerns about, but nonetheless, took action under his 
Article II powers to attack Iranian-backed militias. I think he 
sent a very clear message to Iran: do not mess with us. So I am 
not of the belief that the President of the United States, if 
he felt there was a threat by Iran that was imminent, or, in 
fact, did something that he would not necessarily wait for 
Congress. We may--some of us may disagree that he should come 
to Congress. But the suggestion that we are--that he is 
neutered by this debate or this amendment--I mean, I should say 
or this resolution--is far from the President's action to date.
    So, on that, the Senator has asked for a recorded vote, and 
the clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    Senator Markey. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
    The Chairman. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    Senator Booker. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schatz?
    Senator Schatz. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Senator Van Hollen. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    Senator Risch. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
    Senator Romney. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    Senator Risch. Aye proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Young?
    Senator Young. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cruz?
    Senator Cruz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rounds?
    Senator Rounds. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hagerty?
    Senator Hagerty. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No.
    The clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 9; the nays are 13.
    The Chairman. And the amendment is not agreed to.
    Is there any other Member seeking----
    Senator Hagerty. Mr. Chairman, may I seek recognition?
    The Chairman. Senator Hagerty?
    Senator Hagerty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask to call up 
Hagerty First Degree amendment 1, 2, and 3, and I also request 
unanimous consent for en bloc consideration of these Hagerty 
First Degree amendments, as modified by their respective 
Hagerty Second Degree amendments.
    The Chairman. Without objection.
    Senator Hagerty. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, my proposed 
amendment would do three important things. First, it would 
repeal the 1991 and 2002 Saddam-era authorizations for the use 
of military force in Iraq. Second, it would provide modern and 
tailored authority for the President to protect our national 
security interests from continuing threats that are posed by 
terrorists and state sponsors of terrorism that operate in 
Iraq. And third, it would provide modern and tailored authority 
for the President to prevent and respond to attacks against 
Americans by terrorists and state sponsors of terrorism who are 
operating in Iraq.
    I am offering this amendment at a time when the Biden 
administration is continuing to negotiate with Iran over how to 
revive the Iran Nuclear Deal, indeed, a deal that I believe to 
be fundamentally flawed. But even more broadly, the United 
States and our allies in the Middle East remain in a much 
longer struggle with Iran's terrorist-sponsoring regime. On 
that score, Iran is escalating its posture against us. It is 
repeatedly using terrorists, militants, rockets, and drones to 
attack Americans and our allies, and they have done so numerous 
times since January of 2021. As a lifelong businessman and a 
former diplomat, I am loathe to ever unilaterally take our own 
leverage off the table. It is bad negotiating strategy. I am no 
fan of unilateral disarmament, particularly in light of an 
escalation like this. It is simple. If you take a card off the 
table, you better get something for it, or you should put 
another card back down on the table.
    President Trump cited the 2002 AUMF as one of two 
authorities used to justify his decision to eliminate General 
Soleimani, the Iran regime's terrorist-in-chief, who is 
responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American troops in 
the Middle East. If we are going to repeal that AUMF, we should 
replace it with something to keep protecting Americans, 
especially as Iran-backed terrorists keep escalating attacks on 
Americans in the Middle East. I believe that the United States 
can strengthen its position if Congress gets up off the 
sidelines and provides the President with clear and defined 
authorities to protect Americans here.
    If we repeal the Iraq authorizations, we need to put 
something back on the table that is modern, that is tailored, 
and that is limited so that we can message clearly to our 
allies in the Middle East as well as to our adversaries, like 
Iran, and the United States remains resolved to protect our 
Nation's interest and, most of all, our people, including our 
diplomats and our troops. I believe that the legislative 
language that I proposed here can help us do just that, and I 
urge my colleagues to support it. Thank you.
    The Chairman. I thank the Senator. I appreciate and share 
the Senator's concerns about protecting U.S. personnel and 
facilities from terrorist attacks. I believe his prior service 
as a Chief-of-Mission makes him keenly aware of the threats 
posed to our missions and outposts overseas. However, as we 
heard from our Administration witnesses yesterday, they already 
believe they have sufficient authority under Article II of the 
Constitution and under the 2001 AUMF to defend our forces and 
facilities in Iraq from attack.
    S.J.Res. 10 is an effort to repeal two outdated AUMFs, but 
this amendment is part of a series of amendments that would 
transform the legislation into an authorization for the use of 
force. If passed, this amendment would constitute a significant 
delegation of war-making authority to the President against 
unspecified entities, and implicitly including Iran, without 
limitations. So, I agree with the Senator's sentiment that we 
need a modern and tailored AUMF, and I believe that repealing 
and replacing the 2001 AUMF is the best way to ensure that that 
scope of authority is appropriate, but I do not support 
converting this bill into an AUMF. And for that reason, I urge 
my colleagues to vote no on this en bloc amendment. Senator 
Risch?
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman and fellow Senators, I am going 
to vote ``yes'' for that. I have to tell you that I am pretty 
good at counting votes, so I know how this is going to come 
out. I would be very reluctant to vote ``yes'' on this if it 
was actually going to pass, and it is primarily because what 
this does is, as the Chairman pointed out, something very 
significant in that it does authorize. And that is something 
that we have all learned over recent days, months, years, and 
for as long as I have been here, that this language really 
needs to be vetted, heard both in a classified setting and in a 
public setting as to what we are actually granting to the 
President. So that is serious business, and I am not prepared 
to say that this language is what we need to do. But 
nonetheless, because I think messaging is so important with 
what we are doing, I am going to vote ``yes'' on this just to 
send a message to Tehran.
    The Chairman. Any other Member? Senator Young?
    Senator Young. Just an observation, Mr. Chairman, because I 
do know that so many Americans and world leaders follow these 
proceedings. It seems like we are placing more emphasis on the 
expressive power of one's vote than we are the actual text of 
language itself. And that just strikes me as a little bizarre 
that one would be supportive of legislative language that they 
do not actually support because they think it sends a signal to 
the world that is different than the language itself. So, I am 
perplexed. I am perplexed because that is not how I make my 
decisions as it pertains to these votes, and I think it should 
lead to--and I will invite my colleagues publicly to a broader 
conversation about how we make these decisions. It may make me 
rethink perhaps how I cast my own votes. I doubt it. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Does the Senator seek a recorded vote?
    Senator Hagerty. If I might respond, Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Yes, Senator Hagerty?
    Senator Hagerty. I agree that this whole process is odd, 
Senator Young, and the oddest thing is the timing of it. The 
fact that the Biden administration would bring this up at a 
time when Iran is escalating its efforts against us, against 
the American people, against our allies, against our troops in 
Iraq. The timing of this does not make sense, except in the 
context of negotiations that are taking place in Vienna right 
now. I do not want to us de-leverage at this point. From a 
businessperson's standpoint, you do not de-leverage at a time 
when your opposition is escalating. That is why I am trying to 
at least offer an ability to keep our leverage on the table. We 
should get something for this, and we should not unilaterally 
disarm. That is my concern. Thank you.
    The Chairman. I would just note that I see no leverage in 
the 2002 authorization as it relates to a time in which Saddam 
Hussein was the enemy of the United States and the actions were 
taken, and that has taken place. There is a new government, and 
so I respectfully disagree with the Senator. Does the Senator 
seek a recorded vote or will he take a voice vote?
    Senator Hagerty. A recorded vote, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    Senator Markey. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
    The Chairman. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    Senator Booker. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schatz?
    Senator Schatz. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Senator Van Hollen. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    Senator Risch. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
    Senator Romney. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Young?
    Senator Young. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cruz?
    Senator Cruz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rounds?
    Senator Rounds. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hagerty?
    Senator Hagerty. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No.
    The clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 7; the nays are 15.
    The Chairman. And the amendment is not agreed to.
    Is there any other Member seeking recognition to offer an 
amendment?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, is there a motion to approve S.J.Res. 
10, as amended?
    Senator Cardin. So move.
    The Chairman. So moved by Senator Cardin. Is there a 
second?
    Senator Kaine. Second.
    The Chairman. Seconded. The motion has been made and 
seconded.
    The question is on the motion to approve S.J.Res. 10, as 
amended.
    All those in favor will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All those opposed will say no.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it. The majority of Members 
present having voted in the affirmative, the ayes have it, and 
the legislation is agreed.
    Senator Cruz. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Senator Cruz?
    Senator Cruz. I ask that I be recorded as voting ``no.''
    The Chairman. Senator Cruz will be listed as voting ``no.''
    Senator Hagerty. Likewise, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. As will Senator Hagerty.
    Senator Barrasso. Mr. Chairman, vote no.
    The Chairman. Senator Barrasso. Senator Rounds wants to be 
recorded ``no.''
    Senator Risch. Myself, too.
    The Chairman. Senator Risch wants to be recorded ``no,'' 
and Senator----
    Senator Risch. Senator Johnson wants to be recorded ``no.''
    The Chairman. Senator Johnson and Senator Romney will be 
recorded as voting ``no.''
    Now, before we close out, I would just ask we have a 
holdover of a series of nominees that the Ranking Member and I 
had agreed to have this morning. We are having a 2:00 meeting 
that will carry them over, which means that the only result is 
that Members will be inconvenienced in coming back at 2:00. And 
I am wondering in light of that, is there a willingness just to 
bring those nominations that were before the committee for 
today's business meeting at this time for a vote.
    Senator Cruz. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Senator Cruz?
    Senator Cruz. There is not, and I would note that the 
purpose of the holdover rule is being circumvented by the 
Chairman's practice of multiple business meetings in a single 
day, and that practice is undermining the prerogatives of every 
Member of this committee. So, if the Chairman wants to call 
another meeting later today to undermine the prerogatives of 
Members of this committee, the Chairman has the authority to do 
so, but I am certainly not going to facilitate that change in 
how this committee operates.
    The Chairman. For the Senator's edification, holding a 
second business meeting is not a question of first instance 
here. We have done this many times before, and, in fact, 
today's second meeting had the concurrence of the Ranking 
Member.
    This completes the committee's business----
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman, before we----
    The Chairman. Yes?
    Senator Risch [continuing]. I would ask unanimous consent 
that Senator Johnson be recorded as a ``no'' on the Phee and 
Medina nominations, please.
    The Chairman. On which ones?
    Senator Risch. Phee and Medina. Senator Johnson.
    The Chairman. Senator Johnson wants to be recorded ``no'' 
on Phee and Medina, and so he shall be recorded.
    That completes the committee's business.
    Senator Merkley. Mr. Chairman, may I be recorded as present 
and voting in support of the bill, of the resolution?
    The Chairman. Present.
    Senator Cardin. He voted in person.
    The Chairman. Okay.
    Senator Merkley. Be recorded as an aye. Present and voting. 
Thank you.
    The Chairman. Senator Merkley will be recorded aye and in 
person on the bill that was just passed.
    That completes the committee's business. I ask unanimous--
--
    Mr. Kaine. Mr. Chair?
    The Chairman. Let me just finish this, and then I am happy 
to recognize.
    I ask unanimous consent that the staff be authorized to 
make technical and conforming changes.
    And without objection, so ordered.
    Who seeks recognition? Senator Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. I was just curious about the vote because it 
was a voice vote, and I think there are seven recorded 
``noes,'' and now there is one recorded ``aye.'' And so, I 
guess should all of the ``ayes'' be recorded ``ayes''?
    The Chairman. I am happy to consider that if that is what 
the----
    Senator Kaine. Yeah.
    The Chairman. All of you know what? Just let us do a 
recorded vote. This way there is no confusion.
    The clerk will call the vote on S.J.Res. 10 for adoption.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    Senator Markey. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
    [Laughter.]
    Voice. Absent.
    The Chairman. Aye by by proxy.
    [Laughter.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    The Chairman. Senator Booker?
    Senator Booker. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schatz?
    Senator Schatz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Senator Van Hollen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    Senator Risch. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
    Senator Romney. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Young?
    Senator Young. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cruz?
    Senator Cruz. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rounds?
    Senator Rounds. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hagerty?
    Senator Hagerty. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Aye.
    The clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 14; the nays are 8.
    The Chairman. S.J.Res. 10 is affirmatively passed and sent 
to the Senate for its full consideration.
    Senator Schatz?
    Senator Schatz. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
Senator Merkley be record as an ``aye'' in person.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. Is there objection?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered, and Senator 
Merkley owes you one.
    With that, the business meeting is adjourned.


    [Whereupon, at 11:26 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
              Additional Material Submitted for the Record


Corespondence Submitted to the Committee in Support of the Confirmation 
   of Hon. Kenneth Lee Salazar to be United States Ambassador to the 
                         United Mexican States

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]




                Why Repealing the 1991 and 2002 Iraq War
                     Authorizations Is Sound Policy


             by Charles D. Stimson, The Heritage Foundation

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]







                              ----------                              






                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                    WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 4, 2021--p.m.

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

                Summary of Action Taken By the Committee


                              NOMINATIONS

  The Honorable Donald Lu, of California, a Career member of the Senior 
        Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Assistant 
        Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs--agreed to by voice 
        vote

  The Honorable Marcela Escobari, of Massachusetts, to be an Assistant 
        Administrator of the United States Agency for International 
        Development (Latin America and the Caribbean)--agreed to by 
        voice vote (Rubio recorded as no)

  The Honorable Rufus Gifford, of Massachusetts, to be Chief of 
        Protocol, and to have the rank of Ambassador during his tenure 
        of service--agreed to by voice vote

  Ms. Jessica Lewis, of Ohio, to be an Assistant Secretary of State 
        (Political-Military Affairs)--agreed to by voice vote

  Ms. Lee Satterfield, of South Carolina, to be an Assistant Secretary 
        of State (Educational and Cultural Affairs)--agreed to by voice 
        vote

  The Honorable Isobel Coleman, of New York, to be a Deputy 
        Administrator of the United States Agency for International 
        Development (Policy and Programming)--agreed to by voice vote 
        (Rubio and Johnson recorded as no)

  Ms. Paloma Adams-Allen, of the District of Columbia, to be a Deputy 
        Administrator of the United States Agency for International 
        Development (Management and Resources)--agreed to by voice vote

  The Honorable Christopher Lu, of Virginia, to be Representative of 
        the United States of America to the United Nations for U.N. 
        Management and Reform, with the rank of Ambassador, and to be 
        the 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 Representative of the United 
        States of America to the United Nations for U.N. Management and 
        Reform--agreed to by roll call vote (12-10)

          Yeas: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, Kaine, 
        Markey, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen, and Romney

          Nays: Risch, Rubio (proxy), Johnson (proxy), Portman (proxy), 
        Paul (proxy), Young (proxy), Barrasso (proxy), Cruz, Rounds, 
        Hagerty (proxy)

                           Meeting Transcript

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:24 p.m., in 
Room SD-G50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert 
Menendez, Chairman of the committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Menendez [presiding], Cardin, Shaheen, 
Coons, Murphy, Kaine, Markey, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van 
Hollen, Risch, Romney, Cruz, and Rounds.

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

    The Chairman. This business meeting of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee will come to order.
    As I noted this morning, as a result of yet another blanket 
holdover request, we will be voting this afternoon on eight 
nominees. I said several weeks ago, but we will take a moment 
to reiterate, that this committee needs to return to a place 
where we are moving nominees, particularly career nominees, in 
regular order and without holdovers. These are individuals who 
sacrifice to serve their country and then are held in limbo for 
no reason other than to cause an undue delay. Unhappiness over 
policies that have nothing to do with the positions for which 
they have been nominated, in my view, is not a justifiable 
reason for holding over blanketly nominees.
    I hope we can collectively reflect on this and determine a 
better and more productive way to express our disappointment 
with Administration policies. Blanket holdovers have never been 
used in this committee, much less for this self-defeating 
purpose. The committee has a long history of working together 
in a bipartisan fashion and under the principle of comity, and 
we should strive to keep it that way. I appreciate the Ranking 
Member, who has worked with me, in moving these nominations, 
including with regard to the scheduling of this backup business 
meeting.
    With that, I recognize the Ranking Member for his remarks.

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

    Senator Risch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. I 
am going to speak only about the nomination of Mr. Lu. I am 
going to vote ``no'' on Mr. Lu. And to summarize my objections, 
well, first of all, his original answers to the questions for 
the record were totally unacceptable. We sent them back, and 
they patched up the whole sum, but still not sufficiently for 
me. But, more importantly than that, we really need reform at 
the U.N., and Mr. Lu, although he says some things, I just do 
not believe he has got the enthusiasm that he should have for 
that particular question.
    I am particularly concerned about the caps for our dues at 
the U.N., which Senator--then Senator Biden, in partnership 
with Senator Helms, negotiated and put in place as U.S. law 
being a 25-percent cap on U.S. contributions to the U.N. We 
have--the U.N. continues to attempt to assess us more, and that 
is in violation of U.S. law. And, again, I find his enthusiasm 
less than overwhelming to support the U.S. law of a 25-percent 
cap. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Risch. Without objection, 
we will now consider en bloc seven nominations. They are Donald 
Lu--not the Lu that the Ranking Member was speaking about--to 
Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs; Marcela 
Escobari to be Assistant Administrator of USAID for Latin 
America and the Caribbean; Rufus Gifford, to be the Chief of 
Protocol; Jessica Lewis to be Assistant Secretary of State for 
Political Military Affairs; Lee Satterfield to be Assistant 
Secretary of State for Education and Cultural Affairs; Isobel 
Coleman to be Deputy Administrator of USAID for policy and 
programming; Paloma Adams-Allen to be Deputy Administrator of 
USAID for Management and Resources.
    Is there any Member who wishes to speak on these 
nominations?
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman, did you say we would have a 
roll call on Mr. Lu?
    The Chairman. Yeah, the other Lu. There are two Lus.
    Senator Risch. Right.
    The Chairman. Yes, of course, we will have a roll call----
    Senator Risch. Got it.
    The Chairman [continuing]. On the Lu that the Ranking 
Member has raised the issue with.
    So en bloc, for those seven, if there is no one seeking 
recognition, is there a motion to approve these nominations en 
bloc?
    Voice. So move.
    The Chairman. So moved. Is there a second?
    Senator Shaheen. Second.
    The Chairman. Seconded. All those in favor will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All those who are opposed, say no.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. A majority of Members present having voted in 
the affirmative, the ayes have it, and the nominations are 
reported to the Senate favorably.
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Yes, sir?
    Senator Risch. Senator Rubio would be like to be recorded 
as a ``no'' on Escobari and Coleman, Senator Johnson ``no'' on 
Coleman, and thank you.
    The Chairman. And they shall so be recorded. The clerk will 
so record them.
    Now we will have a recorded vote on Christopher Lu to be 
Representative of the United States to the United Nations for 
U.N. Management and Reform, and the Alternative Representative 
of the United States to the Sessions of the General Assembly of 
the United Nations.
    The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    Senator Markey. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    Senator Booker. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schatz?
    Senator Schatz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Senator Van Hollen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    Senator Risch. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
    Senator Romney. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Young?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cruz?
    Senator Cruz. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rounds?
    Senator Rounds. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hagerty?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Aye.
    The clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 12; the noes are 10.
    The Chairman. And the nomination is favorably reported to 
the full Senate.
    That completes the committee's business, and with the 
thanks of the Chair, this meeting is adjourned.


    [Whereupon, at 2:30 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]



                              ----------                              






                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                       TUESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2021

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

                Summary of Action Taken by the Committee


                              NOMINATIONS

  Ms. Lisa A. Carty, of Maryland, to be Representative of the United 
        States of America on the Economic and Social Council of 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 
        her tenure of service as Representative of the United States of 
        America on the Economic and Social Council of the United 
        Nations--agreed to by voice vote (Rubio recorded as no)

  The Honorable Barbara A. Leaf, of Virginia, to be an Assistant 
        Secretary of State (Near Eastern Affairs)--agreed to by voice 
        vote (Risch, Rubio, Johnson, Barrasso, Cruz, and Hagerty 
        recorded as no)

  Ms. Elizabeth Anne Noseworthy Fitzsimmons, of Delaware, a Career 
        member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-
        Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary 
        of the United States of America to the Togolese Republic--
        agreed to by voice vote (Rubio recorded as no)

  The Honorable David R. Gilmour, of the District of Columbia, a Career 
        member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-
        Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary 
        of the United States of America to the Republic of Equatorial 
        Guinea--agreed to by voice vote (Rubio recorded as no)

  The Honorable Patricia Mahoney, of Virginia, a Career member of the 
        Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be 
        Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United 
        States of America to the Central African Republic--agreed to by 
        voice vote (Rubio recorded as no)

  The Honorable Peter Hendrick Vrooman, of New York, a Career member of 
        the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be 
        Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United 
        States of America to the Republic of Mozambique--agreed to by 
        voice vote (Rubio recorded as no)

  Mr. Peter D. Haas, 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 People's Republic of Bangladesh--agreed to by 
        voice vote (Rubio recorded as no)

  Ms. Julie Chung, of California, a Career member of the Senior Foreign 
        Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka--
        agreed to by voice vote (Rubio recorded as no)

  Dr. Atul A. Gawande, of Massachusetts, to be an Assistant 
        Administrator of the United States Agency for International 
        Development--agreed to by roll call vote (12-10)

          Yeas: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, Kaine, 
        Markey, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen, and Barrasso

          Nays: Risch, Rubio, Johnson (proxy), Romney, Portman, Paul 
        (proxy), Young (proxy), Cruz, Rounds (proxy), and Hagerty

  Mr. Brian Wesley Shukan, of Virginia, a Career member of the Senior 
        Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Republic of Benin--agreed to by voice vote 
        (Rubio recorded as no)

  Mr. Jonathan Eric Kaplan, of California, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Republic of Singapore--agreed to by voice vote 
        (Rubio recorded as no)

  The Honorable R. Nicholas Burns, of Massachusetts, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the People's Republic of China--agreed to by voice 
        vote (Rubio and Hagerty recorded as no)

  The Honorable Rahm Emanuel, of Illinois, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to Japan--agreed to by voice vote (Markey, Merkley, 
        Rubio, and Cruz recorded as no)

  The Honorable Julissa Reynoso Pantaleon, of New York, to be 
        Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United 
        States of America to the Kingdom of Spain, and to serve 
        concurrently and without additional compensation as Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Principality of Andorra--agreed to by voice vote 
        (Rubio, Cruz, and Hagerty recorded as no)

                               FSO LISTS

  Christopher Alexander, et al., dated April 27, 2021 (PN480), as 
        modified--agreed to by voice vote


  Jim Nelson Barnhart Jr., et al., dated June 22, 2021 (PN725)--agreed 
        to by voice vote

                           Meeting Transcript

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:52 p.m., in 
Room SD-G50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert 
Menendez, Chairman of the committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Menendez [presiding], Cardin, Shaheen, 
Coons, Murphy, Kaine, Markey, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van 
Hollen, Risch, Johnson, Romney, Portman, Barrasso, and Cruz.

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

    The Chairman. This business meeting of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee will come to order.
    Today, we are considering 3 Foreign Service officer 
promotion lists, 35 nominations, and 6 legislative items.
    Turning first to nominations, I am pleased that we have a 
long list of nominees before us today, both for critical 
positions at the State Department and USAID, as well as 
embassies around the world. I want to emphasize the continued 
need to move with alacrity on nominations. There are still 
nominees who have been pending for months and need to get 
hearings, and I appreciate the work Senator Risch is doing with 
me on this regard.
    I know when, Senator Risch, when you were the Chairman, you 
were clear that you thought the hearing was the time to air any 
issues, as you used to say, much like a trial, in your words. 
The Members could ask questions and let the chips fall where 
they may. I hope we can apply that standard to current nominees 
as well.
    I also want to take a moment to thank the various Members 
of this committee on both sides who have served as Chair or 
Ranking Member for nominations hearings. I greatly appreciate 
your efforts to ensure that our national security agencies are 
fully staffed.
    Unfortunately, we have been unable to move forward with a 
number of nominations hearings at the subcommittee level 
because we have had no Republican who has stepped up to serve 
as the Ranking Member. And I would hope that all Members are 
reminded that serving from time to time as the Chair or Ranking 
Member is an expectation for Members of this committee, 
particularly those who are in subcommittee leadership 
positions.
    Given the number of pending nominations and those we 
anticipate receiving over the coming months, we will continue 
to rely on your participation. The Ranking Member and I have 
discussed this. We are not going to do everything at full 
committee. There are a lot of opportunities at subcommittees. 
Not only is it about nominations, but obviously the substantive 
issues that those nominees have in their regions. So, it is a 
really worthwhile endeavor. So, it is my hope that all Members 
will equally contribute in that regard.
    Regarding the nominees we are considering today, while I 
will not speak about each of them, I do want to say that I 
believe they are all well qualified and deserving of their 
nominations, and I look forward to their swift confirmation.
    Turning next to the legislative items on our agenda, we 
have before us today four bills and two resolutions. Let me 
just say a few words on those.
    I am pleased that we are moving H.R. 965 the Young African 
Leaders Initiative Act, which was introduced by Representative 
Bass and was passed the House in April. With nearly 60 percent 
of Africa's total population currently below the age of 35, 
this bill is an important effort to codify the Young African 
Leaders Initiative, which brings the next generation of African 
leaders to the United States to develop critical skills.
    This has proven to be a highly successful initiative, and I 
hope my colleagues would join me in supporting the bill.
    We will also be considering S. 1104, a bill intended to 
modernize U.S. foreign policy's approach to Haiti. This bill 
could not have come at a more critical time for our policy 
towards Haiti, which sadly has faced crisis after crisis in the 
last several months. From a delayed election to a wave of gang 
violence and kidnappings, to a presidential assassination, an 
earthquake, a hurricane, and a migration crisis, this bill sets 
U.S. policy and support of an inclusive Haitian-led development 
agenda.
    I commend Senators Cardin and Rubio for their leadership on 
the bill, and I am pleased that the manager's amendment 
includes a provision that I offered requiring a report on the 
investigation into the assassination of former President Moise.
    I also have to note that I am deeply troubled by the news 
regarding the kidnapping of 17 American missionaries in Haiti 
over the weekend. These kidnappings, along with a growing 
number of kidnappings of Haitians every week, mark yet another 
alarming dimension of the expansive crisis in Haiti and the 
severely reduced capacity of the Haitian Government to uphold 
the rule of law.
    We will also be marking up S. 2129, named in honor of Otto 
Warmbier, an American college student who died at the hands of 
the brutal North Korean regime. I commend Senators Portman and 
Brown for their leadership on this bill, which aims to counter 
North Korea's censorship and its repressive information and 
violence.
    As we are seeing in authoritarian regimes around the world, 
there is an increasing need for the United States to invest in 
efforts to advance freedom of expression and to support 
Internet freedom. This is certainly true in North Korea.
    S. 1657, the South China Sea and East China Sea Sanctions 
Act, led by Senators Rubio and Cardin, is an important bill 
endorsing strong measures to counter the Chinese Government's 
aggressive behavior in the South China Sea and East China Sea. 
The overwhelming majority of this committee and the full Senate 
have agreed that countering Chinese aggression is critical to 
developing a stable and prosperous Indo-Pacific region. I look 
forward to strongly supporting this bill today.
    Finally, I am pleased that we are marking up two important 
resolutions, S.Res. 345, addressing the political situation in 
Belarus, and S.Res. 380, expressing support for the people of 
the Republic of South Sudan.
    In the aftermath of Belarus' illegitimate 2020 presidential 
election, ordinary Belarussians stood up to fight for a free 
and democratic society. S. 345 makes clear to those fighting 
for freedom in Belarus that the United States stands with them 
in their democratic aspirations. We also stand with NATO allies 
Lithuania, Poland, and Latvia, as they face a growing 
humanitarian crisis imposed by the Lukashenko regime. I commend 
Senator Shaheen for her leadership on this resolution.
    Last, but not least, this year marked the 10th anniversary 
of South Sudan's independence. However, instead of celebrating 
that milestone, we find ourselves at a very dangerous 
crossroads. A civil war pitting forces loyal to President Salva 
Kiir against those aligned with Vice President Riek Machar has 
killed nearly 400,000 people and displaced over 4 million. 
Despite a 2018 peace agreement, conflict and unrest continues.
    This resolution urges the Administration to develop a 
meaningful policy aimed at supporting a peaceful, stable, 
democratic, and prosperous South Sudan. I strongly support the 
resolution, led by the distinguished Ranking Member and my 
colleague from New Jersey, Senator Booker.
    With that, let me recognize the distinguished Ranking 
Member for his remarks. Senator Risch?

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

    Senator Risch. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Recognizing the thin margin we have here, I am going to 
move this along pretty quickly.
    First, as to the legislative items, I wanted to give my 
thanks for taking up the resolution, Senate Resolution 380, 
calling on the Biden administration to review U.S. policy 
toward South Sudan 10 years after independence. My sincere 
thanks to Senator Booker for partnering with me on this 
resolution. I hope all our colleagues will join us in 
supporting the people of South Sudan in their pursuit of peace 
and stability and encouraging the re-examination of U.S. policy 
there.
    I am also glad to see the committee taking up several 
important bills on this agenda. In particular, thanks to 
Senators Rubio and Cardin for work on the bill dealing with 
China, our greatest foreign policy challenge and priority and 
for that bill being on this markup. It is important that the 
U.S. use the tools at our disposal to deter and punish the 
Chinese Communist Party's campaign of coercion in the South 
China Sea.
    Thanks also to Senator Portman for offering his bill on 
promoting access to fact-based information in countering 
censorship in North Korea. It is a privilege also to mark up a 
bill that is intended to honor the life of Otto Warmbier.
    I also want to commend Senator Shaheen for her work on the 
resolution condemning the political situation in Belarus, and 
Senator Cardin for his bill on development accountability for 
assistance to Haiti.
    I would like to express my support for efforts put forward 
by the committee to authorize the Young African Leaders 
Initiative, better known as YALI. This is an extremely 
successful program. It increases U.S. public diplomacy in 
exchanges with Africa's best and brightest young leaders.
    Regarding the nominations, we will consider a number of 
nominations, including four crucial posts, such as Israel, 
Canada, Turkey, NATO, the U.N. Food and Ag Organization, and 
others. I do plan to support most of this slate of nominations. 
I do want to be clear that I have a few of them that I have 
reservations on, but by and large, the nominations need to be 
processed.
    Specifically, with regard to Dr. Kang's nomination and the 
International Security and Nonproliferation Bureau. While Dr. 
Kang is well-versed in nuclear nonproliferation issues, the 
COVID-19 pandemic was a wake-up call that it is time to take 
biological threats more seriously. The Department has been 
woefully absent in monitoring this particular set of issues. It 
is a considerable concern to me.
    This past month, I introduced the Biological Weapons Policy 
Act, aimed at strengthening State Department authorities to 
prevent bioweapons proliferation. I hope Dr. Kang will take 
ownership of that responsibility and partner with me in this 
effort.
    The ISN Bureau must also ensure that nonproliferation 
regimes, like the Missile Technology Control Regime, do not 
place undue burdens on U.S. allies while failing to constrain 
U.S. competitors and that nuclear energy be seen as a primary 
pillar of nonproliferation safety. Short-sighted politics 
should not drive security policies for the decades to come.
    I am going to vote ``no'' on Dr. Kang, knowing he is going 
to be confirmed, but hoping that he will prove my vote to be 
wrong. But this is primarily as a result of what has happened 
in that Bureau in recent times.
    I am glad to be working the process of these nominations.
    With that, I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    All right. Before I move to seek a vote en bloc, first of 
all, we have two nominees who are being held over by Members--
Barbara Leaf, who is the nominee to be the Assistant Secretary 
of State for Near Eastern Affairs, and Dr. Atul Gawande, to be 
an Assistant Administrator of USAID. Those two are being held 
over by the request of Members.
    The rest I will ask for en bloc. Before I do so, is there 
anyone who wishes to speak to the nominees or the legislation?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, I do understand that Senator Van 
Hollen has asked for an opportunity, and then we are going to 
go to a vote.
    Senator Van Hollen. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    First, on the YALI legislation, I am glad we are moving 
that forward. Senator Rounds and I introduced that bill on the 
Senate side, Congresswoman Bass on the House. They got the 
House bill over here. So, I am glad we are proceeding with 
this.
    But, Mr. Chairman, what I wanted to raise was my 
disappointment that another bipartisan bill that has been in 
this committee now for many months has not gotten to a markup 
and voting session. It is called the Foreign Service Families 
Act. It was introduced by Senator Dan Sullivan and me last 
year.
    We reintroduced it this Congress. It has Members from both 
sides of the aisle on it. It provides the spouses of Foreign 
Service officers the same kind of ability to access jobs in our 
overseas missions as the spouses of folks serving in the 
military where they have the credentials.
    As I think everybody knows, we want to recruit the very 
best and brightest in the Foreign Service. Many Foreign Service 
families have two working spouses. And if a spouse is not the 
Foreign Service officer, is not able to use his or her talents 
overseas where applicable, it makes it a lot harder. And so, 
this extends some of the same benefits to Foreign Service 
officers that we provide to military families abroad.
    And I know of no substantive opposition. I know it has been 
cleared on the majority side. I raised the issue with the 
Ranking Member. I know of no actual reason that it is being 
held up.
    And so, Mr. Chairman, I would just ask for a commitment 
that we bring that before this committee for a vote at the next 
work session.
    The Chairman. The Chair is and has been supportive of the 
Senator's request and of the legislation. Of course, you know 
that we get our agendas by consent, and we have not had consent 
to date.
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me say that 
the Senator is correct. He and I did discuss this, and I 
apologize. We have a lot of stuff on our plate. I just have not 
gotten to it yet. There is nothing nefarious about this. But I 
commit to you I will soon, particularly after you have brought 
it up here again.
    But I appreciate you talking to me about it. I will be back 
with you on that.
    Senator Van Hollen. No, I appreciate that, and I thank the 
Senator. I hope we can move forward.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    With that, without objection, we will now consider en bloc 
three Foreign Service officer promotion lists and all of the 
nominees that have been noticed for this business meeting, 
minus the two that I announced earlier that are being held 
over.
    Is there a motion to approve these items en bloc?
    Senator Coons. So moved.
    Senator Shaheen. Second.
    The Chairman. So moved and seconded. All those in favor----
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I do not object 
to that, but I do have a number of people who want to be 
recorded ``no'' on some of them. So if we can do that when we 
are done?
    Thank you.
    The Chairman. We will first have the vote on the en bloc 
measure, and then we will record any dissenting votes on any 
specific candidate.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All those opposed, say no.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it, and the nominees are 
recommended favorably to the Senate.
    Senator Risch, would you like to share now, please?
    Senator Risch. Yes, first of all, I would like to be 
recorded as a ``no'' on both Kang and Holgate.
    Senator Rubio has asked to be recorded as a ``no'' on all 
the noms, except those on the FSO list.
    Senator Johnson has asked to be recorded ``no'' on Holgate, 
Kang, and Crocker.
    Senator Barrasso has asked to be recorded as a ``no'' on 
Kang, Holgate, and Markell.
    Senator Hagerty has a number of which, which I will provide 
to the Clerk as opposed to reading them out because it is 
lengthy.
    The Chairman. All right. And those shall be so ordered as 
recorded----
    Senator Portman. Mr. Chairman?
    Senator Cruz. Mr. Chairman?
    Senator Portman. I would like to be recorded as a ``no'' on 
Mr. Kang.
    The Chairman. Senator----
    Senator Portman. ``No'' on Kang.
    The Chairman [continuing]. Portman will be recorded ``no'' 
on Kang. With that----
    Senator Risch. Senator Cruz, Senator Cruz----
    Senator Cruz. This is Senator Cruz. Mr. Chairman, I would 
ask to be recorded as a ``no'' on Bondy, on Crocker, on 
Gawande, Gitenstein, Holgate, Kang, Markell, Nides, Noyes, and 
Scheinman, please.
    The Chairman. We will do so, except Gawande is one of the 
people held over. So we will save that for--yes.
    Senator Cruz. Oh, okay.
    The Chairman. They shall be recorded that way.
    With that, let me then turn to the legislation at hand. 
Without objection, we will now consider en bloc four bills and 
two resolutions that I previously read.
    Is there a motion to consider them en bloc?
    Senator Coons. So moved.
    Senator Shaheen. Second.
    The Chairman. So moved, seconded.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All those opposed, say no.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it, and the resolutions and 
legislation are passed.
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman, Senator Paul has asked to be 
recorded as a ``no'' on Senate bill 1657, please.
    The Chairman. Senator Paul shall be recorded as a ``no'' on 
S. 1657.
    Senator Romney. Mr. Chairman, I have asked to be recorded 
as a sponsor of 1657.
    The Chairman. Senator Romney will be so recorded as a 
sponsor, negating the--no.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Romney. That is not why I spoke out.
    The Chairman. I know that.
    Okay. That completes the committee's business.
    We ask unanimous consent that staff be authorized to make 
technical and conforming changes. Without objection, so 
ordered.
    Senator Portman. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Senator Portman?
    Senator Portman. Okay. First of all, I want to thank you 
for accepting the Haiti amendment in the manager's amendment. 
As you know, an Ohio-based Christian group has had 17 of its 
missionaries kidnapped, and that amendment relates to that and 
us doing a better job at the interagency level to deal with 
these violent gangs in Haiti.
    And then, with regard to the Otto Warmbier Act, was that 
part of your en bloc passage?
    The Chairman. Yes, it did just pass.
    Senator Portman. I thank you for that as well. And this 
honor that it is named after Otto Warmbier also from Ohio. And 
appreciate the committee's work with us on that over the last 
several months to come up with a good balance in dealing with 
sanctions, dealing with ensuring that the people of North Korea 
get an opportunity to hear from other than the propaganda from 
their own government.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Any other Member seeking recognition?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, this business meeting is adjourned.


    [Whereupon, at 3:09 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]



                              ----------                              






                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                      WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2021

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

                Summary of Action Taken by the Committee

                              NOMINATIONS

  Ms. Lisa A. Carty, of Maryland, to be Representative of the United 
        States of America on the Economic and Social Council of 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 
        her tenure of service as Representative of the United States of 
        America on the Economic and Social Council of the United 
        Nations--agreed to by voice vote (Rubio recorded as no)

  The Honorable Barbara A. Leaf, of Virginia, to be an Assistant 
        Secretary of State (Near Eastern Affairs)--agreed to by voice 
        vote (Risch, Rubio, Johnson, Barrasso, Cruz, and Hagerty 
        recorded as no)

  Ms. Elizabeth Anne Noseworthy Fitzsimmons, of Delaware, a Career 
        member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-
        Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary 
        of the United States of America to the Togolese Republic--
        agreed to by voice vote (Rubio recorded as no)

  The Honorable David R. Gilmour, of the District of Columbia, a Career 
        member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-
        Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary 
        of the United States of America to the Republic of Equatorial 
        Guinea--agreed to by voice vote (Rubio recorded as no)

  The Honorable Patricia Mahoney, of Virginia, a Career member of the 
        Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be 
        Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United 
        States of America to the Central African Republic--agreed to by 
        voice vote (Rubio recorded as no)

  The Honorable Peter Hendrick Vrooman, of New York, a Career member of 
        the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be 
        Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United 
        States of America to the Republic of Mozambique--agreed to by 
        voice vote (Rubio recorded as no)

  Mr. Peter D. Haas, 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 People's Republic of Bangladesh--agreed to by 
        voice vote (Rubio recorded as no)

  Ms. Julie Chung, of California, a Career member of the Senior Foreign 
        Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka--
        agreed to by voice vote (Rubio recorded as no)

  Dr. Atul A. Gawande, of Massachusetts, to be an Assistant 
        Administrator of the United States Agency for International 
        Development--agreed to by roll call vote (12-10)

          Yeas: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, Kaine, 
        Markey, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen, and Barrasso

          Nays: Risch, Rubio, Johnson (proxy), Romney, Portman, Paul 
        (proxy), Young (proxy), Cruz, Rounds (proxy), and Hagerty

  Mr. Brian Wesley Shukan, of Virginia, a Career member of the Senior 
        Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Republic of Benin--agreed to by voice vote 
        (Rubio recorded as no)

  Mr. Jonathan Eric Kaplan, of California, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Republic of Singapore--agreed to by voice vote 
        (Rubio recorded as no)

  The Honorable R. Nicholas Burns, of Massachusetts, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the People's Republic of China--agreed to by voice 
        vote (Rubio and Hagerty recorded as no)

  The Honorable Rahm Emanuel, of Illinois, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to Japan--agreed to by voice vote (Markey, Merkley, 
        Rubio, and Cruz recorded as no)

  The Honorable Julissa Reynoso Pantaleon, of New York, to be 
        Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United 
        States of America to the Kingdom of Spain, and to serve 
        concurrently and without additional compensation as Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Principality of Andorra--agreed to by voice vote 
        (Rubio, Cruz, and Hagerty recorded as no)

                               FSO LISTS

  Christopher Alexander, et al., dated April 27, 2021 (PN480), as 
        modified--agreed to by voice vote

  Jim Nelson Barnhart Jr., et al., dated June 22, 2021 (PN725)--agreed 
        to by voice vote

                           Meeting Transcript

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:52 a.m., in 
Room SD-G50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert 
Menendez, Chairman of the committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Menendez [presiding], Cardin, Shaheen, 
Coons, Murphy, Kaine, Markey, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van 
Hollen, Risch, Rubio, Romney, Portman, Barrasso, Cruz, and 
Hagerty.

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

    The Chairman. This  centssiness meeting of the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee will come to order.
    I am going to reserve my comments at the beginning because 
I understand Members have other obligations, and I will turn to 
the Ranking Member to see if he has any.
    Senator Risch. I will reserve.
    The Chairman. The Ranking Member is willing to reserve.
    Without objection, I would like to consider en bloc 2 
Foreign Service officer promotion lists and 14 nominations that 
have been noticed for this business meeting. Is there any 
objection to that process?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, so ordered.
    I would like to call a vote en bloc on the Foreign Service 
officer promotion lists and the 14 nominations that have been 
listed for the business meeting.
    Senator Cardin. So moved.
    The Chairman. Moved by Senator Cardin. Is there a second?
    Senator Shaheen. Second.
    The Chairman. Seconded by Senator Shaheen.
    All those in favor?
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Yes, Senator Risch?
    Senator Risch. Can you clarify that? What are we voting on? 
I understand the Foreign Service.
    The Chairman. We are voting en bloc the 2 Foreign Service 
officer promotion lists and the 14 nominations that were 
noticed for the business meeting.
    Senator Risch. Does that include Burns, Emanuel, et cetera?
    The Chairman. It does. Those are all the people who were 
listed on the meeting notice.
    Senator Risch. In that case, I would like to reclaim my 
time. Are you not going to speak to the noms?
    The Chairman. I am not right now in order to be able to 
accommodate others. I am happy to sit and listen to everybody 
as long as they want afterward here.
    Senator Risch. I want to briefly----
    The Chairman. Senator Risch.

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

    Senator Risch. Thank you.
    First of all, I want to speak to just a handful of these 
briefly. As far as Nick Burns to be Ambassador to China, I 
believe Ambassador Burns has the requisite experience and 
knowledge to advance our interests in today's global strategic 
competition. I plan to support his nomination.
    Nick Burns has been around a long time. I have known him a 
long time, probably no better Ambassador as far as being able 
to represent the U.S. interests, and he has committed he will 
support a strong U.S. military deterrent in the Indo-Pacific 
and advance policies that help Taiwan implement its asymmetric 
defense strategy.
    I am also encouraged by his commitment not to take any 
steps to trade away U.S. interests for the sake of climate 
cooperation with China. I will engage with him often to ensure 
he keeps these commitments.
    On the nomination of Mayor Rahm Emanuel to be Ambassador to 
Japan, Mayor Emanuel and I disagree about most of our politics. 
But we agree that Japan is the cornerstone of our Indo-Pacific 
strategy, and it is our greatest asset in the strategic 
competition with China. That alliance is built on shared values 
and trust and mutual defense commitments, chiefly extended 
nuclear deterrence.
    To put it bluntly, a no first use or sole purpose--which is 
a euphemism for no first use--policy would be a betrayal of the 
alliance with Japan and deterrent to our broader posture in the 
region. I have communicated that to Mayor Emanuel in no 
uncertain terms. I believe he understands that, and I believe 
he agrees with me. I guess we will see.
    I plan to support his nomination. However, I expect he will 
use his position and firsthand experience he will gain in the 
region to advocate against a no first use or sole purpose 
policy, and I am going to count on that with him.
    Ambassador Barbara Leaf is a qualified career diplomat with 
25 years experience, much of which she spent within the Bureau 
of Near Eastern Affairs. She is well suited to lead this 
Bureau. But I have major concerns where the Administration 
seems to be going with its Middle East policy.
    As hard as I keep tugging on this, I am seriously concerned 
by the growing number of countries across the region and the 
current Administration's seemingly openness to normalizing with 
the Assad regime. I am very much opposed to that and want more 
details on the gas deal the Administration is proposing that 
would flow through Syria and enrich the regime, including the 
legal arguments on how this would not violate Caesar sanctions.
    I also hope that Ambassador Leaf, if confirmed, will seek 
to restore confidence in the Department's long-term diplomatic 
commitment to the region following the disastrous withdrawal 
from Afghanistan.
    As it relates to questions for the record for Ambassador 
Leaf and for all our nominees, less than fulsome responses or 
non-answers have been a reoccurring issue. The Administration 
must be fully responsive and transparent to committee Members' 
requests for information.
    Close call. I am going to vote ``no,'' knowing she is going 
to be confirmed, but hopefully, that will set the record 
straight of the problems that I have.
    With regard to the Gawande nomination, improving the 
international pandemic preparedness is my top foreign 
assistance policy, and USAID's Bureau for Global Health will be 
integral to that effort. Dr. Gawande is a highly qualified 
medical professional who I think has the potential to bring 
effective, accountable leadership to USAID on global health 
matters.
    But I am also aware of concerns raised about his views on 
abortion, including those expressed in 1998 regarding partial 
birth abortion, which is deeply troubling. He has personally 
pledged to uphold all statutory prohibition on using U.S. 
foreign assistance to perform and promote abortion overseas, 
both verbally and in writing. I have serious reservations about 
his ability to do so in an administration equally committed to 
circumventing these same laws. So I am going to vote ``no'' on 
that.
    With that, I will turn it back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    I would ask Members if we could go to a vote. If anybody 
wants to cast a negative vote on any of these individuals, they 
can so be listed.
    Senator Merkley. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Is there any other Member? Senator Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. Yes. As I understood in conversation with 
the staff, I would ask for a separate voice vote on nominee 
number 13 to be Ambassador to Japan.
    The Chairman. Okay. The same thing would be accomplished. 
There is a voice vote now. Any member could be listed as a 
``no'' on any of the nominees. So a separate voice vote would 
still provide a voice vote, but if someone wanted to be 
recorded as a ``no,'' they would be specifically asked as a 
``no.'' But is that sufficient, or do you----
    Senator Merkley. I can accept that, yes.
    The Chairman. I am sorry?
    Senator Merkley. Yes, I can accept that.
    The Chairman. Okay, thank you.
    Senator Rubio. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Yes. Senator Rubio?
    Senator Rubio. Just a question. On this list that we are 
voting on, I would like to request a roll call vote on Dr. 
Gawande.
    The Chairman. You have that privilege, although prior to 
you, a motion was already made and seconded to proceed en bloc 
on a voice vote. But we will modify it to allow you to have a 
recorded vote.
    Senator Rubio. I appreciate that. Is your request that we 
reserve our comments until after the votes?
    The Chairman. Yes, please. And so since you have asked for 
a roll call vote on Mr. Gawande, the clerk will call the roll 
on Mr. Gawande.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    Senator Markey. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. Can you clarify?
    The Chairman. We are only having a roll call vote on Mr. 
Gawande at this point.
    Senator Merkley. On which nominee?
    The Chairman. Gawande.
    Senator Merkley. Yes, aye. Thank you.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    Senator Booker. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schatz?
    Senator Schatz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Senator Van Hollen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    Senator Risch. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Rubio. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Risch. No, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
    Senator Romney. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    Senator Portman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Risch. No, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Young?
    Senator Risch. No, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cruz?
    Senator Risch. No, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rounds?
    Senator Risch. No, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hagerty?
    Senator Hagerty. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 12, and the noes are 
10.
    The Chairman. And the nominee is favorably reported to the 
Senate.
    So we will proceed to the previous standing order, which is 
to consider en bloc 2 Foreign Service officer promotion lists 
and now 13 nominations, having Gawande already been taken care 
of, that have been noticed for this business meeting.
    And the clerk will call the roll. I am sorry. We are having 
a voice vote.
    Yes, I am sorry. Thank you, Senator Cardin.
    All those in favor will say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All those opposed will say no.
    [A chorus of noes.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it, and the nominations are 
agreed to and reported favorably to the Senate.
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Yes, Senator Risch?
    Senator Risch. Senator Johnson wants to be recorded as a 
``no'' on Leaf, as do I.
    The Chairman. And shall so be recorded.
    Senator Barrasso. No.
    The Chairman. Senator Barrasso will be recorded ``no'' on 
Leaf. Senator Hagerty?
    Senator Hagerty. I would like to be reported as a ``no'' on 
Leaf, Burns, and Pantaleon.
    The Chairman. Shall so be recorded. Senator Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be recorded as a 
``no'' on Rahm Emanuel.
    The Chairman. So recorded.
    Senator Rubio. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Senator Rubio?
    Senator Rubio. I want to be recorded a ``no'' on all of 
them.
    The Chairman. So recorded. Senator Markey?
    Senator Markey. May I be recorded ``no'' on Emanuel?
    The Chairman. So recorded. Having recorded everyone as they 
wish, a majority of the Members present having voted in the 
affirmative, the nominees are reported favorably to the Senate.
    So thank you everyone, for cooperating to be able to move 
this list. I am pleased that we had 14 nominees that we moved 
today, both for critical positions at the State Department and 
USAID, as well as embassies around the world. They are, I 
believe, all well qualified, deserving of their nominations, 
and I hope that we can move them on the floor swiftly.
    The slate of nominees that we moved today is representative 
of the quality of Biden administration nominations overall. 
Individuals who are highly qualified, I believe will be superb 
representatives of the United States. Filling these critical 
positions is in our national security interests, and I believe 
it is simply that clear.
    Unfortunately, the previously routine process of getting 
qualified nominees hearings and committee votes is like pulling 
teeth. I have been trying for some time to schedule a hearing 
for the nominee to be the Ambassador to Germany. We need a U.S. 
Ambassador in Berlin. So I identified this nomination as a top 
priority in early August, but the minority is refusing to clear 
a hearing.
    I have been trying to schedule a hearing for the USAID 
Middle East position. We cannot ignore a region that is 
perpetually in crisis. So I identified this nomination as a 
priority in early August, but the minority is blocking this 
hearing as well.
    And then there is the nominee to be the Special Envoy for 
Antisemitism. The minority has refused to grant her a hearing 
apparently because there is some concern about her tweets 
calling out the use of antisemitic tropes. Let us think about 
that a minute.
    We do not want the person nominated to advance our global 
efforts against antisemitism to call out antisemitism? I 
sincerely hope that is not the position of the minority, and 
that we can move these nominees forward expeditiously.
    I also have to note there are nominees ready for a 
committee vote who the minority will not clear. The tradition 
of this committee has always been to try to put nominees 
expeditiously on a business meeting agenda for an up-or-down 
vote if they have turned in their QFRs. Yet that is not 
happening.
    Take Sarah Margon or Mallory Stewart, two qualified 
nominees for important Assistant Secretary positions. They have 
fully responded to hundreds of QFRs, and they did so in time to 
be put up on the last business meeting. Yet the minority 
refused to allow a vote when we last met for that business 
meeting.
    Now I could understand this refusal to clear nominees if, 
like Senator Risch, when he was Chair, I had broken comity. But 
that is not the case. To the contrary, I have bent over 
backwards, despite all kinds of obstacles, to work with the 
Ranking Member and have noticed only those nominees that he has 
cleared. I repeat, every single nominee who has had a hearing 
or a business meeting vote this Congress has been with the 
explicit approval of the Ranking Member.
    But I would ask the Ranking Member does he not share the 
urgency to get these critical foreign affairs and national 
security positions filled? Why the delays? Why the obstacles?
    I know that, Senator Risch, in justifying repeatedly 
breaking comity last Congress, you told the committee that you 
believed in getting the facts out there at a hearing and 
letting the Members decide. So I would ask that you live by 
your own standard and that you give these nominees their day 
before the committee. If you or other Members want to vote 
against them, as we just had a series of votes against some of 
these nominees, so be it. But let us get it done. They deserve 
hearings and committee votes, not months of delay.
    We owe it to the American people and to our national 
security. So I would ask you and urge you to commit today here 
at this meeting to hearings the week of November 15th for at 
least Dr. Amy Gutmann, Deborah Lipstadt, Tamara Wittes, and 
Ambassador John Bass and to agreeing to committee votes in 
short order after these hearings. I would similarly ask you to 
commit to votes on Mallory Stewart and Sarah Margon.
    So I hope we can get those commitments, and we can break 
this logjam and move forward. They have answered hundreds of 
QFRs. They have answered hundreds of revised requests to QFRs. 
They have done everything they can do to be poised at least for 
a hearing and/or a committee vote. We should give them that 
opportunity and let the chips fall where they may.
    Senator Risch?
    Senator Risch. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    First of all, let me say that you and I have discussed this 
on numerous occasions. I have expressed to you and express 
again here that I would like to see these people in place. I 
was a governor. I know that you cannot govern without having 
your people in place, and that is why we have processed 50 of 
them over the last month and a half.
    The fact of the matter is that it is not going to be a 
situation where we are going to roll over on ones that we are 
not done with, and Gutmann is a good example, if you want to 
take that as the poster child for this. As you know, in her 
previous position, there were millions and millions of dollars 
went from China into the institution that she ran. This is a 
complex matter. We are looking at it, and we will get to a 
conclusion on that.
    As far as the others, there is only one, and I think I have 
communicated to you already that I am not going to agree to 
putting on, and I guess you are the Chairman of the committee, 
if you want to put it on, you will not hear any whining from 
me. On the others, again, we are working on them in good faith. 
But with as many as we have had, as I have indicated, we have 
cleared 50 of them over the last month and a half, you cannot 
say that we are not acting in good faith. We are.
    We are not dragging our feet on these, with the exception 
of the one that I have identified to you. And so we will 
continue to work, and on behalf of our obligation to assure 
that we have a legitimate hearing on these and people can make 
their decision, we will do so. We should get credit for the 
vast majority of them that we have already cleared.
    So thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Senator Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
    And to Senator Risch's point, let me just underscore the 
concerns that I have that have been expressed by our Chairman. 
I represented the United States this morning in an 
international meeting of the Helsinki OSCE Parliamentary 
Assembly. I am the Special Representative for Antisemitism, 
Racism, and Intolerance and the head of the U.S. delegation to 
the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly. Along with Senator Wicker, we 
represented America today.
    One of our principal topics is the rise of hate, the rise 
of intolerance, the rise of antisemitism globally. And we are 
working very hard with U.S. leadership to get our European 
allies for an action plan at the ministerial meeting that is 
taking place in December.
    But it is very hard for us to show leadership when Sarah 
Margon, who is the nominee to be Assistant Secretary, Bureau of 
Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, has not been acted upon. 
Her nomination has been pending for 117 days. She is well 
qualified, and she is the key point person within the 
Administration on the human rights agenda, which is the 
hallmark of the Helsinki Final Accords. So it presents unique 
challenges.
    And as Senator Menendez said with Deborah Lipstadt, who is 
the nominee to be Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat 
Antisemitism, she is so well thought of in the general 
community as well as the Jewish community in her longstanding 
efforts to stop the scourge of antisemitism. So as a person who 
it would be no surprise to Members of this committee, as I 
raise human rights at just about every one of our hearings and 
what our nominees are planning to do on behalf of human rights 
and advancing American values globally, it is our 
responsibility to act on these positions.
    Leaving them vacant is not in our national security 
interest. We need to move them quickly. I think the Chairman's 
request that the Margon nomination be acted on at the next 
business meeting is a reasonable request, considering that she 
has been pending for 117 days. Let us vote on that.
    I certainly hope that Deborah Lipstadt is on the next 
hearing list so we can move forward on our commitment to fight 
antisemitism. This has been universal in the Senate. Democrats 
and Republicans working together on these human rights agendas, 
on these religious freedom agendas, on the antisemitism 
agendas. Let us show by our actions on these critical 
nominations.
    I would go through the rest, but I just really wanted to 
highlight those that are I think in the human rights basket 
that we need to act on.
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Yes. Senator Risch?
    Senator Risch. To respond briefly, first of all, Senator 
Cardin, I have absolute and total respect, as you know, for 
your view on these issues. And you and I agree, to a large 
degree, on most of the stuff.
    When it comes to the Margon one, look, shortly after her 
hearing, I communicated to the Chairman I was not going to 
agree to put her on the agenda. Out of all the noms, I think it 
is the only one that I have said absolutely not on. But you 
have two choices. Either pull her back, and we got lots of 
people we can put in there to do this job, or the Chairman can 
put it on the committee under the rules without my concurrence.
    So that is the only one, and like I said, you are not going 
to hear any whining from me about it. If that is the way you 
want to go, have at it. I am not going to vote for her. I am 
not going to support her. I do not want anything to do with 
this nomination.
    The others, we are working in good faith on it. I commit to 
you we will continue to work in good faith. So there is only 
one that falls in that category, but the ball is in your court 
on that.
    Thank you.
    The Chairman. Yes, Senator Coons?
    Senator Coons. If I could just add my concerns about the 
process as well. First, if I could, I was at an event last 
night with Ambassadors from several European countries. Our not 
having Ambassadors to our critical allies like Germany is a 
significant, I think, impediment to our effective diplomacy 
around the world.
    I am pleased that we moved Nick Burns for China and Rahm 
Emanuel for Japan and a dozen others today, but frankly, it is 
November, and we do not have Ambassadors to most of the 
countries of the world. It is November.
    So, first, Penn is a very complex organization. It has got 
a $7 billion annual operating budget, and I respect the right 
of any Member to ask QFRs about the details of the operations 
of an organization that someone who is nominated leads. But I 
think the detail that is being pursued in the case of the 
nominee for Ambassador to Germany is at this point delaying and 
holding up a nominee who ought to be moving forward.
    I also spent a lot of time with a Republican colleague 
crafting the Development Finance Corporation, the DFC. There is 
a very capable nominee for that, Scott Nathan, who I have 
worked closely with, who has got a lot of relevant background. 
And I really hope we can move forward with a confirmation 
hearing for Scott Nathan the week that we get back, the week of 
November 15th.
    In the absence of having a nominee, this is our best answer 
to the belt and road initiative, to providing development 
finance that works in the developing world, and not having 
someone with relevant investment community experience and 
development leadership experience confirmed I think is a huge 
missed opportunity. So I hope the minority will allow us to 
proceed with a hearing for Scott Nathan when we return.
    Senator Risch. Briefly, very briefly, Mr. Chairman, you 
know, the numbers speak for themselves. We are moving faster 
here than we did in the last Congress. I am with you. I have 
never understood, since I joined this committee, why it takes 
so long under either Republican or Democrat administrations to 
not get people in place. You cannot operate the Government 
without it. I am in full concurrence on that.
    Like I said, we have kicked 50 of them out of here. The 
backup right now really is not here as much as it is on the 
floor, and I have no control of that. I do not think Senator 
Menendez has any control over that. That is between people who 
are at a higher pay grade than we are. But I am with you. I 
think we need to get most of these moved on and in place.
    The Chairman. Yes, Senator Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Just briefly, to reiterate and to put some numbers behind 
the problem on the floor, right now we have five Ambassadors 
that have been confirmed by the full Senate. By this time in 
Donald Trump's first term, there were 32 Ambassadors that had 
been confirmed by voice vote, by voice vote. I hope my 
Republican colleagues will concede that they have no greater 
objections to President Biden's foreign policy than Democrats 
had in 2017 to Donald Trump's foreign policy, and yet we 
thought that the security of the Nation was important enough 
that we should have Ambassadors in place when we believed them 
to be qualified.
    There is an entirely different standard being used, and we 
do feel that that different standard is infecting the way in 
which these nominees move to hearing. Let me just speak very 
briefly to Tamara Wittes, who is the USAID Assistant Secretary 
nominee to cover the Middle East.
    This is someone that this committee knows well. She served 
as a previous Deputy Assistant Secretary at State for this 
region. She has been at Brookings. She has appeared before this 
committee. She has received awards and distinctions.
    And at a time when we have some real crises in the Middle 
East that are connected to the way in which we spend dollars, I 
think about Lebanon, a country that is literally falling apart, 
where U.S. aid is maybe going to be one of the few things that 
holds it together, to decide as a committee that we are not 
going to even have a hearing on an incredibly--this is not 
someone who has never served before in Government. This is not 
someone whose views are unknown to us. This is someone who is 
ready to do the job that is certainly ready to at least come 
before this committee for a hearing and a vote, serving a 
region of the world that desperately needs someone to oversee 
U.S. taxpayer dollars.
    We are spending that money one way or another. So why would 
this committee delay the ability to get somebody in place to 
oversee it? I want to concur with all the comments of the 
Chairman, and my hope is that we can break this logjam on the 
floor, but also break this logjam here in the committee.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Senator Risch?
    Senator Risch. Briefly, to respond, you focused on the 
Wittes one. You did not focus on the 50 that we have cleared 
through here. Wittes has a long, long history of tweeting about 
Members of this committee, to begin with. In one of the tweets, 
she called the Abraham Accords a ``gift to authoritarianism.'' 
As a result of that, we are going back and looking very closely 
at everything that she has written and said to see whether we 
want to support that or not.
    Again, I do not think it is fair to pick out one of those 
and ignore the vast majority we have put in here. I agree with 
you there is a logjam on the floor. I am not speaking to that. 
That is other people are going to have to speak with that.
    But in any event, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Senator Cardin. Could I just respond?
    The Chairman. Senator Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Senator Risch, the comity in this committee 
has worked, I think, extremely well for the benefit of this 
committee. I, at one time, had the responsibility of being the 
Ranking Member and working with Senator Corker. And I must tell 
you, there were so many nominations that came up during that 
period that I was very much opposed to, but comity requires us 
to reach a point where we let the committee make those 
decisions, not the Chairman and Ranking Member.
    And on the Margon issue, I would just urge you, if we have 
all the information for the committee to be able to make that 
decision, I think there is responsibility with the Chairman and 
Ranking Member to resolve when that comes before the full 
committee for determination. Otherwise, we are giving a veto to 
one member, and that is not what this committee is about. That 
is why comity works.
    I would just urge you to reconsider this because, yes, 
Senator Menendez can bring the issue to our committee without 
comity, but I think comity has worked well to protect the 
majority and minority rights on this committee. It is 
extraordinary how much we work together in that regard, and it 
has worked well over time.
    And I would just urge you to reconsider on this point. If 
all the information is available, if you can make your case 
before the committee, have trust in the membership. It is 
equally divided. Give us that opportunity in this committee to 
make that decision without jeopardizing a tradition in this 
committee that I think has worked to protect the minority 
rights probably more than the majority rights, but the rights 
and value of this committee working together.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Cruz?
    Senator Cruz. Mr. Chairman, I want to make three points on 
this.
    First of all, in my judgment, the Ranking Member has bent 
over backwards to express comity and to work with the Chairman 
of this committee. I would note the committee has responded to 
those efforts of goodwill by doing things such as scheduling 
two successive business meetings in a single week when a matter 
is held over to circumvent the ability of the minority to focus 
on an issue of concern.
    That is not an expression of comity when you have a 
business meeting on Wednesday and immediately do another 
business meeting on Thursday, with the obvious intention of 
saying never mind the prerogatives of the Member who is 
exercising it. We are the majority, dammit, we are going to 
force it through. That is not an expression of comity.
    Secondly, I would point out with regard to the QFRs, there 
have been some nominees who have submitted their answers and 
submitted their answers reasonably. There have also been 
nominees who have openly defied this committee, and in fact, 
one of those nominees is before this committee today, Barbara 
Leaf.
    As the Chairman knows, I spoke about Ms. Leaf at length on 
the floor yesterday. And Ms. Leaf's answers in response to 
questions I submitted for the record completely defy the 
authority of this committee. Three questions in particular that 
she refused to provide even the barest modicum of answers.
    Number one, the Administration is right now today holding 
hostage $130 million in military assistance to our ally the 
nation of Egypt. And the Administration is, among other things, 
demanding that Egypt release 16 prisoners that are currently 
incarcerated in Egypt. But the Biden administration refuses to 
identify who those prisoners are, refuses to tell this 
committee, and refuses to tell the American people.
    I asked Ms. Leaf who are the 16 prisoners that the 
Administration is demanding a quid pro quo? There is some irony 
to how we spent last year in impeachment proceedings, given 
that the Administration is explicitly and unabashedly insisting 
on a quid pro quo. You will get your $130 million that Congress 
has appropriated when you release these 16 individuals from 
jail.
    That is undoubtedly a quid pro quo, and the question I 
asked Ms. Leaf is, name the 16. Are they affiliated with the 
Muslim Brotherhood? Do they have terrorist ties? Are they 
American citizens? Have they committed crimes of violence? 
Those are reasonable questions the American people would like 
to know. Ms. Leaf responded to those QFRs with a thousand words 
of gobbledygook, where she spoke about everything under the sun 
except the specific question asked, who are the 16?
    And I would note, in fact, the Administration did even 
better. There is a classified document that we can go to the 
SCIF and read. I have gone to the SCIF and read it. There is no 
reason for that document to be classified. The only reason that 
document is classified is because the Administration does not 
want me reading the names in this hearing.
    It is purely a public relations ploy to keep that document 
classified. Ms. Leaf is defying this committee's authority. 
Likewise, a second question I asked Ms. Leaf. The State 
Department issued a written guidance to its employees 
prohibiting them from using the words ``Abraham Accords.'' They 
are so opposed to the historic peace deals that were signed 
last year that they have forbidden using ``Abraham Accords.''
    And I would note even though there have been some Biden 
nominees that have had the courage to defy that State 
Department guidance, it continues to have force. On September 
13, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Thomas-Greenfield gave an 
entire speech about the Abraham Accords in which she did not 
utter the words ``Abraham Accords.'' Instead, she used the 
banal euphemism ``normalization agreements.''
    Likewise, on October 13th, Secretary Blinken met with 
Israeli Foreign Minister Lapid, and the spokesperson read-out 
again just used the words ``regional normalization efforts.''
    I asked please provide to the committee and the American 
people the written guidance prohibiting use of the terms 
``Abraham Accords.'' And again, Ms. Leaf basically said go jump 
in a lake. No, I am not going to give you your guidance.
    And by the way, her justification, she said, hey, I am at 
the NSC, that is State. I do not have the ability to give 
anything at State. Well, if Foggy Bottom wants her confirmed as 
an Assistant Secretary of State, I think they can find the 
State Departments documents.
    And the third and final point I will make on Ms. Leaf's 
QFRs is I asked about the Administration's attempt to negotiate 
a so-called ``less for less'' agreement with Iran. In other 
words, lessening pressure on Iran for something substantially 
less than a promise not to build a nuclear arsenal.
    Ms. Leaf's answer was to categorically flat-out deny there 
are no less for less negotiations. They do not exist. Multiple 
press reports in Reuters and elsewhere flatly contradict that. 
In my view, Ms. Leaf's answer to this committee was a direct 
and deliberate falsehood. And so I would say I addressed this 
at significant length earlier this week on the floor. I would 
commend anyone in this committee to listen to that floor 
address.
    I think everyone on this committee should care about those 
question, particularly the first one. Who are the 16 
individuals? I noted on my floor speech that Senate Democrats 
put in appropriation language in a report a series of names of 
individuals, expressing concerns about their incarceration in 
Egypt, one of whom is a prominent hate preacher who spreads 
antisemitism at great length.
    Moments ago, the Chairman was speaking about the envoy to 
oppose antisemitism. Well, there is some irony that Senate 
Democrats are apparently demanding that Egypt release a 
prominent antisemite, and the public does not know if those are 
included in the people for whom the money is being held hostage 
or not.
    A final point, Mr. Chairman. I would simply ask that I be 
recorded as a ``no'' and recorded as voting and present for the 
nominees Leaf, Gawande, Emanuel, and Reynoso.
    The Chairman. Those will be so listed.
    I know there are other Members who want to speak, but you 
know, you can have your opinion. You cannot have your own 
facts, though. The reality is, is that as it relates to calling 
business meetings consecutively, the Senator has abused the 
process that this committee has in a way that in my entire life 
in the Senate I have never seen on either side of the aisle.
    So when you are going to do it indiscriminately and in a 
buckshot approach, it then calls for the ability to break an 
indiscriminate process with an opportunity for Members to cast 
their vote. Now that, by the way, was done on occasion under 
Republican majority, and I never heard the Senator complain 
about it. But then again, that majority at that time, that 
Republican majority never faced the indiscriminate hold of all 
nominees.
    Secondly, on QFRs, you have answers. As a matter of fact, 
at the hearing for Ambassador Leaf, you had a good back-and-
forth, and then there were reports out there that you wanted to 
follow, and so you decided to follow it. And the names have 
been provided. They are in the SCIF classified for anybody who 
wants to go see them. Evidently, you have referenced that you 
have seen them.
    So the names are there. Whether you have a difference of 
view whether they should or should not be classified is another 
thing, but the names have been provided. So to suggest that the 
names have not been provided, therefore, it is unresponsive.
    And lastly, you keep saying this thing. I know that if we 
say it enough, it is like, you know, the history of the past. 
If we keep saying something that is not true enough, we hope 
that it becomes true. The reality is, is that I have heard the 
Secretary of State, I have heard Ned Price, the spokesperson 
for the State Department, and others, including those nominees 
before this committee, consistently refer to the Abraham 
Accords as the Abraham Accords.
    Now the Secretary of State is the highest person in the 
Federal Government as it relates to foreign policy outside of 
the President. He has consistently named it the Abraham 
Accords, fitting and appropriate as it is. But to ask a nominee 
to give you a document that you are looking for that she has no 
control over the document, you can ask the Secretary of State 
for a document.
    The bottom line is, if there was a prohibition against 
calling the Abraham Accords ``the Abraham Accords,'' then the 
Secretary of State would not use it. The Secretary of State's 
spokesperson would not use it. None of the nominees that came 
before the committee would use it. So it is a fallacious 
argument at the end of the day.
    Senator Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I think the numbers do not lie. What Senator Murphy said 
was correct that Democrats had major objections to Donald 
Trump's foreign policy. But by this time, nearly 40 Ambassadors 
had been confirmed, 32 by voice vote and others by recorded 
vote. And here we are with 5 Ambassadors confirmed to countries 
around the world. What a poor message that sends about U.S. 
disinterest, U.S. disinterest in the world.
    It sends a sign to nations that we are interested in them 
when we send them an Ambassador. And when we cannot even bother 
to do that, it sends a sign that we are not interested.
    This is a parochial issue for me. An awful lot of State 
Department employees live in Virginia. Their morale is affected 
by the actions of this committee.
    And I am starting to worry, Mr. Chair that what I am seeing 
not just in this committee and elsewhere over the course of the 
last few years is a sort of an effort by one party in this body 
to redefine what advise and consent is. This is a 
constitutional requirement of the Senate to advise and consent 
to a certain specified number of presidential nominations. 
Obviously, the advise and consent requirement is not 
rubberstamped. Consent also means oppose. But you ought to vote 
``no.''
    I heard Senator Cruz. He does not like the fact that he got 
those names by classified rather than in public. That would be 
a great reason to vote ``no.'' That would be a great reason to 
vote ``no.''
    But what I have seen in this committee and others is an 
effort to switch advise and consent to not voting ``no,'' but 
just delaying action in an inappropriate way. And why delay 
action rather than vote ``no''? Because you can avoid 
accountability for it.
    A ``yes'' or ``no'' vote you got to explain. There is going 
to be some accountability for it, and most of us are proud to 
vote ``yes'' or ``no'' and explain. But avoiding votes, boy, 
what a slick trick. If we can figure out a way to avoid votes, 
we never have to explain. We never have to be accountable for 
it. And I think that is basically an undermining of the 
responsibility that is an important one that the Senate has of 
offering advise and consent on nominations.
    So, Mr. Chairman, as far as I am concerned, Senator Risch 
has made an offer to you that you have the ability to put 
things on without his approval. You are a fair-minded 
individual. You do not put up with nominees not providing full 
responses to this committee because I have seen you be upset 
when they did not under both Democratic and Republican 
Presidents.
    I feel like if you feel that a file is complete and the 
questions have been answered, and even if they are not answered 
to somebody's satisfaction around this dais, if you think they 
have been answered in a reasonable way, I think we ought to be 
having hearings, and we ought to be having votes and let people 
go on the record and express whether they are happy or unhappy 
with nominees.
    But this effort to avoid the advice and consent function by 
basically playing kind of a four corners basketball game where 
nobody is accountable for votes is very debilitating. It sends 
a horrible message around the world, and I think it undermines 
a responsibility that the Senate should take very seriously.
    Thank you.
    Senator Cruz. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Let me turn to others who have not had an 
opportunity. Senator Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    The question we are wrestling with is whether this 
committee can do its job in a day of intensified partisanship, 
partisanship that is fueled and amplified through separate 
cable channels, through intensive social media campaigns. And I 
would argue that it is the responsibility of the Chair and the 
Ranking Member to resist manifesting that accelerated, 
intensified partisanship in the context of the responsibilities 
of this chamber.
    We are the Foreign Relations Committee. Only five 
Ambassadors have been confirmed by the Senate. As Senator 
Murphy pointed out, 32 were done by voice vote at the first 
year or to this point in the first 10 months of the Trump 
administration. Five Ambassadors.
    Now the Ranking Member has pointed out that there is an 
alternative to comity that you, Mr. Chairman, can put 
Ambassadors up regardless of his consent. But you, as I 
understand it, are saying let us try to have a partnership 
between the Democratic and Republican leadership to make this 
committee work together for its responsibilities for America, 
for our diplomacy in the world.
    So I beseech that, encourage the Chair and Ranking Member 
ponder this question. We have a responsibility that rises above 
the partisan rants of the membership. I think everyone here has 
expressed in tweets and speeches their frustrations, their 
anger with the other party, but this committee has a higher 
responsibility to make the executive effective in the world.
    We are in a competition with China, if you have not 
noticed. They are saying the decisive nature of an 
authoritarian control gets things done, and they are pointing 
to America and saying, look, America cannot make decisions on 
fundamental issues. And they might put as a poster child this 
committee right now that has only been able to confirm, pass on 
5 Ambassadors in 10 months. That is 1 Ambassador every 2 
months.
    This is an unacceptable, tragic outcome. It has to be 
addressed. And there are positions other than Ambassadors. 
Mallory Stewart, up for Assistant Secretary for Arms Control, 
Verification and Compliance. We are all concerned about China's 
new weapons strategy in the nuclear category. We are all 
concerned about the Russian program of nuclear technology 
weaponry. We are all concerned with the risk of the stability 
of nuclear war and nuclear proliferation.
    We have a Nuclear Posture Review underway without the 
leadership of a person in this role. So she should come before 
this committee, and we should vote ``yes'' or ``no.'' But we 
should not sit on such an important position and not act. That 
is failing our responsibility for the security of this Nation.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Cruz. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. I am going to turn to Senator Shaheen, who 
has not had an opportunity, then I will turn to you.
    Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I certainly want to echo the concerns of my colleagues, and 
you know, during the previous administration, I tried to vote 
for those nominees who I thought were qualified who I could 
support and vote against those who I did not support. There 
were some of my colleagues who voted against everyone who was 
nominated by the Trump administration. I did not think that was 
the right way to go, just as I do not think it is appropriate 
now for some of my Republican colleagues to vote against all of 
the Biden nominees.
    I think I know there are some legitimate concerns that my 
colleagues have expressed. Senator Cruz and I agree on Nord 
Stream 2. But the fact is what is happening now is inhibiting 
the ability of the United States of America to do its work.
    I appreciate that the Republicans in the Senate want to try 
and undermine this administration. They do not like the outcome 
of the past election. But it is over. You know, what happened 
to politics ends at the water's edge?
    Because our colleagues are looking at what is happening 
here--not our colleagues, our adversaries. And as Senator 
Merkley said so well, China is making a pitch that 
authoritarianism is the best alternative because democracy does 
not work because they are looking at our Congress and saying 
democracy does not work because people are not willing to work 
together.
    I worked really closely on the bipartisan infrastructure 
package, on the package of COVID assistance that we did back in 
December. Those were bipartisan efforts to get things done in 
the best interests of the country, and that is what I am going 
to continue to try and focus on. And I really hope that all of 
us here would take that approach that we want to try and where 
we can agree, work together. Where we disagree, let us vote. 
But let us not continuously hold up the ability to get things 
done.
    I would also point out, as the only woman on this 
committee, that most of the people who are being held up for 
these positions are women. I do not know how we fix this, but 
what is happening now is not working, and it is not working 
just for the Senate, but it is not working for the country.
    The Chairman. Senator Cruz?
    Senator Cruz. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to 
several of the comments that have been made by Democratic 
Members of this committee. I would point out, first of all, on 
the 16 names, the Chairman observed that, yes, the Biden 
administration is holding hostage $130 million for Egypt and 
demanding that 16 people be released from prison.
    The Chairman. No, the Chairman did not recognize that.
    Senator Cruz. To be fair----
    The Chairman. I did not recognize--do not put words in my 
mouth that I did not say.
    Senator Cruz. Mr. Chairman, do you deny that they are 
withholding $130 million? Do you deny----
    The Chairman. I did not say that----
    Senator Cruz [continuing]. That they are withholding $130 
million?
    The Chairman [continuing]. And I do not need to be cross-
examined by you.
    Senator Cruz. Well, you are cross-examining me. I am 
speaking. You are cross-examining me.
    The Chairman. I am not cross-examining. I am correcting 
something----
    Senator Cruz. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman [continuing]. That you misstated.
    Senator Cruz. You are interrupting me. You are interrupting 
me.
    The Chairman. And the Chair--the Chair will not allow----
    Senator Cruz. Really?
    The Chairman. The Chair will not allow----
    Senator Cruz. What will you not allow?
    The Chairman [continuing]. You to say something I did not 
say. I did not say--all I said was----
    Senator Cruz. You are interrupting me in the middle of a 
sentence.
    The Chairman [continuing]. There are 16 names.
    Senator Cruz. You are interrupting me in the middle of a 
sentence.
    The Chairman. I did not----
    Senator Cruz. Do you deny that they are holding the money 
hostage?
    The Chairman. The Senator will withhold.
    Senator Cruz. How about you withhold? You are the one 
interrupting me.
    The Chairman. The Senator will withhold.
    Senator Cruz. I am speaking. You are interrupting me.
    The Chairman. I will adjourn the meeting. If you want to 
have your----
    Senator Cruz. If you are afraid of my speaking----
    The Chairman [continuing]. Opportunity, you will have it.
    Senator Cruz [continuing]. And want to adjourn the 
meeting----
    The Chairman. You will not be allowed to put words in my 
mouth.
    Senator Cruz. After your lecture on comity, you are 
interrupting me.
    The Chairman. I know you want to do this for your YouTube, 
for your presidential candidacy----
    Senator Cruz. You are interrupting me. Okay, that is an 
inferred----
    The Chairman [continuing]. But stop putting words that I 
did not say.
    Senator Cruz. You are interrupting me again.
    The Chairman. I did not say anyone is holding anybody 
hostage. Okay, continue.
    Senator Cruz. You are interrupting me again. Are you going 
to allow me to speak, Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Continue.
    Senator Cruz. That is very kind of you. And I will say, Mr. 
Chairman, I appreciate your lecture on comity when you 
interrupt me.
    All right. So let me speak more precisely because I was in 
the middle of one sentence when you interrupted me.
    It is an established fact, publicly acknowledged, that the 
Biden administration is holding $130 million hostage in Egypt 
and demanding the release of 16 prisoners who are currently 
incarcerated. What the Chairman just said is that I should be 
satisfied because when I asked for those names, the 
Administration provided them in a classified document that 
Members of this committee can read in a SCIF that is hidden 
from the American people.
    Mr. Chairman, the fact that it is hidden from the American 
people is a problem. This is not a star chamber where we sit in 
smoke-filled rooms. Rather, the American people have a right to 
know about the radical agenda that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris 
are putting forward, and there is a reason it is classified. 
They do not want the names known.
    Why? Because under Barack Obama, the Obama administration 
repeatedly and vocally supported the Muslim Brotherhood, a 
terrorist organization that murders Americans, that murders 
Israelis, that is virulently antisemitic. When we saw over a 
million people standing in the streets of Cairo, they were 
holding up signs saying America supports the Muslim Brotherhood 
because the Obama-Biden administration had a policy of 
supporting the viciously anti-American terrorists in the Middle 
East.
    Why does Joe Biden not want those names released? Because 
they cannot defend the names on the list. And so, for the 
Chairman to say you should be happy that they are hidden in a 
secret room, if you want to defend them--Senator Kaine talked 
about accountability, let us have some accountability. Let us 
talk about the 16 names, and the American people want to know 
why Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are trying to force our allies 
to release people who may well be a national security threat to 
the United States.
    Secondly, on the Abraham Accords, the Chairman pointed out, 
said, well, there are members of the State Department who use 
those words, which is something I acknowledged in my remarks. 
Yes, there have been individual members of the Administration 
who have defied those orders.
    Interestingly, what was missing from the Chairman's remarks 
was even a syllable of a word denying that there was a written 
guidance saying do not use the words ``Abraham Accords,'' and 
the reason I believe the Chairman did not deny it, it has been 
publicly reported in the media that those written directives 
went out. And why does the State Department not provide them? 
For the same reason they do not provide the list of 16 names. 
They want to hide it from the American people because they are 
embarrassed at the left-wing politics driving their policies.
    It is pure public relations, that they are hiding that 
directive. They do not want the American people to read it.
    And third, there have been lots of speeches and high 
dudgeon about the delay in nominees. Now, I will note that many 
of the delays in Ambassadors have been delays in nominations 
that this administration has been incredibly slow in putting 
forward nominees to be considered. But I do not hide remotely 
from the fact that I have a hold on State Department nominees, 
and I have a hold for a specific reason that every Member of 
this committee knows exactly what it is. And it is that Joe 
Biden and Kamala Harris are defying Federal law. They are 
brazenly and unapologetically defying Federal law to benefit 
Russia and Putin on Nord Stream 2.
    And the remarkable thing is every Member of this committee 
on the Democratic side of the aisle agrees with me on the 
substance and has said so on the record repeatedly, has voted 
on the record repeatedly. The Members of this committee know 
the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, if it goes online, will hurt 
America. It will hurt Europe. And it will enrich Putin and any 
successor tyrants in Russia for generations to come.
    That is why we passed bipartisan legislation that Senator 
Shaheen and I have authored, not once, but twice into law. And 
the Biden administration made what I believe is a generational 
geopolitical blunder in surrendering to Putin.
    Now I would note also that for several months since August, 
I have had a written offer of compromise submitted to this 
administration that if they want to break the logjams, it is 
very simple. Under CAATSA, which Members of this committee 
supported--indeed, I have given floor speeches quoting from 
multiple Democrats on this committee--CAATSA provides, it is a 
statute that provides if the Administration wants to waive 
sanctions on Russia, it triggers an automatic override vote in 
Congress.
    And I have said it is very simple. If the Administration 
will waive the sanctions under CAATSA and trigger the override 
vote, I will lift my holds. Multiple Democrats on this 
committee privately have told me they think my offer of 
compromise is very reasonable, and the Biden administration 
should take it.
    Now what has not happened, there have not been any 
Democrats saying that publicly. And I understand it is 
difficult to oppose a President of your own party. So it is one 
thing to say it privately on the Senate floor. It is another 
thing to say it publicly.
    I will point out on Nord Stream 2, when we had a Republican 
President, I was not shy about speaking out and putting 
pressure on a Republican President to stand up to Russia and 
Putin on this. And I would ask my Democratic colleagues to show 
the same willingness to do so for a Democrat when you know the 
Democrat is wrong, and there is a reasonable offer of 
compromise that could break the logjam.
    But instead of doing so, the Democrats who have told me 
privately they think it is a reasonable compromise, they have 
not said so publicly. Instead of putting pressure on their own 
Democratic President, we have Democrat after Democrat who come 
to the floor, and they give speeches lambasting me. The 
Chairman, I think I counted it is the third time he asserts 
that apparently I am not interested in Russia. I am not 
interested in American national security. It is a presidential 
campaign, the Chairman tells me. He says so, repeatedly 
impugning my integrity.
    And let me point out a final thing. Senator Kaine talked 
about accountability. I am a big believer in accountability. If 
any of you think that I am somehow afraid to be accountable for 
fighting against decisions that are hurting American national 
security, you have missed the hours upon hours upon hours in 
which I have defended that decision on the Senate floor. There 
ain't no hiding what I am doing because I believe it is the 
right thing to do.
    But accountability is accountability to each other, but it 
is ultimately to the American people. The Senator from 
Virginia, I was in your State last night. There was an election 
in the State of Virginia last night where Glenn Youngkin was 
elected governor.
    I would note the Chairman's State, New Jersey, had an 
election----
    The Chairman. I have allowed the Senator to continue for an 
enormous period of time. I would ask you to wrap up because we 
do have a classified briefing.
    Senator Cruz. I am wrapping up, Mr. Chairman. I am wrapping 
up.
    And my point is simple. Last night, in a political 
earthquake, the voters in Virginia elected a Republican 
governor. Last night, in a political earthquake, the voters of 
New Jersey may have done the same thing. I checked this 
morning. It is 1,500 votes separating the two, and they are 
still counting votes.
    The reason I believe voters in two States that have been 
blue for a long time went the other direction is because of the 
radical and extreme policies of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, 
and I will point out this committee, in saying we are not going 
to stand together fighting for the national security, is 
defying the American people. The American people have a right 
to know if Joe Biden is trying to release terrorists.
    And simply the partisan loyalty of Democrats is not 
furthering the responsibility of this committee.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you for 
the political lesson.
    Let me first say that holding $130 million is pursuant to 
congressionally passed legislation. You cannot keep saying 
that. It is congressionally passed legislation.
    Number two is I never said you should be happy that the 
names are available. You once again tried to misclassify what 
the Chair said. I just said that they are available to you and 
to any other Member in the SCIF. I did not say you need to be 
happy for it.
    And as it relates to Nord Stream 2, let me just say what 
you are suggesting is that a Member of the Senate, and in this 
case, a Member of the Senate in the minority, can dictate the 
policy to the executive branch in order to get their nominees 
through? Well, I have seen casting votes to suggest what that 
policy should be, but I have never seen the hostage-taking of 
career nominees in order to achieve that.
    With the thanks of the committee, this meeting is 
adjourned.


    [Whereupon, at 9:51 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]



                              ----------                              






                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                      WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 15, 2021

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

                Summary of Action Taken by the Committee

                              NOMINATIONS

  Marc R. Stanley, of Texas, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and 
        Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the 
        Argentine Republic--agreed to by voice vote

  Mr. Rashad Hussain, of Virginia, to be Ambassador at Large for 
        International Religious Freedom--agreed to by voice vote

  Dr. Adriana Debora Kugler, of Maryland, to be United States Executive 
        Director of the International Bank for Reconstruction and 
        Development for a term of two years--agreed to by voice vote 
        (Barrasso and Cruz recorded as no)

  The Honorable Ramin Toloui, of Iowa, to be an Assistant Secretary of 
        State (Economic and Business Affairs)--agreed to by voice vote

  The Honorable Thomas Barrett, of Wisconsin, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg--agreed to by voice 
        vote

  Mr. Erik D. Ramanathan, of Massachusetts, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Kingdom of Sweden--agreed to by voice vote

  Mr. Scott Miller, of Colorado, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and 
        Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Swiss 
        Confederation, and to serve concurrently and without additional 
        compensation as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of 
        the United States of America to the Principality of 
        Liechtenstein--agreed to by voice vote

  Ms. Jamie L. Harpootlian, of South Carolina, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Republic of Slovenia--agreed to by voice vote

  Mr. Scott Nathan, of Massachusetts, to be Chief Executive Officer of 
        the United States International Development Finance 
        Corporation--agreed to by voice vote (Barrasso and Cruz 
        recorded as no)

  The Honorable John R. Bass, of New York, a Career member of the 
        Senior Foreign Service, Class of Career Minister, to be an 
        Under Secretary of State (Management)--agreed to by voice vote

  The Honorable Mark Brzezinski, of Virginia, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Republic of Poland--agreed to by voice vote

  Mr. Michael Adler, of Florida, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and 
        Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Kingdom 
        of Belgium--agreed to by voice vote

  Ms. Chantale Wong, of the District of Columbia, to be United States 
        Director of the Asian Development Bank, with the rank of 
        Ambassador--agreed to by voice vote (Barrasso and Cruz recorded 
        as no)

                               FSO LISTS

  Arthur W. Brown, et al., dated June 22, 2021 (PN 726)--agreed to by 
        voice vote

  Rahel Aboye, et al., dated June 22, 2021 (PN 728), as modified--
        agreed to by voice vote

  Adam Jeffrey Abramson, et al., dated October 27, 2021 (PN 1317)--
        agreed to by voice vote

  Mario D. Ambrosino, et al., dated October 27, 2021 (PN 1318)--agreed 
        to by voice vote

  Nicholas R. Abbate, et al., dated October 27, 2021 (PN 1320)--agreed 
        to by voice vote

                           Meeting Transcript

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:55 a.m., in 
Room SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert 
Menendez, Chairman of the committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Menendez [presiding], Cardin, Shaheen, 
Coons, Kaine, Markey, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen, 
Risch, Romney, Cruz, and Rounds.

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

    The Chairman. The business meeting of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee will come to order.
    Today we are considering 13 nominations and five Foreign 
Service officer promotion lists. I am pleased that we have 
strong nominees before us today both for critical positions at 
the State Department embassies around the world and the 
Department of Treasury. I would also like to acknowledge the 
various Members of the committee on both sides that have 
Chaired--who have served as Chair or Ranking Member for 
nomination hearings. We greatly appreciate your efforts as does 
the Administration.
    I would note that we are unfortunately still running into 
issues where we have been unable to move forward with a number 
of nomination hearings because of the lack of willing and 
available Ranking Members. I would like to remind everyone that 
there is a lot more work to do to ensure that our national 
security agencies are full staffed and that we will need to 
approach that work energetically and efficiently in the New 
Year. We have between 20 and 30 nominations pending before this 
committee in addition to the dozens of national security 
nominations pending on the Senate floor without confirmation. I 
know none of us came to the Senate to just do nominations, so 
the more efficiently we are able to address this aspect of 
committee business next year, the more time we will be able to 
spend on the major foreign policy issues of that--of the day. 
To that end, I would like to ask all Members for your 
participation and support in the upcoming year.
    Regarding the nominees we are considering today, while I 
will not speak about each of them, I do want to say that I 
believe they are all well qualified and deserving of their 
nominations, and I look forward to their swift confirmation. 
When it gets to that point, I will ask for an en bloc vote for 
the Foreign Service officer promotion list and for the 13 
nominees. But now, let me turn to the distinguished Ranking 
Member, Senator Risch.

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

    Senator Risch. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. We do have a 
number of important positions up today. I am only going to talk 
about two--well, two of them. The CEO of the International 
Development Finance Corporation is a particularly crucial 
position. This person will be charged with guiding an agency 
that has struggled to find its footing and for making tough 
calls about where and where not to invest. Mr. Nathan has the 
requisite finance experience to lead this Agency. The DFC's 
current narrow focus on green energy projects, particularly 
those that involve Chinese-made solar panels, creates 
unacceptable expenditure of U.S. taxpayers' dollars, 
particularly regarding the funding of solar panels made with 
forced labor. If confirmed, Mr. Nathan has committed to work 
with this committee to urgently address this risk and ensure 
its borrower supply chains are completely free of forced labor-
made products. I plan to hold Mr. Nathan to all of those 
commitments and, if confirmed, will work with him to address 
these challenges and ensure the DFC remains focused on its core 
missions of promoting and protecting economic freedom.
    With regard to the Stewart nomination, which is not on this 
agenda, I was very clear in my request to the State Department 
for cables outlining allied feedback regarding the Biden 
administration's consideration of a no first use policy, a 
policy that Ms. Stewart has reportedly helped lead at the White 
House. I requested seven cables total. The Department delivered 
one. This is not a responsive answer. It always amazes me the--
that the State Department thinks they are supervising us and 
overseeing us as opposed to vice versa. Until the Department 
actually responds to my request and takes seriously the 
oversight role of this committee, I am not going to agree to 
move forward with consideration of this nomination. I hope that 
the State Department will commit--will actually deliver those 
cables.
    With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Risch. Without objection, 
we will now consider en bloc five Foreign Service officer 
promotion lists and 13 nominations that have been noticed for 
this business meeting. Since they are noticed, I am not going 
to read their names. They are all the people who are noticed 
for all the Members of the committee.
    Is there any Member who wants to speak to any of these 
nominations?
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Senator Risch.
    Senator Risch. Just briefly, I certainly have no objection 
to that process. I am going to have some people recorded 
``noes'' if that is okay.
    The Chairman. And they will be recorded as they wish.
    Senator Risch. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. If there is no member seeking to speak to the 
nominations, is there a motion to approve these items en bloc?
    Senator Cardin. So move.
    The Chairman. So moved. Is there a second?
    Senator Merkley. Second.
    Voices. Second.
    The Chairman. So moved and second.
    The question is on the motion to approve all of the 
nominations as listed.
    All those in favor will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All those opposed?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. There are none, at least non-verbally.
    With the majority of Members present having voted in the 
affirmative, the ayes have it, and the items, as amended, are 
agreed to.
    I understand that the--Senator Risch wants, on behalf of 
some of his colleagues, to be listed----
    Senator Risch. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Are we talking 
about the 13 or are we talking about the FSO List?
    The Chairman. We have--we did all of them, 13----
    Senator Risch. Oh, okay. Actually, the one that did request 
withdrew. I am not aware of any others, but anybody who is with 
us online, feel free to speak up. If not, thank you very much, 
Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. All right. Well, these nominations will be--
have all been approved. With the favorable recommendation of 
the committee, they will be reported to the Senate as such.
    With the thanks of the Chair and the Ranking Member, this 
meeting is adjourned.


    [Whereupon, at 11:01 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]



                              ----------                              


      

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


                  BUSINESS MEETINGS OF THE U.S. SENATE

                     COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

                    DURING THE SECOND SESSION OF THE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

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


                                     



                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                      WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2022

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

                Summary of Action Taken by the Committee

                              NOMINATIONS

   Dr. Amy Gutmann, of Pennsylvania, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and 
        Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Federal 
        Republic of Germany--agreed to en bloc by voice vote (Risch, 
        Johnson, Rubio, Portman, and Hagerty to be recorded as no)

  The Honorable Donald Armin Blome, of Illinois, a Career member of the 
        Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be 
        Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United 
        States of America to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan--agreed 
        to en bloc by voice vote

  The Honorable Christopher R. Hill, of Rhode Island, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Republic of Serbia--agreed to en bloc by voice 
        vote (Rubio, and Hagerty recorded as no)

  Ms. Alice P. Albright, of the District of Columbia, to be Chief 
        Executive Officer, Millennium Challenge Corporation--agreed to 
        en bloc by voice vote (Rubio recorded as no)

  The Honorable Joseph Donnelly, of Indiana, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Holy See--agreed to en bloc by voice vote

   Ms. Michele Taylor, of Georgia, for the rank of Ambassador during 
        her tenure of service as United States Representative to the 
        U.N. Human Rights Council--agreed to en bloc by voice vote 
        (Rubio and Hagerty recorded as no)

  Ms. Enoh T. Ebong, of the District of Columbia, to be Director of the 
        Trade and Development Agency--agreed to en bloc by voice vote 
        (Rubio, Barrasso, and Hagerty recorded as no)

  The Honorable Eric M. Garcetti, of California, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Republic of India--agreed to en bloc by voice 
        vote (Rubio recorded as no)

  Ms. Lisa A. Carty, of Maryland, to be Representative of the United 
        States of America on the Economic and Social Council of 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 
        her tenure of service as Representative of the United States of 
        America on the Economic and Social Council of the United 
        Nations--agreed to en bloc by voice vote (Rubio and Hagerty 
        recorded as no)

  The Honorable Laura S. H. Holgate, of Virginia, to be Representative 
        of the United States of America to the International Atomic 
        Energy Agency, with the rank of Ambassador--agreed to en bloc 
        by voice vote (Rubio, Johnson, and Hagerty recorded as no)

  Ms. Oren E. Whyche-Shaw, of Maryland, to be United States Director of 
        the African Development Bank for a term of five years--agreed 
        to en bloc by voice vote (Rubio, Barrasso, and Hagerty recorded 
        as no)

                               FSO LISTS

  Leon Skarshinski, et al., dated April 27, 2021 (PN 480-2)--agreed to 
        en bloc by voice vote

  John Breidenstine, et al., dated July 19, 2021, (PN 903)--agreed to 
        en bloc by voice vote

                           Meeting Transcript

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:10 a.m., in 
Room SD-G50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert 
Menendez presiding.
    Present: Senators Menendez [presiding], Cardin, Shaheen, 
Murphy, Kaine, Markey, Merkley, Booker, Van Hollen, Risch, 
Romney, Paul, Young, and Hagerty.

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

    The Chairman. This business meeting of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee will come to order.
    Today, we are considering two Foreign Service Officer 
promotion lists and 11 nominations for critical positions, 
including our ambassadors to Germany, India, Pakistan, Serbia, 
the Holy See, the U.N. Human Rights Council, the U.N. Economic 
and Social Council, and the International Atomic Energy Agency, 
the CEO of the Millennium Challenge Corporation, the director 
of the United States Trade and Development Agency, and the 
director of the African Development Bank.
    Before we turn to these nominations, I would like to 
acknowledge the hard work that went into getting dozens of 
State Department and USAID nominees confirmed before the 
Senate's December recess.
    I am very pleased that more than 85 capable experienced 
individuals now fill crucial national security positions and we 
are witnessing the real-life impact that these confirmations 
are having.
    We now have ambassadors in place in Poland and at the 
European Union as we are engaging with European allies to deter 
Russia from further aggression, an ambassador in Bosnia and 
Herzegovina where threats to the rule of law and democracy grow 
by the day, and more than 14 confirmed ambassadors in Africa.
    This is what it looks like to have the United States at the 
table and to have meaningful representation throughout the 
world. As we begin this new year, I am hopeful that the 
struggle it took to confirm these nominees will not be 
repeated.
    We have much more work to do. Over 55 nominees are still 
pending before this committee and many challenges around the 
world that are awaiting them.
    As I have said many times before this committee and on the 
Senate floor, prolonged vacancies are not in our interest. They 
undermine our national security, hinder our leadership role 
abroad, and benefit only our adversaries.
    Turning to the nominees we are considering today, I will 
not speak about each of them, but I do want to say that I 
believe they are all well qualified and deserving of their 
nominations. I will be voting for them and look forward to 
their swift confirmation.
    With that, let me turn to the distinguished Ranking Member, 
Senator Risch.

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

    Senator Risch. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I concur 
in your remarks about filling these vacancies. It is important. 
I am glad we have been able to move as rapidly in this 
administration as we have, certainly, more so than we did in 
the last administration. Nonetheless, it is bipartisan that 
these vacancies be filled, whichever party is in control of the 
White House.
    I want to speak briefly about the nominations, and as you 
and I discussed, we will accept a voice vote on these 
nominations with the understanding that with your usual kind 
indulgence, those who want to vote no will be able to be 
recorded as such.
    So with that, I want to talk about the appointment of Dr. 
Gutmann, Ambassador to Germany.
    The U.S. relationship with Germany faces significant 
challenges, especially due to threats of nefarious foreign and 
geopolitical influence from Russia and China. Our Ambassador in 
Berlin must be firm in combating these threats and able to make 
the case to our German counterparts that we need a shared 
approach to standing up against malign influence.
    I am going to record a no vote against Dr. Gutmann, but it 
is not personal, which I will explain here, and when she is 
confirmed, I stand ready to work with her and to strengthen our 
alliance with Germany. I also expect her to engage on efforts 
to stop construction on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.
    I am a no not because of her qualifications. Certainly, she 
is qualified. She has had a long and successful career. But I 
think that probably, as with her position with the University 
of Pennsylvania, it really is a poster child for the ongoing 
and growing malign influence of China and at our institutions 
of higher learning.
    The University of Pennsylvania has accepted millions, 
millions, and millions of dollars in donations and contracts 
from China. The issue of foreign influence and, particularly, 
Chinese influence in U.S. higher education institutions is very 
important to this committee. We have made and will continue--
and I have worked with the Chairman on this--to pursue efforts 
to put a stop to this as it is important we do so.
    The University of Pennsylvania is a large organization. But 
I remain troubled that Dr. Gutmann did not exert more oversight 
of Chinese donations and contracts that Penn institutions were 
accepting, and I think this is really a poster child for what 
is happening around the country.
    All CEOs of these institutions of higher learning should 
learn from this wake-up call and should wake up to what China 
is doing in providing the money that it does. China is not 
providing the money for what they are doing out of the goodness 
of their hearts but, clearly, to gain malign influence.
    For example, the University of Pennsylvania had four 
contracts to provide executive education to the PRC State 
Administration of Foreign Experts. During its operation, this 
government entity was responsible for recruiting foreign talent 
to China, including in science and technology.
    Dr. Gutmann told the committee that Penn's contracts with 
PRC entities did not undermine U.S. national security simply 
because no classified information was revealed.
    Not sharing classified information is just the starting 
point to protect U.S. national security. It is not the finish 
line. There are many other risks to national security presented 
by PRC inroads into U.S. universities, and these apply to 
Russia, too.
    China uses lucrative contracts, grants, exchanges, and 
other incentives to co-opt networks and institutions, promote 
PRC interests, and manipulate public discourse.
    I think, if anything, this nomination has provided us with 
an additional window into just how widespread this is and how 
dangerous this is. Additionally, there is provision for 
opportunities for efficient and easy access and collection of 
open source intelligence and know-how to these entities that 
provide the money.
    We do not allow people running for public office to accept 
Chinese money or any other money. Why? Because we do not want 
them to purchase influence or exploit that position.
    It just astounds me that we prohibit people running for 
public office from doing this but, yet, we allow this tidal 
wave flow of money into these higher education institutions.
    This needs to stop and I look forward to continuing to work 
with the Chairman as we develop bipartisan legislation to do 
this.
    Briefly, as to Michele Taylor on the nomination to the U.N. 
Human Rights Council, I remain deeply concerned with the Human 
Rights Council and the U.S. membership in it. It is a broken 
body which spends the majority of its time attacking Israel, 
and its membership is full of human rights abusers, including 
China, Venezuela, and Cuba.
    I hope, although I doubt, Ms. Taylor can work to reform the 
Council. The Biden administration's track record of pushing 
reforms at the U.N. is weak at best, and the work that remains 
to be done is immense.
    I believe it is inappropriate for the U.S. to bring its 
dignity and credibility and loan that to an institution like 
this institution.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Risch.
    By agreement with the Ranking Member and without objection, 
we will now consider en bloc the two Foreign Service officer 
lists and 11 nominations that have been noticed for this 
business meeting. You all have the list based upon the notice.
    Before I ask Members if there is anyone who wishes to speak 
to any of these nominees, let me just say very briefly that I 
share Senator Risch's concerns about Chinese influence in our 
institutions of higher learning.
    But I do feel it is important for the record to revisit the 
fact as it pertains to Dr. Gutmann and the University of 
Pennsylvania.
    First, none of the money that the University of 
Pennsylvania received from Chinese donors went to research 
involving critical technologies. None.
    Second, none of the donations provided China access to 
classified or sensitive research information. None.
    Third, as we heard from Dr. Gutmann directly in her 
testimony before the committee, under her leadership she 
rejected a Confucius Institute at the University of 
Pennsylvania, to her credit.
    I have joined with the Ranking Member, as we did on the 
Committee's China bill earlier this year, on this issue. I 
believe we did some good work there, and I stand ready to work 
with him if more needs to be done.
    With that, is there any Member who wishes to speak to these 
nominations before we vote en bloc?
    Senator Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support all of 
these nominees and I concur in your comments about Dr. Gutmann 
in regards to her nomination to be the Ambassador to the 
Federal Republic of Germany.
    Her family and background gives her a special insight that 
I think can help us greatly in our representation in Germany. 
But I wanted to take this time to raise a concern as to the 
Ambassador-at-Large nominee for Antisemitism that is not on our 
agenda and has not had a hearing.
    I mention this because this committee was instrumental in 
establishing an Ambassador-at-Large for Antisemitism. And yet, 
we were not able to move forward with Deborah Lipstadt, which I 
think is very regrettable that we are not having action on 
this.
    As Chairman of the U.S. Helsinki Commission, as Special 
Representative of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly on 
Antisemitism, Racism, and Intolerance, I find it difficult to 
advocate our leadership globally when we do not move forward in 
our own Senate on this extremely important position, one in 
which we were responsible for creating.
    Mr. Chairman, I just really wanted to raise that issue and 
I hope that we can work out between the Chairman and Ranking 
Member a process in which this committee can take action on the 
ambassadorship, which, to me, is so critically important for 
U.S. leadership to fight the growth of antisemitism.
    The Chairman. Senator Cardin, let me thank you for your 
comments. I embrace them. I join you in them. I have been 
advocating for a hearing for this nominee and I hope to get 
there with the Ranking Member in order to do so.
    I think it is a critical position to be able to fill in the 
world at a time in which we see a rising tide of antisemitism 
both at home and abroad, and so I look forward to working with 
Senator Risch in that regard.
    Senator Risch. If I can comment.
    Likewise, I look forward to working in that regard, too. 
The nominee has left a lengthy trail of materials that we are 
in the process of reviewing. But I suspect we will get there 
and will continue to work in.
    The Chairman. Any other Member who wishes to speak to these 
nominees?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, is there a motion to entertain these 
nominees in the FSO list en bloc?
    Senator Cardin. So moved.
    The Chairman. So moved by Senator Cardin. Second.
    All those in favor will say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    All those opposed will say no.
    [No response.]
    The ayes have it, and those who wish to be recorded as no 
will be so recorded for the record.
    Senator Risch. And, Mr. Chairman, we can submit those for 
the record if you would like. I would like to be recorded on 
Gutmann as no. I suspect other Members----
    The Chairman. Senator Risch shall be so recorded and----
    Senator Risch [continuing]. Senator Barrasso also wants to 
be recorded on the Ebong nomination and the Whyche-Shaw 
nomination. But there are a number of these so we will submit 
it.
    The Chairman [continuing]. They shall be so recorded as 
well.
    Senator Risch. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Senator?
    Senator Hagerty. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be recorded 
as nay on the following: Gutmann for Germany, Hill for Serbia, 
Taylor UNHRC, Ebong USTDA, Whyche-Shaw for African Development 
Bank, Holgate for the IAEA, and Carty for ECOSOC.
    Thank you, sir.
    The Chairman. The Senator shall be recorded.
    With that, the nominees have favorably reported to the 
Senate for the Senate's consideration and this meeting is 
adjourned.


    [Whereupon, at 9:23 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]



                              ----------                              




                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                         TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 2022

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

                Summary of Action Taken by the Committee

                              NOMINATIONS

  Dr. C.S. Eliot Kang, of New Jersey, to be an Assistant Secretary of 
        State (International Security and Non-Proliferation)--agreed to 
        by voice vote (Risch, Rubio, Barrasso, Cruz, Rounds, and 
        Hagerty recorded as no)

  Ms. Sarah H. Cleveland, of New York, to be Legal Adviser of the 
        Department of State--not agreedd to by roll call vote (11-11)

          Yeas: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, Kaine, 
        Markey, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen

          Nays: Risch, Rubio, Johnson, Romney, Portman, Paul, Young 
        (proxy), Barrasso (proxy), Cruz, Rounds (proxy), Hagerty 
        (proxy)

  Mr. George J. Tsunis, of New York, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and 
        Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to Greece--
        agreed to by voice vote (Rubio, Barrasso, and Cruz recorded as 
        no)

  Mr. James C. O'Brien, of Nebraska, to be Head of the Office of 
        Sanctions Coordination, with the rank of Ambassador--agreed to 
        by voice vote (Rubio, Cruz, Hagerty recorded as no)

  Dr. Beth Van Schaack, of California, to be Ambassador at Large for 
        Global Criminal Justice--agreed to by voice vote (Rubio, Cruz, 
        Hagerty recorded as no)

  Ms. Randi Charno Levine, of New York, to be Ambassador Extraordinary 
        and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the 
        Portuguese Republic--agreed to by voice vote

  The Honorable Laura Farnsworth Dogu, of Texas, a Career member of the 
        Senior Foreign Service, Class of Career Minister, to be 
        Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United 
        States of America to the Republic of Honduras--agreed to by 
        voice vote

  The Honorable N. Nickolas Perry, of New York, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to Jamaica--agreed to by voice vote

  Dr. Deborah E. Lipstadt, of Georgia, to be Special Envoy to Monitor 
        and Combat Antisemitism, with the rank of Ambassador--Held over

  The Honorable Barbara A. Leaf, of Virginia, to be an Assistant 
        Secretary of State (Near Eastern Affairs)--Held over

  Dr. Adriana Debora Kugler, of Maryland, to be United States Executive 
        Director of the International Bank for Reconstruction and 
        Development for a term of two years--agreed to by voice vote 
        (Rubio, Barrasso, Cruz and Hagerty recorded as no)

  Ms. Mallory A. Stewart, of the District of Columbia, to be an 
        Assistant Secretary of State (Verification and Compliance)--
        agreed to by roll call vote (12-10)

          Yeas: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, Kaine, 
        Markey, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen, Paul

          Nays: Risch, Rubio, Johnson, Romney, Portman, Young (proxy), 
        Barrasso (proxy), Cruz, Rounds (proxy), Hagerty (proxy)

  The Honorable Erin Elizabeth McKee, of California, to be an Assistant 
        Administrator of the United States Agency for International 
        Development --agreed to by voice vote

                               FSO LISTS

  Scott Bruns, et al., dated October 27, 2021 (PN 1319)--agreed to by 
        voice vote

  Casey E. Bean, et al., dated November 17, 2021 (PN 1418)--agreed to 
        by voice vote

  Ronald P. Verdonk, dated November 17, 2021 (PN 1419)--agreed to by 
        voice vote

  Lisa M. Allen, et al., dated November 17, 2021 (PN 1420)--agreed to 
        by voice vote

  Stephen Anderson, et al., dated November 17, 2021 (PN 1421), as 
        modified--agreed to by voice vote

  Randy W. Berry, et al., dated November 17, 2021 (PN 1422)--agreed to 
        by voice vote

  Kathy E. Body, et al., dated January 31, 2022 (PN 1747)--agreed to by 
        voice vote

                           Meeting Transcript

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:42 p.m., in 
Room SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert 
Menendez presiding.

    Present: Senators Menendez [presiding], Cardin, Shaheen, 
Coons, Murphy, Kaine, Markey, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van 
Hollen, Risch, Rubio, Johnson, Romney, Portman, Paul, and Cruz.

           OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ,
                 1U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY

    The Chairman. This business meeting of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee will come to order.
    Today, we are considering seven Foreign Service Officer 
promotion lists and 11 nominations for critical positions. We 
received a holdover request for two nominations that were 
originally noticed for this business meeting: Deborah Lipstadt 
to be the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism, who 
has been pending 158 days, and Barbara Leaf, who has been 
pending 302 days to be Assistant Secretary of State for Near 
Eastern Affairs.
    The Chair will honor those requests, and we will consider 
them at the next business meeting.
    But let me just say, at a time when the United States and 
its allies are working to put every conceivable pressure on 
Putin to stop his unprovoked, brutal, and illegal war against 
Ukraine, we have to have these nominees in place.
    There is no substitute for an ambassador going in to see 
the leader of that country versus a Charge d'Affaires. There is 
no substitute. There is no substitute for having an Assistant 
Secretary of State meeting others in the world that are their 
counterparts. This game is costing us.
    So for all of my friends who love to wave the flag of how 
important it is to be leading the rest of the world and how 
forward looking we should be, you are not helping the cause. If 
you do not like a candidate, vote against them. But this 
process of just holding and holding and holding makes no sense 
whatsoever.
    The administration has done a superb job of imposing 
sweeping sanctions, along with our allies, that are devastating 
the Russian economy but there is more to be done.
    These efforts will be enhanced with Jim O'Brien in place as 
the Sanctions Coordinator. Similarly, as we see Putin's army 
committing war crimes throughout Ukraine, we need to quickly 
confirm Sarah Cleveland and Beth Van Schaack, who will be 
instrumental in our efforts to hold Russian war crimes 
accountable.
    And as the millions of Ukrainians who have not fled are 
facing lack of water, food, and heat, we need to confirm 
Ambassador McKean at USAID for Europe. The humanitarian 
situation is dire and it is only going to get worse.
    Today, we are also considering other important positions, 
including Assistant Secretaries of State for International 
Security and Nonproliferation, for Arms Control and 
Verification for Middle Eastern Affairs, our Ambassadors to 
Greece, Portugal, Honduras, and Jamaica, and the Executive 
Director of the International Bank for Reconstruction and 
Development.
    All of these positions matter. If anything is clear from 
this crisis, it is that every country, every multilateral body, 
has a role to play in coming to Ukraine's aid and rallying the 
world to stop Putin.
    We need them in their place and I look forward to their 
swift confirmation.
    Senator Risch?

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

    Senator Risch. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    I did not intend to get into that but I will reiterate the 
numbers again, and I am one who believes we need people in 
these positions. The people need to be vetted. They, 
certainly--the documentation has to be completed and we do our 
best in that regard.
    In the 116th Congress where I was Chairman and you were 
Ranking Member, the average time was 94 days, and in the 117th 
Congress where you are Chairman and I was Ranking Member, the 
average time is 77 days. So if we are talking about who held up 
for how long, the numbers do not lie.
    Anyway, in any event, let us move on to getting the job 
done.
    I would like to express my support for Jim O'Brien to be 
Sanctions Coordinator. The current environment demonstrates how 
important this position can be.
    With the United States and Europe finally rolling out new 
sanctions against Russia, it is more important than ever that 
we have someone who can coordinate across the U.S. interagency 
and serve as a conduit for our allies on alignment of our 
sanctions policies.
    While these sanctions are a good start, we need to do more. 
Mr. O'Brien should push the Administration to truly isolate the 
Russian economy. It is vital this office receive the support 
and resources necessary to be successful.
    That is why I worked with others to specifically provide 
direct hiring authority to his office. I expect that authority 
to be used early and often to get the right team in place as 
quickly as possible.
    I, and many of my Republican colleagues, remain extremely 
concerned by reports that the Administration has offered 
reckless concessions to the Iranians as a last-ditch effort to 
save this failed nuclear deal.
    However, it is my hope that Mr. O'Brien can use his 
experience with other major sanctions regimes to talk some 
sense into this administration and highlight the negative 
impact these kinds of concessions will have on U.S. policy.
    Regarding Sarah Cleveland to be Legal Adviser of the 
Department of State, this is one of the most important 
positions at the department, and no one is disputing her long 
record of legal and academic expertise in international 
relations and international law.
    However, I am deeply concerned about Ms. Cleveland's record 
regarding legal opinions on abortion access. In the past, she 
contributed to and defended the U.N. Human Rights Committee 
opinion, which found that one country's domestic laws violated 
a citizen's international human rights by not providing and 
paying for an abortion.
    This finding is starkly inconsistent with U.S. laws 
prohibiting provisions or promotion of abortions abroad. For 
this reason, I am not able to support her nomination, but I 
hope to be able to work with her on this and many other issues 
she will handle if and when she is confirmed.
    Lastly, regarding Mallory Stewart to be Assistant Secretary 
of State for Arms Control Verification and Compliance, I have 
been very clear.
    I am deeply concerned about the Administration's 
consultations with our allies and partners regarding a 
potential change in U.S. nuclear declaratory policy and Ms. 
Stewart's role in advising on those policies. I am troubled by 
the destabilizing positions that the Administration has been 
advocating in the arms control space.
    With China's massive arms buildup and Russia's 
modernization, we and our allies must be postured to maintain 
deterrence.
    While I appreciate Ms. Stewart's and the department's 
recent cooperation in sharing more of those consultations, I am 
still not convinced the Administration is listening to the 
concerns of our allies and partners.
    So I will also be voting no on Ms. Stewart.
    There are other nominees on this agenda that were re-
nominated this year which I opposed in the past. Since I have 
not received any new information that would change my view on 
those nominees, I will be voting no on those nominations as 
well.
    There are a few other nominees in this agenda I will not be 
supporting, but I understand there is other Members who want to 
speak on these nominees so I will move on to that.
    And, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that Members be allowed to, 
however we vote, record their written no votes if they want to 
vote no on a person, and I would ask for a roll call vote on 
Cleveland and Stewart.
    The Chairman. All right. We will get there.
    Just one comment. I do not want to belabor the point. But 
one cannot compare the challenges we had with Trump nominees 
who, when they did not move quickly, it was because they had 
deep problems--torture, sexual harassment, lying to the 
committee and the IRS, for which they were indicted.
    I cannot expedite those people. The travesty is that they 
were all pushed through the committee and they were voted for.
    So in any event, let me move to seek an en bloc 
consideration except for the ones you have asked for a roll 
call vote.
    We will now consider en bloc the seven FSO lists and 11 of 
the 13 nominations that had been noticed for this business 
meeting. We will not consider the two nominees, Leaf and 
Lipstadt, who have been held over, and we will have Cleveland--
at the request of the Ranking Member, Cleveland and Stewart 
will have roll call votes.
    Other than that, the list is fully before the committee. Is 
there any Member who wishes to speak as to any of these 
nominations?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, I will entertain a motion to move 
them en bloc.
    Senator Cardin. So moved.
    The Chairman. So moved.
    Second?
    So moved.
    The Chairman. All those in favor will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    All those opposed will say no.
    [No response.]
    The ayes have it and the--those who are on the list en bloc 
will be favorably reported to the Senate.
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be recorded as 
``no'' on Kang.
    The Chairman. You shall so be recorded.
    Senator Cruz. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Yes?
    Senator Cruz. I would ask to be recorded as a ``no'' on 
Kang, Tsunis, O'Brien, Van Schaack, Dogu, and Kugler, please.
    The Chairman. Do you have all of those, Clerk?
    You do? It shall be recorded.
    Senator Rubio. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Yes?
    Senator Rubio. I would like--I would ask that I be recorded 
as a ``no'' on Kang, Tsunis, O'Brien, Van Schaack, and Kugler.
    The Chairman. It shall so be recorded.
    Seeing no others now, there is presently to be considered a 
vote on Sarah Cleveland to be the Legal Adviser to the 
Department of State.
    And the clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Senator Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Senator Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Senator Coons?
    Senator Coons. Aye.
    The Clerk. Senator Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. Aye.
    The Clerk. Senator Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. Aye.
    The Clerk. Senator Markey?
    Senator Markey. Aye.
    The Clerk. Senator Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. Aye.
    The Clerk. Senator Booker?
    Senator Booker. Aye.
    The Clerk. Senator Schatz?
    Senator Schatz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Senator Van Hollen?
    Senator Van Hollen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Senator Risch?
    Senator Risch. No.
    The Clerk. Senator Rubio?
    Senator Rubio. No.
    The Clerk. Senator Johnson?
    Senator Johnson. No.
    The Clerk. Senator Romney?
    Senator Romney. No.
    The Clerk. Senator Portman?
    Senator Portman. No.
    The Clerk. Senator Paul?
    Senator Paul. No.
    The Clerk. Senator Young?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Senator Barrasso?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Senator Cruz?
    Senator Cruz. No.
    The Clerk. Senator Rounds?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Senator Hagerty?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Senator Chairman?
    The Chairman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 11; the nays are 11.
    The Chairman. The motion is tied. In accordance with 
Section 3 of Senate Resolution 27, I will transmit a notice of 
a tied vote to the secretary of the Senate, thereby, giving 
either the majority or the minority leader the authority to 
make a motion to discharge the nomination.
    The next nominee for a recorded vote is Mallory Stewart. 
The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Senator Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Senator Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Senator Coons?
    Senator Coons. Aye.
    The Clerk. Senator Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. Aye.
    The Clerk. Senator Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. Aye.
    The Clerk. Senator Markey?
    Senator Markey. Aye.
    The Clerk. Senator Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. Aye.
    The Clerk. Senator Booker?
    Senator Booker. Aye.
    The Clerk. Senator Schatz?
    Senator Schatz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Senator Van Hollen?
    Senator Van Hollen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Senator Risch?
    Senator Risch. No.
    The Clerk. Senator Rubio?
    Senator Rubio. No.
    The Clerk. Senator Johnson?
    Senator Johnson. No.
    The Clerk. Senator Romney?
    Senator Romney. No.
    The Clerk. Senator Portman?
    Senator Portman. No.
    The Clerk. Senator Paul?
    Senator Paul. Aye.
    The Clerk. Senator Young?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Senator Barrasso?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Senator Cruz?
    Senator Cruz. No.
    The Clerk. Senator Rounds?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Senator Hagerty?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Aye.
    Clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 12; the nays are 10.
    The Chairman. And the nominee is favorably reported to the 
Senate.
    With that, I believe that all of the business of the 
business meeting has concluded.
    Senator Van Hollen. Mr. Chairman, if I could just briefly--
--
    The Chairman. Senator Van Hollen?
    Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Just to raise a question about somebody whose name was not 
on the list today. That is the nominee for the Assistant 
Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. I 
think, given what is happening in Ukraine, it is more urgent 
than ever that that nominee be voted on before this committee.
    The President's nominee was Sarah Margon. She was nominated 
on April 23rd of last year. Her hearing was on September 22nd 
of last year, almost six months ago.
    And so I would just ask either the Chairman or the Ranking 
Member why it is that she is not on this list even though she 
has had broad support from both Republicans and Democrats in 
the world of national security and human rights.
    The Chairman. To answer the Senator's question, I have 
offered her nomination for a vote several times to the Ranking 
Member, and I have yet to get approval to have a vote on her.
    And, as you know, we, so far, have operated under comity, 
and unless I have an approval to grant her a business meeting 
where she could be voted upon up or down, we have not been able 
to move forward.
    Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I do not know if the Ranking Member wants to comment. I 
just--again, to the Chairman's earlier point on the need to 
have everybody on the field, especially at a moment like this 
when war crimes are very much a question, it seems to me we 
would not want to continue to hold up a vote on the Assistant 
Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor.
    The Chairman. Senator Risch?
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman, I have said over and over 
again I am not going to consent to a hearing on her. She is 
objectionable for many, many reasons I have stated many, many 
times.
    I agreed with you, I think we should have somebody in that 
position. I would hope the White House would put somebody else 
forward or the Chairman would hold a meeting. He is, certainly, 
entitled to do that. He operates on this--on the condition of 
comity and this is the only one I have held up out of all the 
ones I have had.
    I voted no on a lot of them but I have consented to a 
hearing. I am not going to consent to a hearing on her. So that 
is where we are on the position, and there is two ways to go. 
Either they can put a new person in for that position or the 
Chairman can hold a hearing. But I am not going to consent.
    Senator Van Hollen. Just for clarification.
    I mean, we had the hearing back in September of last year. 
So we have had the hearing. The question is about----
    Senator Risch. That is true, and immediately upon the 
conclusion of that hearing I said I was not going to consent to 
her and I think the Chairman would agreed that he has been on 
notice since that moment that I would not consent to a business 
hearing on her. She is not acceptable.
    Senator Van Hollen. Mr. Chairman, I would just--I will 
continue to work with you and the Ranking Member. I think this 
is, again, a very clear example of how obstruction is 
preventing the President from having a full team on the field.
    And to the Ranking Member, as you well know, I mean, vote 
yes, vote no. But blocking the democratic process, especially 
on a nominee who is supposed to be our Assistant Secretary of 
Democracy, has a bit of an irony to it.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    I would just say that it is true that I could just hold a 
business meeting and break comity. I have bent over backwards 
not to do that, and I hope to still get an opportunity to get 
Ms. Margon before a business-meeting committee vote, and we 
will see what the future unfolds as it relates to not only her 
but other nominees as well.
    But with that, seeing no other Member seeking recognition, 
this business meeting is adjourned.


    [Whereupon, at 2:59 p.m., the meeting was adjourned.]



                              ----------                              




                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                       WEDNESDAY, MARCH 23, 2022

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

                Summary of Action Taken by the Committee

                              LEGISLATION

  S. 3666, ACES Act, with amendments --agreed to by voice vote

     Manager's Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

  S. 816, Diplomatic Support and Security Act of 2021, with an 
        amendment in the nature of a substitute--agreed to by voice 
        vote

     Substitute Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

  S.J.Res. 17, A joint resolution requiring the advice and consent of 
        the Senate or an Act of Congress to suspend, terminate, or 
        withdraw the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty and 
        authorizing related litigation, and for other purposes--held 
        over

  S. 3199, Ethiopia Peace and Democracy Promotion Act of 2021, with an 
        amendment in the nature of a substitute--held over

  S. 3491, Commission on Reform and Modernization of the Department of 
        State for the 21st Century Act, with amendments--agreed to by 
        voice vote

     Manager's Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

  S. 3492, A bill to address the importance of foreign affairs training 
        in national security, and for other purposes, with amendments--
        agreed to by voice vote (Barrasso recorded as no)

     Manager's Amendment--agreed to by voice vote (Barrasso recorded 
            as no)

  S. 3591, United States-Ecuador Partnership Act of 2022, with an 
        amendment in the nature of a substitute--agreed to by voice 
        vote

     Substitute Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

  S.Res. 427, A resolution to commemorate the 30-year anniversary of 
        the 1991 Paris Peace Agreements with Cambodia and to call upon 
        all signatories to those Agreements to fulfill their 
        commitments to secure a peaceful, prosperous, democratic, and 
        sovereign Cambodia, with amendments--agreed to by voice vote

     Manager's Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

  S.Res. 446, A resolution commending the Government of Lithuania for 
        its resolve in increasing ties with Taiwan and supporting its 
        firm stance against coercion by the Chinese Communist Party, 
        with amendments --agreed to by voice vote

     Manager's Preamble Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

     Manager's Resolving Clause Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

  S.Res. 456, A resolution expressing support for a free, fair, and 
        peaceful December 4, 2021, election in The Gambia, with 
        amendments--agreed to by voice vote

     Preamble Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

     Resolving Clause Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

  S.Res. 473, A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate on the 
        necessity of maintaining the United Nations arms embargo on 
        South Sudan until conditions for peace, stability, democracy, 
        and development exist--agreed to by voice vote

  S.Res. 503, A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the 
        Government of the People's Republic of China should immediately 
        guarantee the safety and freedom of tennis star Peng Shuai, 
        with amendments--agreed to by voice vote

     Preamble Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

     Manager's Resolving Clause Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

  S.Res. 547, A resolution recognizing the 201st anniversary of Greek 
        Independence and celebrating democracy in Greece and the United 
        States--agreed to by voice vote

  S.Con.Res. 20, A concurrent resolution condemning the October 25, 
        2021, military coup in Sudan and standing with the people of 
        Sudan--agreed to by voice vote

                                 TREATY

  The Convention between the Government of the United States of America 
        and the Government of the Republic of Chile for the Avoidance 
        of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with 
        Respect to Taxes on Income and Capital, signed in Washington on 
        February 4, 2010, with a Protocol signed the same day, as 
        corrected by exchange of notes effected February 25, 2011, and 
        February 10 and 21, 2012, and a related agreement effected by 
        exchange of notes (the ``related Agreement'') on February 4, 
        2010 (Treaty Document 112-8)--held over

                              NOMINATIONS

  Dr. Deborah E. Lipstadt, of Georgia, to be Special Envoy to Monitor 
        and Combat Antisemitism, with the rank of Ambassador--postponed

  The Honorable Barbara A. Leaf, of Virginia, to be an Assistant 
        Secretary of State (Near Eastern Affairs)--postponed

  Ms. Maria Fabiana Jorge, of the District of Columbia, to be United 
        States Alternate Executive Director of the Inter-American 
        Development Bank--held over

  Mr. Leopoldo Martinez Nucete, of Virginia, to be United States 
        Executive Director of the Inter-American Development Bank for a 
        term of three years--held over

  Mr. Douglas T. Hickey, of Idaho, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and 
        Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic 
        of Finland--agreed to by voice vote

  The Honorable Alina L. Romanowski, of Illinois, a Carreer member of 
        the Senior Executive Service, to be Ambassador Extraordinary 
        and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the 
        Republic of Iraq--agreed to by voice vote (Cruz recorded as no)

  Mr. Steven H. Fagin, of New Jersey, a Career member of the Senior 
        Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        Amercia to the Republic of Yemen--agreed to by voice vote (Cruz 
        recorded as no)

  The Honorable Rebecca Eliza Gonzales, of Texas, a Career member of 
        the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be 
        Director of the Office of Foreign Missions, with rank of 
        Ambassador--agreed to by voice vote

  Dr. Monde Muyangwa, of Maryland, to be an Assistant Administrator of 
        the United States Agency for International Development--agreed 
        to by voice vote

                                FSO LIST

  Bryan Patrick Abraham, et al., dated February 28, 2022 (PN 1810)--
        agreed to by voice vote

  Ranissa V. Adityavarman, et al., dated February 28, 2022 (PN 1811)--
        agreed to by voice vote

                           Meeting Transcript

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:09 a.m., in 
Room S-116, The Capitol, Hon. Robert Menendez, Chairman of the 
committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Menendez [presiding], Cardin, Murphy, 
Kaine, Markey, Merkley, Schatz, Van Hollen, Risch, Johnson, 
Romney, Portman, Cruz, Rounds, and Hagerty.

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

    The Chairman. The business meeting of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee will come to order.
    Today we are considering a number of nominations, 
legislative items, and two Foreign Service officer promotion 
lists. We have received holdover requests for five items that 
were originally noticed for today's markup: S. 3199 on 
Ethiopia; S.J.Res. 17, the Chile Tax Treaty; Leopoldo Martinez 
to be Executive Director of the Inter-American Development 
Bank; and Maria Fabiana Jorge to be Alternate Director of the 
Inter-American Development Bank. Of course the Chair will honor 
those requests. We will take up and vote on those items at the 
next business meeting, and I appreciate the Ranking Member 
working with me to get that noticed for March 29th.
    At this momentous time as we see a war raging in Europe, 
with human rights violations and a full frontal assault on 
democracy right in front of our eyes, our committee should be 
an example to the world of American democracy in action, and I 
am grateful for the hard work that went into our agenda today. 
But it has been 5 months since our last legislative markup, and 
there are critical matters to attend to, and while Ukraine is 
at the forefront of our minds, we cannot afford to neglect 
other pressing priorities. We have got to confirm officials to 
represent the United States on the global stage, we must take 
up legislation advancing U.S. interests around the world, and 
we must consider treaties to strengthen bonds with other 
countries and to drive economic activity. And we have key 
priorities: China, State authorization, and others. So I hope 
we can meet on a more regular basis.
    Let me turn first to nominations. I won't speak about each 
of the nominees individually but will simply note that their 
knowledge and expertise are desperately needed, and these posts 
are critical to our national security. I support their swift 
confirmation and hopeful that you will do as well.
    Finally, let me turn to legislation. We will vote on five 
bills and seven resolutions. I'll only highlight a few. I am 
pleased we will mark up the U.S.-Ecuador Partnership Act, 
legislation that will reinvigorate our bilateral relationship, 
deepen cooperation on environmental conservation, promoting 
economic growth, and help combat illicit economies, and it will 
strengthen democratic institutions Ecuador has taken steps to 
restore in recent years. Ecuador is a key partner in Latin 
America, and I want to thank the Ranking Member and Senators 
Kaine and Rubio for working with me on this.
    I am also pleased that we are considering a bipartisan 
resolution honoring the 201st anniversary of Greece's 
independence. Amid democratic backsliding and war in Europe, it 
is more important than ever to recognize the importance of 
democracy and certainly celebrate its roots. And our 
increasingly close partnership with Greece plays a crucial role 
in stabilizing the Eastern Mediterranean.
    Today, we are also considering three bills to advance 
reforms and modernization of the State Department, including 
expanding trade and professional development, and reforming the 
Accountability Review Board's system. As I have shared with the 
Ranking Member and the sponsors of these bills, while we agreed 
to mark up these bills today, we do so with the understanding 
that this is the beginning of a conversation on how to tackle 
these issues, and that we will examine these proposals closely 
as we put together the next State authorization bill. My 
expectation in the first instance is that these bills will move 
as part of that broader legislation.
    I was extremely proud of our work to pass into law a 
bipartisan state authorization last year, the first time in 
nearly 2 decades, and I look forward to building on that 
success by putting forward another authorization bill this 
year, working closely with the Ranking Member and Members of 
this committee to support and expand the Department's important 
diplomatic work.
    And with that, let me turn to the Ranking Member for his 
remarks.

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

    Senator Risch. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, 
I agree with your remarks that we have got a lot of work. I 
also would note, as you noted, that with what is going on in 
the Ukraine, it has a tendency to throw all the oxygen out of 
the room. But in the defense of all of us, it is pretty hard to 
look the other way when you have got something as ugly as that 
going on, and think we all are in agreement on that.
    I will go very quickly through the items I wanted to. First 
of all, I want to thank Senator Murphy for working with me on 
Senate Bill 816. The Diplomatic Support and Security is 
something we have been working on for a long time. The State 
Department has rightfully sought to protect our diplomatic 
personnel in high-risk, high-threat environments. However, in 
attempting to achieve complete security and limiting risk, the 
Department routinely stifles the ability of our diplomats to 
get outside of the embassy walls and meet face-to-face with 
world leaders and communities. Our adversaries do not place 
such burdens on their diplomats, and, as such, we are at a 
disadvantage. The bill commends the State Department's efforts 
to protect diplomatic personnel but recognizes the pendulum has 
swung too far toward eliminating risk. This legislation will 
help recalibrate an appropriate risk tolerance.
    Regarding Senate Bill 3666--Risch and Menendez, the 
Accountability for Cryptocurrency in El Salvador Act--thank you 
to Senator Menendez and Senator Casey, for working with us. Our 
legislation requires the State Department to coordinate with 
Treasury and other Federal agencies to examine and mitigate 
potential risks related to El Salvador's adoption of bitcoin as 
legal tender. There are a whole lot of questions there as to 
what is going to happen as we go forward with that.
    Regarding Ethiopia--Menendez-Risch--while it may be true 
that in the months since the introduction of Senate Bill 3199 
and the fighting in Ethiopia has shifted, the core issues 
covered in this legislation remain the same. This bill provides 
the tools to hold all parties to this conflict to account for 
the many atrocities committed in a deadly humanitarian crisis. 
This legislation also focuses on the role of disinformation and 
foreign actors in this war, which have increased its lethality 
and persistence. Congress must send a strong message that we 
are serious about accountability and resolving the conflict.
    On Senate Bill 3591--Menendez-Risch, on Ecuador--I am also 
pleased to have introduced this with Senator Menendez, Rubio, 
Kaine, and Cassidy. Our legislation authorizes the 
Administration to conduct activities that would improve 
commercial relations, promote security cooperation, improve law 
enforcement capacity, and strengthen democratic governance in 
Ecuador. It critically, improves ties with Ecuador, pushes 
against PRC influence in our hemispheres, and complements other 
economic and security successes in the region.
    With myself, Senator Shaheen, I want to thank Senator 
Shaheen for working with me on Senate Res. 446, a resolution 
that commends Lithuania for standing with Taiwan despite 
Chinese economic coercion. Lithuania deserves recognition for 
its decision to stand with Taiwan despite knowing the backlash 
it would receive from Beijing. This resolution sends a signal 
to all our allies that when you make the moral choice to stand 
up to coercive, authoritarian pressure, you can trust your 
allies to stand united with you.
    On other resolutions, there are a number of other 
bipartisan resolutions on the agenda I plan to support. 
Particularly I would like to thank Senator Coons for working 
with me on Senate Res. 446, a resolution that expresses support 
for a free, fair, and peaceful election in Gambia; Senator 
Menendez for working with me on Senate Concurrent Resolution 
20, a concurrent resolution condemning the recent coup in the 
Sudan.
    Turning to the nominations now, we have nine on the agenda. 
Mr. Chairman, I would like to have a roll call vote on Barbara 
Leaf and Debora Lipstadt, please. The others, we would 
certainly have no objection moving forward with the usual rule. 
I will be opposing both Leaf and Lipstadt. I did not support 
Ms. Leaf last year. I have heard nothing new that would 
persuade me to change my vote. At the National Security 
Council, Ms. Leaf continues to execute the Biden 
administration's flawed Middle East policy. My concern is that 
she would double down on these failed policies in her seat at 
the State Department.
    I think we can all agree that the ambassador for 
antisemitism is an important position. When I was Chairman of 
the committee, I worked with Senator Rubio and others to ensure 
this position was codified into law. Regarding the nomination 
of Ms. Lipstadt to that position, I have real concerns about 
her judgment, her prior comments and tweets about Members of 
this committee, which were inappropriate, at the very least 
were unbecoming for a person to be a U.S. Ambassador. The U.S. 
Ambassador's stock and trade is supposed to be diplomacy, and 
those tweets were anything but, so I am going to be a ``no'' on 
that.
    With that, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Risch. Let me start moving 
forward, and then, of course, to Members who have comments.
    Without objection, we will now consider en bloc two Foreign 
Service officer promotion lists and several nominations. Since 
there are Members that I need in the room for today's vote and 
who could not be here, I am going to postpone the vote on 
Deborah Lipstadt and Barbara Leaf until March 29th, and intend 
to hold the vote at that time, so all Members can be aware of 
that.
    The FSO list and nominees that we will vote on today are as 
follows: PN 1810, PN 1811: Douglas Hickey to be Ambassador to 
Finland; Aline Romanowski to be Ambassador to Iraq; Steven 
Fagin to be Ambassador to Yemen; Rebecca Eliza Gonzales to be 
Director of the Office of Foreign Missions; and Monde Muyangwa 
to be an Assistant Administrator to the United States Agency 
for International Development.
    Is there a second to that en bloc motion?
    Senator Cardin. Second.
    The Chairman. So moved. Would any Member wish to speak on 
any of these nominations before we vote?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Hearing none, all those in favor will say 
aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All those opposed will say no.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it, and the nominations, en 
bloc, are reported favorably to the Senate.
    Let me turn to----
    Senator Cruz. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Senator Cruz. I would ask that I be recorded as a ``no'' on 
the Steven Fagin and on Aline Romanowski, please.
    The Chairman. Okay. It shall so be recorded.
    All right. Now, without objection, we will now consider en 
bloc five bills and seven resolutions. They are S. 3666, as 
amended by the manager's amendment; S. 816; S. 3491, as amended 
by the manager's amendment; S. 3492, as amended by the 
manager's amendment; S. 3591; S.Res. 427, as amended by the 
manager's amendment; S.Res. 446, as amended by the preamble 
amendment and resolving clause amendment; S.Res. 456, as 
amended by the preamble amendment and the resolving clause 
amendment; S.Res. 473; S.Res. 503, as amended by the preamble 
amendment and the manager's resolving clause amendment; S.Res. 
547; and S.Con.Res. 20.
    Is there a second to vote on these amendments?
    Senator Cardin. Second.
    The Chairman. Second. A motion has been made and seconded.
    Would any Member like to speak on any of these items before 
we vote? Senator Cardin.
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, first, let me thank you and 
the Ranking Member. I just really want to take a moment. The 
subcommittee that I Chair and that Senator Hagerty is the 
Ranking Member of has been holding hearings in regards to the 
challenges at the State Department and the modernization of the 
State Department. We have three bills, as you have noted, that 
are on this voting session that relate to those issues: a 
security bill that Senator Risch has led, a commission to look 
at the modernization reform that Senator Hagerty has taken the 
lead on that I have joined him on, and then the training bill 
that I have led that Senator Hagerty has joined me on. I do 
want to acknowledge in regards to the training bill the help of 
Senator Shaheen, Senator Markey, and Senator Portman. I thank 
you for your input into those bills.
    I recognize your initial statement that we do need to do a 
State Department reauthorization, and I agree with you on that, 
and I think the work of our subcommittee gives us a sound 
foundation to move that forward. These bills are ones that are, 
I believe, non-controversial. They build on the professionalism 
at the State Department. They deal with real issues that we 
need to do in order to modernize and be more effective in 
diplomacy. Again, I want to thank Senator Hagerty for his help 
and cooperation on the subcommittee, and I hope that we can 
have a path forward to get these bills to the finish line.
    The Chairman. Any other Members seeking recognition? 
Senator Hagerty.
    Senator Hagerty. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to, again, 
thank Senator Cardin for your work with me on this. With regard 
to the training bill that you have led and put together, I 
think that we have got great bipartisan support to establish a 
provost, to establish a board of visitors at the Foreign 
Service Institute. I have been through that institute myself. I 
think the leadership position that you have taken, Senator 
Cardin, is most appreciated, and I look forward to continuing 
to work with you on this important milestone as we modernize 
the State Department for this century, and I think we will have 
very good work products. So thanks to all the Members of the 
committee here.
    Also, with respect to the commission that we are going to 
put together to reform and modernize the State Department, we 
have had strong bipartisan support, outside experts supporting 
this effort. I am very optimistic that through our work 
together, we are going to be able to see great improvements and 
modernization in the State Department, and I look forward to 
working with this committee.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Murphy.
    Senator Murphy. Very quickly, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted 
to thank you and Senator Risch for your help in putting S. 816, 
the Diplomatic Support Security Act, on the agenda today. I 
particularly want to thank Senator Risch who has given a lot of 
thought to this topic. It is really stunning how hard it is 
today to get our diplomats outside the wire, especially in 
places where we are spending a lot of money and need a lot of 
oversight, but there are security risks. And this piece of 
legislation recognizes that the number one priority is the 
safety of our diplomats, but also recognizes that we have had 
an accountability structure in place over the past 20 years 
that, frankly, disincentivizes any participation when it comes 
to making sure that we have forward-deployed diplomats. So I am 
grateful for considering this perhaps as part of a bigger piece 
of legislation to make sure that we have diplomats that are out 
there in communities that we serve overseeing the billions that 
we are spending. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you. And I would just say to our 
colleagues, your work has been incredibly important as a good 
foundation to what we hope to do in the State Department 
authorization. I am sure we will find a pathway forward that 
includes all of your great ideas.
    Senator Kaine, do you want to seek recognition?
    Senator Kaine. Just on the S.J.Res. 17.
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Senator Kaine. This would be a good time? I had a bill that 
was going to be called, a joint resolution today, and Senator 
Paul has asked that it be held over to the next business 
meeting on the 29th. And I just want to flag it because it is 
an interesting bill, and there is a little--you know, you may 
want to do some homework before we get here. The bill is an 
important and timely one. It is to clarify that no President 
can withdraw from NATO without either a Senate vote or an act 
of Congress.
    The Constitution makes very clear that treaties--if it is a 
treaty, it has to be ratified, two-thirds vote of the Senate. 
The Constitution is silent on how we exit treaties. The Supreme 
Court dealt with this in one case, Goldwater v. Carter, when 
President Carter unilaterally pulled the United States out of a 
Taiwan defense treaty. Individual members of Congress sued 
President Carter over that. A lower court said President Carter 
could do it. The D.C. Circuit said President Carter could not 
do it. It went up to the Supreme Court, and a six-member 
Supreme Court said we cannot even take this case. It is a 
political question. It is for Congress and the President to 
work out. And in that case, they pointed out that Congress had 
not acted, had not responded when President Carter did this.
    NATO is really important. This is a bill that Senator 
McCain and I first introduced 5 years ago. The committee has 
acted on it once before, and there has been some action in the 
Armed Services Committee to not allow funds to be used to pull 
U.S. troops out of NATO. But I think right now, when the world 
is really seeing the value of NATO, it is a good time for 
Congress to clarify our commitment to NATO. And so I would just 
suggest, and I appreciate putting it on the agenda for the next 
meeting on the 29th, but it might be a good idea for everybody 
to look at the Goldwater v. Carter case because I think it 
makes very plain that this is an area where Congress can act, 
and I think we should.
    The Chairman. Senator Risch.
    Senator Risch. Would Senator Kaine yield to a question? 
First of all, thanks for the work on that, and thanks for the 
history on it, too. Did you consider making this bill blanket 
for any treaty that we have entered into?
    Senator Kaine. I did. I did.
    Senator Risch. I am wondering if that is not a----
    Senator Kaine. Yeah.
    Senator Risch [continuing]. I mean, that is a huge issue.
    Senator Kaine. Right.
    Senator Risch. And it probably deserves the attention of 
the U.S. Senate if the Supreme Court has said--or, as you say, 
the Supreme Court has said that this is a ``political 
question.'' Well, okay, let us solve it politically.
    Senator Kaine. Right. I thought about making it cover all 
treaties and just decided that there is such a focus on the 
value of NATO right now, that rather than complicate it--you 
know, people might have questions about what might this mean 
with other treaties, and rather than complicate it with that, I 
would just focus on NATO. But it might be the kind of thing we 
can take this up about NATO and then continue to explore 
whether we would want to do something more broadly, and I would 
be very willing to do that.
    Senator Risch. Well, it seems to me that the founding 
fathers obviously thought that when it came to an agreement 
with another country, a treaty, that this was a really 
important role for Congress. The first branch of government, 
supposedly the people's branch of government, would play an 
important role in that. So I think that would serve a--but 
anyway, thanks for your work.
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Senator Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. On that point, I think Senator Risch raises 
a very important point. I support your bill, but if we just 
pass your bill and do nothing else, it could be inferred----
    Senator Risch. That is right, yeah.
    Senator Cardin [continuing]. That other treaties can be 
withdrawn just by the President, and I think that needs to be 
clarified in your legislation, if you proceed with NATO alone, 
which I will support, but I think Senator Risch raises a very 
good argument.
    Senator Risch. You could get around that by putting some 
very specific language in there that says that nothing 
contained in this bill should suggest that Congress in any way 
cedes its authority, blah, blah, blah.
    Senator Kaine. And we may even explore introducing 
companion legislation that is more general, even if that would 
not be taken up on the 29th, to show that--because I certainly 
would support the proposition for all treaties.
    The Chairman. Senator Van Hollen.
    Senator Van Hollen. I was just going to make that 
suggestion that you--we include the language----
    Senator Kaine. Yeah.
    Senator Van Hollen [continuing]. In the bill making it 
clear this does not grant just any other--that Congress----
    The Chairman. All the time. All right. Any other Members 
wishing to seek recognition?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, the motion has been made and seconded 
to vote en bloc on these five bills and seven resolutions.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All those opposed, say no.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it, and the resolutions are 
reported favorably to the Senate.
    And with that----
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous----
    The Chairman [continuing]. Okay. Here we go. That completes 
the committee's business, and I would recognize Senator Risch.
    Senator Risch [continuing]. I would ask unanimous consent 
that Members of the committee be permitted to submit to the 
clerk any requests to be recorded ``no'' on any item that was 
on the agenda.
    The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.
    I ask unanimous consent that staff be authorized to make 
technical and conforming changes.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    And with the appreciation of the Chair, this meeting is 
adjourned.


    [Whereupon, at 10:28 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]



                              ----------                              




                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                        TUESDAY, MARCH 29, 2022

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

                Summary of Action Taken by the Committee

                              LEGISLATION

  S.J.Res. 17, A joint resolution requiring the advice and consent of 
        the Senate or an Act of Congress to suspend, terminate, or 
        withdraw the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty and 
        authorizing related litigation, and for other purposes, with 
        amendments--agreed to by roll call vote (21-1)

          Yeas: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, Kaine, 
        Markey, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen, Risch, Rubio 
        (proxy), Johnson (proxy), Romney, Portman (proxy), Young 
        (proxy), Barrasso (proxy), Cruz, Rounds, Hagerty

          Nays: Paul

     Manager's Amendment--agreed to by voice vote (Paul recorded as 
            no)

  S. 3199, Ethiopia Peace and Democracy Promotion Act of 2021, with 
        amendments--agreed to by voice vote (Barrasso, Rounds, Paul and 
        Hagerty recorded as no)

     Manager's Package--agreed to by voice vote (Hagerty recorded as 
            no)

     Rounds First Degree Amendment #1--agreed to by voice vote 
            (Merkley recorded as no)

                                 TREATY

  The Convention Between the Government of the United States of America 
        and the Government of the Republic of Chile for the Avoidance 
        of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with 
        Respect to Taxes on Income and Capital, signed in Washington on 
        February 4, 2010, with a Protocol signed the same day, as 
        corrected by exchange of notes effected February 25, 2011, and 
        February 10 and 21, 2012, and a related agreement effected by 
        exchange of notes (the ``related Agreement'') on February 4, 
        2010 (Treaty Document 112-8)--agreed to by voice vote

     Paul First Degree Amendment #1--not agreed to by roll call vote 
            (2-20)

          Yeas: Paul and Cruz (proxy)

          Nays: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, Kaine 
        (proxy), Markey (proxy), Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen, 
        Risch, Rubio (proxy), Johnson (proxy), Romney (proxy), Portman, 
        Young (proxy), Barrasso (proxy), Rounds, Hagerty (proxy)

                              NOMINATIONS

  Ms. Maria Fabiana Jorge, of the District of Columbia, to be United 
        States Alternate Executive Director of the Inter-American 
        Development Bank--agreed to by voice vote (Risch, Rubio, 
        Johnson, Paul, Barrasso, Cruz, Rounds and Hagerty recorded as 
        no)

  Mr. Leopoldo Martinez Nucete, of Virginia, to be United States 
        Executive Director of the Inter-American Development Bank for a 
        term of three years--not agreed to by roll call vote (11-11)

          Yeas: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, Kaine, 
        Markey, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen

          Nays: Risch, Rubio (proxy), Johnson, Romney, Portman, Paul, 
        Young (proxy), Barrasso (proxy), Cruz, Rounds, Hagerty

  Deborah E. Lipstadt, of Georgia, to be Special Envoy to Monitor and 
        Combat Antisemitism, with the rank of Ambassador--agreed to by 
        roll call vote (13-9)

          Yeas: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, Kaine, 
        Markey, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen, Rubio (proxy), 
        Romney

          Nays: Risch, Johnson, Portman, Paul, Young (proxy), Barrasso 
        (proxy), Cruz, Rounds, Hagerty

  The Honorable Barbara A. Leaf, of Virginia, to be an Assistant 
        Secretary of State (Near Eastern Affairs)--agreed to by roll 
        call vote (14-8)

          Yeas: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, Kaine, 
        Markey, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen, Romney, Portman, 
        Paul

          Nays: Risch, Rubio (proxy), Johnson (proxy), Young (proxy), 
        Barrasso (proxy), Cruz, Rounds, Hagerty (proxy)

                          Meeting Transxcript

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:19 a.m., in 
Room S-116, The Capitol, Hon. Robert Menendez, Chairman of the 
committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Menendez [presiding], Cardin, Shaheen, 
Coons, Murphy, Kaine, Markey, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van 
Hollen, Risch, Johnson, Romney, Portman, Paul, Cruz, Rounds, 
and Hagerty.

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

    The Chairman. This business meeting of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee will come to order. Thank you for 
attending.
    Today we are considering a handful of nominations, two 
legislative items, and one treaty, and I appreciate the work of 
the Ranking Member and his staff in the extensive work needed 
for this business meeting to get us to where we are today.
    Turning first to nominations, I am pleased that we are 
considering four nominees today, but I am still concerned by 
the delays that high-caliber nominees are facing, including the 
months that it has taken to get votes for Deborah Lipstadt and 
Barbara Leaf. Our national security suffers every day that our 
colleagues continue to block nominees on the floor. I will take 
a minute to register my deep disappointment that we are not 
considering Dr. John Nkengasong today, nominated more than 5 
months ago to serve as Ambassador-at-Large to lead our global 
HIV/AIDS work. He brings immense experience and expertise. At a 
time when a global pandemic has ravaged communities and 
overshadowed the fight on HIV/AIDS, it is critical that we 
confirm him immediately. I know the Ranking Member is committed 
to global health, but I am perplexed at the continued and 
unexplained delays on this particular nomination.
    Turning next to legislation, we will vote on two pieces of 
legislation and one treaty: S. 3199, the Ethiopia Peace and 
Democracy Promotion Act of 2021. Today's agenda includes a 
critical piece of legislation on the conflict in Ethiopia. 
Ethiopia has seen horrific atrocities, including extrajudicial 
killings, gender-based violence, ethnic cleansing, and, I 
believe personally, genocide. Two weeks ago, Reuters reported 
on a video on social media showing men, some in Ethiopian 
military uniforms, burning civilians to death in the Western 
part of the country. I offered the Ethiopia Peace and Democracy 
Promotion Act, along with Senator Risch, to give additional 
tools to pressure both parties to end the conflict.
    To his credit, President Biden responded to this crisis 
early in his tenure. He sent Senator Coons as his special 
representative to engage with the prime minister of Ethiopia. 
He appointed a special envoy for the Horn of Africa to bolster 
diplomatic efforts. The Administration has imposed visa 
restrictions and paused some assistance, and last September, 
the President issued an executive order creating a framework to 
sanction those prolonging the conflict in Ethiopia. And after 
months of negotiations, Ethiopia has lifted their state of 
emergency order. They have freed prominent opposition figures, 
thousands of Tigrayans, and hundreds of trapped American 
citizens can now safely return to the United States.
    But for millions of Ethiopians, conditions have not 
changed. The Government has largely stonewalled our peace 
initiatives, refusing to commit to a political solution to end 
the conflict. It has blocked humanitarian access and broken 
promises to secure the withdrawal of Eritrean troops. Last 
Thursday, Ethiopia declared an indefinite humanitarian truce, 
which I welcome. While a hopeful moment, I remain skeptical 
this will be anything more than another empty pronouncement. 
The Government continues its humanitarian blockade of Tigray 
and has slated thousands detained in a state of emergency to be 
charged and prosecuted. I believe it is time for Congress to 
act.
    I know that there are differing views on the utility of 
sanctions and other restrictions, but I firmly believe these 
tools can create leverage that will help push the diplomacy 
forward. At the same time, I am pleased that the manager's 
package we are voting on today incorporates the views and work 
of many Senators on the committee. I look forward to working 
with all of you to do what we can to advance the 
Administration's diplomatic efforts to solve the conflict and 
ensure that we have a robust legislative option available if 
additional tools will be necessary. And I appreciate the 
advances made by Assistant Secretary Phee in her work. As a 
matter of fact, some of the changes in this legislation are 
specifically as a result of her insights, which we are 
incorporating.
    And it is my hope that the legislation never has to be 
pushed on the floor. I hope that we will achieve a peaceful 
solution, and I recognize in pursuing the legislation, that 
there are not clean hands here on all sides. But that does not 
mean that we should act in abeyance of trying to move forward 
to send a message that the Senate is ready to act if the 
parties themselves cannot move forward.
    Second, Russia's unprovoked and unlawful war over the past 
month demonstrates the critical importance of S. Res. 17 and 
the Senate's advice and consent on the NATO withdrawal, and the 
critical importance of the NATO alliance and the United States' 
role in it. Senate Joint Resolution 17, introduced by Senator 
Kaine, reiterates our unwavering commitment to NATO, and, 
consistent with the important role this body plays in treaty 
making, it ensures that no President can withdraw from NATO 
without the advice and consent of the Senate. I am pleased that 
we have a manager's amendment which makes technical changes to 
protect Senate equities, and I understand from some our 
colleagues that there is a suggestion we should look into the 
broader question of all treaties and whether or not the 
President should be limited in scope in terms of being able to 
withdraw from a treaty without the consent of the Senate, and 
the Senate has to consent--advise and consent to a treaty. 
There are many who believe that; therefore, the Senate should 
also be part of the process to withdraw from a treaty. There 
are some who believe that should be given to the executive 
branch exclusively. That is a broader debate which I am happy 
to entertain at a future date.
    Finally, I am pleased that we will be considering 
ratification of the tax treaty between the United States and 
the Republic of Chile. As only the third U.S. tax treaty with a 
Latin-American country, it will protect and grow U.S. foreign 
direct investment in Chile, and it would expand U.S. economic 
engagement across the region. It has broad support and twice 
has been reported out of this committee without objection. And 
there is a new president in Chile, a great opportunity to send 
a message that we want to engage in a direction that fosters 
open markets and free democratic institutions.
    So with that, let me turn it over to the distinguished 
Ranking Member for his remarks.

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

    Senator Risch. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 
I concur with you that the appointment for the position for 
HIV/AIDS coordinator is really important. Regarding the 
nominee, I have said many times, and I will say it again, that 
there are Members of this committee who submitted questions for 
the record, and I expect the nominee and the Department to 
provide fulsome, responsive answers.
    His initial responses did not meet the threshold for 
responsiveness. In several cases, he provided one-word answers. 
I appreciate that he revised some of those answers to be more 
responsive after my staff sent many of them back. However, 
several offices have let my staff know they have additional 
follow-up questions. I would encourage the Department to ensure 
that nominees' answers are responsive the first time so we can 
get to avoid these kinds of delays. Again, I think this is an 
important nomination. I commit to the Chairman to work every 
way I can to move forward, but we've got to have the 
information.
    Regarding the time, I will say again, we are 17 days faster 
than when I was Chairman of the committee. My poster child, 
David Schenker, was held up for over a year on a single 
document request, understanding that some people felt that 
nominations are not the same quality in this Administration as 
they were last time. But nonetheless, we are where we are, and 
Members know a lot.
    On today's agenda, first of all Ethiopia. Given the very 
real issues on the ground in Ethiopia and the problems State is 
having, this is really important legislation. I think everybody 
at this table recognizes that what is going on in the Horn of 
Africa is one of the most critical dust-ups that is going on 
around the world next to Yemen, and probably one of the worst 
humanitarian crises in the world. While it may be true that in 
the months since the introduction of this bill, the conflict in 
Ethiopia has shifted, the core issues covered in this 
legislation remain the same.
    This bill provides the tools to hold all parties to this 
conflict accountable for the many atrocities committed in the 
deadly humanitarian crisis. This legislation also focuses on 
the role of disinformation and foreign actors in this war, 
which have increased its lethality and persistence. The 
unilateral humanitarian ceasefire announced by the Government 
of Ethiopia late last week is a welcome signal. However, 
humanitarian access remains at a stalemate. Not all parties to 
the conflict have signed onto the ceasefire or agreed to come 
to the negotiating table, and the road to national 
reconciliation for Ethiopia is going to be long. Congress must 
send a strong message that we are still serious about 
accountability and resolving the conflict. A number of Members 
on this committee are deeply engaged in this particular issue, 
and I commend them for that and hope we can all work together. 
Certainly this is not a partisan issue or struggle.
    Regarding the NATO resolution, Senator Kaine's S.J.Res. 17 
on NATO withdrawal, as I said during our last business meeting, 
is an important Article I versus Article II issue, and I look 
forward to working with Senator Kaine on this. This is the 
second time this resolution has been before the committee. It 
was voice voted out in 2019. Recent Russian aggression in 
Ukraine has only reaffirmed the importance of NATO. I strongly 
support where we are going here with this.
    I also appreciate Senator Hagerty's amendment regarding 
JCPOA. What the Administration is contemplating right now with 
regard to sanctions relief and revocation of the designation of 
the IRGC as an FTO is bordering on insanity. This is exactly 
the kind of thing the Constitution contemplated Congress having 
a voice on. I support Senator Hagerty and his efforts in that 
regard. I really do not think we should mix the two, however, 
depending on where we go with this, I am not going to support 
it going in here. But I want Senator Hagerty and the world to 
know that he is really on the right path here.
    On the Chile tax treaty, we are also considering a tax 
protocol with Chile. Tax treaties are a critical part of the 
U.S. tax landscape. They prevent double taxation for U.S. 
taxpayers, help eliminate tax certainly, and they are important 
instruments in fighting tax fraud. In addition, they strengthen 
the ability of U.S. businesses to explore new opportunities. 
This treaty has my full support.
    Finally, we have four nominees on this agenda. I would like 
to renew my request from last week that we have roll call votes 
on Barbara Leaf and Deborah Lipstadt. As I mentioned last week, 
I will be opposing both of those two nominations. I did not 
support Ms. Leaf last year, and I have heard nothing new that 
would persuade me to change my vote. At the National Security 
Council, Ms. Leaf continues to execute the Biden 
administration's flawed Middle East policy. My concern is that 
she double down on these failed policies in her new seat at the 
State Department.
    On Ms. Lipstadt, I will say again, I think we can all agree 
the Ambassador for antisemitism is an important issue. When I 
was Chairman of the committee, I worked with Senator Rubio and 
others to ensure this position was codified into law. I 
supported it then. I support it now. I do not support Mrs. 
Lipstadt. I have real concerns about her judgment. Her prior 
comments and tweets about Members of this committee are 
particularly egregious and unbecoming of a U.S. Ambassador. I 
feel she is probably going to be confirmed. I hope that she 
will abandon the sophomoric efforts that she has engaged in 
over recent years and will rise to the level that is important 
for a U.S. Ambassador, but I am going to be a ``no'' on her 
nomination.
    Finally, I ask that Members of the committee may be 
permitted to submit to the clerk any request to be recorded 
``no'' any of the items on today's agenda that we don't have a 
roll call vote on. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    The Chairman. Without objection, that is fine.
    Let me just make two comments and then we will move 
forward. My understanding is that on the nominee for the HIV/
AIDS coordinator, that State has responded to all QFRs, that 
there are no pending follow-up questions that have been raised, 
so there is a disconnect between what they say they have done, 
which is everything being totally answered. And there are no 
follow ups, so we need to figure out where the disconnect is. 
And then secondly, we will have those, as you requested, the 
independent roll call votes on Lipstadt and Leaf.
    I would just simply say, it cannot be serious to say that 
because a nominee tweeted something about whatever the subject, 
particularly Members of this committee, that is an affront so 
significant that the nominee should not move forward, because 
in the last 2 years, we had numerous nominees who made rather 
appalling comments about Members of this committee nominated by 
the Trump Administration, for which Members on the Republican 
side voted to confirm them. So if that is not the standard, 
tell me something else. If you don't think the nominee is 
qualified for some reason that is different. But some of the 
statements, and I do not want to go through them, but some of 
the statements made about Members of this committee on the 
Republican side by a Republican nominee were pretty appalling, 
but you voted for them to get them confirmed. So that is really 
somewhat vacuous in terms of being the standard, but everybody 
is entitled to change their views.
    So let me start off with asking unanimous consent for en 
bloc for the other two nominees--Maria Fabiana Jorge to be the 
United States alternate executive director of the Inter-
American Development Bank, and Leopoldo Martinez Nucete to be 
the United States executive director of the Inter-American 
Development Bank for a term of 3 years.
    Is there a motion to that effect?
    Senator Cardin. So move.
    Senator Cruz. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. So moved, and is there a second?
    Senator Kaine. Second.
    The Chairman. Second. Yes. Yes.
    Senator Cruz. On the second nominee, I would like to be 
heard.
    The Chairman. Of course. That was the next question. Does 
anyone want to be heard on these nominations? Senator Cruz.
    Senator Cruz. So this is on Martinez Nucete----
    The Chairman. Mm-hmm.
    Senator Cruz [continuing]. Who I think is a nominee not a 
lot of folks have focused on, but I have to say as I have 
looked at his record, I have been concerned. Like Deborah 
Lipstadt, he has an intemperate Twitter record, to put it 
mildly. He has been a hard partisan on Twitter, actually 
attacking multiple Members of this committee, and his record 
also demonstrates, in particular, an extreme and an unusual 
view and antipathy towards faith. For decades, it has been a 
core principle of development assistance that faith-based 
organizations are important partners, and, in many cases, 
critical partners in providing assistance and channeling 
financing all over the world.
    Here is what the World Bank says about faith-based 
organizations: ``Faith-based organizations are entities 
dedicated to specific religious identities, often including a 
social or moral component. The bank recognizes their distinct 
strategic value given their unique attributes, including the 
fact that more than 80 percent of the world's population claims 
religious affiliation. Faith-based organizations are found in 
every country and offer opportunities for partnership and 
advocacy in a broad range of key development issues.'' USAID 
says very similarly and so does the Inter-American Development 
Bank. All of those, their official statements describe faith-
based organizations as really critical partners.
    What is bizarre is Mr. Martinez Nucete does not agree with 
that, and the degree of his disagreement is unusual. So I asked 
him to what extent faith should be disentangled from 
development given the opportunities that surround communities 
of faith. Here was his answer: ``There should be no 
entanglement between government and religion. That is a bedrock 
constitutional principle for us in America. I do not think any 
particular culture or religion is superior to others in terms 
of achieving socioeconomic development.'' That is an odd answer 
given the role of faith-based organizations in development.
    And I asked him more precisely to describe the role that 
faith plays in economic development as a constraint and as a 
contributing factor. Here was his answer: ``Education and 
respect for human rights promoting social mobility and market 
economies is the key to development, not faith.'' That is a 
level of hostility to faith-based organizations that I think is 
inconsistent with a development role. And so I would urge 
Members of this committee not to support this nomination.
    The Chairman. Any other Members seeking comments on either 
of these two nominees?
    Senator Portman. Mr. Chairman----
    The Chairman. I would just--yes? Yes?
    Senator Portman [continuing]. I would like to be recorded 
as ``no'' actually for a different reason, which is his lack of 
a background in banking and international finance. He is a 
lawyer and politician, I am sure a good one, but he does not 
have the background that we need at the Inter-American 
Development Bank.
    The Chairman. Okay.
    Senator Romney. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Yes?
    Senator Romney. I will also be recorded as a ``no'' in that 
regard, in part because I heard about Mr. Nucete's concerns 
about the role of religion in economic development. I am not 
voting on the basis of his tweets. I must admit I find it hard 
to decide who to support based on tweets, so I am not going to 
be weighing tweets in my vote in that regard. But I will ask to 
be recorded as a ``no.''
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman?
    Voice. I would like to be a ``no'' also.
    Senator Cruz. Mr. Chairman, I would just ask for a roll 
call vote.
    The Chairman. When we get to a vote, we will get to that, 
but the question is does anybody have any comments on the 
nominee--any of the two nominees.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Let me just then close on--I think that 
having heard--I did not see his statement, but having heard you 
read it, I think there is a difference between faith and a 
faith-based organization. A faith-based organization can do an 
extraordinary job, and many do, in helping in development and 
humanitarian assistance and whatnot. It does not mean that the 
bedrock principle of--keeping the separation between church and 
state, regardless of which faith the church represents, is a 
bedrock principle of the United States embedded in the 
Constitution. So I do not take his statement--that is, where I 
think you probably thought you were headed--whether the weaving 
of faith in the pursuit of aid development is the case. As it 
relates to his own experience, he has decades of experience in 
the public and private sectors as well as academic. He has 
extensive experience advising Fortune 500 companies, private 
equity funds, international businesses, and non-governmental 
organizations. I think that is a pretty extensive background in 
that regard.
    But with that, since there are several people who want to 
be recorded as a ``no,'' I think it would be simpler just to 
hold a roll call vote.
    On Maria Fabiana Jorge, which I have heard no one speak 
about, I will move on a voice vote.
    All in favor will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All those opposed will say no.
    [No response.]
    Senator Risch. I would like to be recorded as a ``no''.
    The Chairman. Okay. Senator Risch. I am sorry, who else?
    Senator Hagerty. Hagerty.
    The Chairman. Senator Hagerty. Who else? Senator Rounds. 
Senator Cruz.
    Senator Cruz. Please.
    The Chairman. Senator Johnson and Senator Paul. Okay. With 
that, the nomination is approved and sent to the Senate 
favorably reported.
    So I think the easiest way to proceed here is now to 
proceed to a roll call vote on Leopoldo Martinez Nucete.
    The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Senator Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Senator Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    Senator Markey. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    Senator Booker. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schatz?
    Senator Schatz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Senator Van Hollen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    Senator Risch. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Johnson. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
    Senator Romney. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    Senator Portman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Young?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cruz?
    Senator Cruz. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rounds?
    Senator Rounds. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hagerty?
    Senator Hagerty. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Aye.
    The clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 11; the nays are 11.
    The Chairman. The motion is tied. In accordance with 
Section 3 of Senate Resolution 27, I will transmit a notice of 
a tie vote to the Secretary of the Senate, thereby giving the 
majority and minority leader the authority to make a motion to 
discharge the nomination.
    Okay. We will proceed to a vote on Deborah E. Lipstadt to 
be the special envoy to monitor and combat antisemitism with 
the rank of ambassador.
    The clerk will call the roll.
    Senator Johnson.--Mr. Chairman, to speak to it.
    The Chairman. I had asked previously if anybody wanted to 
speak to any of them. Go ahead. By all means.
    Senator Johnson. So let me speak to why postings on social 
media in the case that it is not me is relevant. When Congress 
created this position, the special envoy to monitor and combat 
antisemitism--by the way, it is a goal we all share in a 
completely nonpartisan manner. You know, we all are opposed to 
antisemitism. So when Congress created this position it 
required that the nominee, the person filling this post would 
be nonpartisan.
    Unfortunately, this is a nominee that is anything but, and 
she has a history of her partisan postings to social media for 
all the world to see. I thought it was interesting when 
Majority Leader Schumer introduced her, he was talking about 
antisemitism and how awful it is in terms of the malicious 
poison of antisemitism. Well, I would argue that Dr. Lipstadt's 
postings on social media represent malicious poison. I think a 
vote for her basically acknowledges that you are okay with 
malicious was poison as long as it is directed at somebody that 
you do not agree with politically.
    So I recommend all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this 
nomination. This is not the right person for this diplomatic, 
nonpartisan posting.
    The Chairman. Anyone else wishes to speak to this nominee?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Very briefly, Dr. Lipstadt has spent her 
entire life--entire life--fighting Holocaust denial, 
antisemitism, disinformation, considered by many to be the 
foremost expert on the issue. One thing we can and should be 
able to agree on is that we must call out antisemitic behavior 
and actions wherever and whenever we see them. As the Inter 
Jewish Muslim Alliance wrote, ``Professor Lipstadt has acted 
without fear or favor in calling out Jew hatred from wherever 
place on the political spectrum and under whichever guise it 
may appear.'' That is what she has done regardless of party 
lines, regardless of titles, and so I think she's eminently 
qualified. I urge colleagues to support her.
    If there is----
    Senator Cruz. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Senator Cruz.
    Senator Cruz. Mr. Chairman, I will say, you know, I met 
with Deborah Lipstadt. I think she is a serious person and an 
intelligent person, and when it comes to antisemitism, I think 
antisemitism is an enormous evil in our society and the world. 
Senator Kaine and I joined together in authoring a resolution 
that passed the Senate unanimously condemning antisemitism when 
the House was not able to do so, and I think that was 
important.
    I will tell you I was initially inclined to support this 
nomination, but I am troubled by her public advocacy. And, in 
particular, you know, Senator Romney pointed out tweets, and 
you are right, people can engage in public discourse. I do 
think there is a line that can be crossed, and in this 
instance, in particular, the tweet she sent about Senator 
Johnson where she described Senator Johnson, and her tweet 
says--this is on March 14th--``This is white supremacy/
nationalism, pure and simple.''
    I do not believe any Senators on this committee are white 
supremacists or white nationalists, and there is a line that 
when you are making an accusation like that, that unless you 
can back it up, I think that undermines the effectiveness of 
this job when you are throwing around insults like that. For 
me, that changed my vote from a ``yes'' to a ``no'' that she 
said this tweet about Senator Johnson.
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Senator Cardin.
    Senator Cardin. Well, first, let me say I really have 
appreciated the work of this committee, Democrats and 
Republicans, in fighting the spread of antisemitism. It has 
been strong and it has been bipartisan, and we very much 
appreciate that.
    I am the special representative of the Organization for 
Security and Cooperation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly on 
Antisemitism, Racism, and Intolerance. I can tell you that 
Deborah Lipstadt is recognized as the leader in this country in 
fighting antisemitism. She has a global reputation. She has 
devoted her life to understanding the challenges of Holocaust 
denial and using that talent as a professor and in many roles 
to stop the spread of Holocaust denial and antisemitism. That 
is her career. Her reputation and credibility within the 
stakeholders who are fighting antisemitism in the United States 
and around the world is without question. She is the most 
qualified individual to be appointed to this position.
    I understand the sensitivity on matters that, Senator Cruz, 
you are referring. She handled that during the hearing, and I 
think the comments that were made were pretty clear about that. 
So I would hope that this committee would support her 
nomination and we could get her confirmed. I can tell you for 
the United States' leadership on this issue, it will not be 
understood, any delay in getting her confirmed. She is the 
right person at the right time in regards to this issue, and I 
urge my colleagues to support her nomination.
    The Chairman. Any other Members seeking recognition?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, the clerk will call the roll on 
Deborah Lipstadt.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    Senator Markey. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    Senator Booker. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schatz?
    Senator Schatz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Senator Van Hollen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    Senator Risch. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Johnson. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
    Senator Romney. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    Senator Portman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Young?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cruz?
    Senator Cruz. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rounds?
    Senator Rounds. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hagerty?
    Senator Hagerty. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Aye.
    The clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 13; the nays are 9.
    The Chairman. And the nominee is favorably reported to the 
Senate.
    Now we turn to Barbara Leaf to be Assistant Secretary of 
State--and any Member who wishes to speak on this nomination.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Seeing----
    Senator Cruz. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman [continuing]. Yes, Senator Cruz.
    Senator Cruz. So, Mr. Chairman, this nomination, I think, 
is a very troubling nomination. This committee is very well 
familiar with the issues in the Middle East and, in particular, 
with Iran. Ms. Leaf has been responsible for much of the Biden 
administration's policies, in particular, towards Iran. From 
the earliest days of the Administration, she has been the 
Senior Director for the Middle East, and if she is confirmed, 
she will be America's top diplomat in the Middle East.
    In September, I asked her for written testimony to the 
committee on several of the most critical areas on Middle East 
policy, and her answers ranged from evasive to actively 
dishonest. I asked her about the State Department's written 
guidance concerning the Abraham Accords and refused to use 
those terms. She refused to answer those questions. I asked her 
about Egypt and, in particular, the State Department 
announcement they would temporarily withhold $130 million in 
aid to Egypt over human rights concerns. They did so, demanding 
that Egypt drop charges against 16 unnamed individuals. They 
would not tell the American people who these 16 unnamed 
individuals were. I asked her who they were. In particular, for 
the ones that are not citizens, I asked if they are affiliated 
with ``groups that promote Islamist ideologies, distribute 
anti-Semitic materials, or distribute political information.'' 
Ms. Leaf wrote back almost 1,000 words in response, not one 
word which answered the question about these 16 individuals in 
jail in Egypt that the Administration is conditioning $130 
million in aid to.
    Now, it turns out that the names are in a congressional 
notification in the SCIF, so I have gone and read them in the 
SCIF. There is no reason for those names to be classified other 
than they are politically embarrassing. The Administration does 
not want the American people to see the names on that list. We 
just had a vote on an envoy on antisemitism. For the 
Administration to be actively fighting to release people who 
are potentially virulent anti-Semites is very disturbing, and 
for the Administration to refuse to acknowledge it, to try to 
do it secretly is even more disturbing.
    But then there is Iran, and everyone knows what happened a 
couple weeks ago in the classified hearing on Iran. Many 
Members of this committee were angry, and they were right to be 
angry. The Biden administration has not been honest with us on 
this agreement. They said they would consult with Congress and 
shape the bill in coordination with us. They have not. They 
said they would bring home a stronger deal than the JCPOA. They 
have not. What they are prepared to present is dramatically 
weaker. At this point, everyone knows this, and to be honest, 
we knew this. It was public in February of last year.
    And I asked explicitly Ms. Leaf in writing about a so-
called less-for-less agreement. Were they negotiating an 
agreement that was less than the JCPOA? And I am going to read 
the entire answer word for word--it will not take long--``There 
have been no such agreements--deals or agreements, contemplated 
to reduce pressure on Iran.'' At the time she submitted that 
answer that was a flat-out lie. She knew it was a lie. Everyone 
involved in the process knew it was a lie because they were 
actively negotiating a less-for-less deal. And the reason, I 
presume, she lied to this committee in writing is that she and 
the Administration did not want to defend a deal that is 
markedly less than JCPOA.
    If this committee is going to continue its critical role of 
foreign policy, we should expect nominees to answer reasonable 
questions. And, in particular, answering questions about what 
16 prisoners in Egypt are you trying to release and what are 
you negotiating with Iran are questions right at the heart of 
this nominee's responsibility. And we are going to have a big 
battle over any deal as submitted under INARA. We all sat in 
briefings where the Administration said it would. We are now 
hearing more and more they do not want to do that either.
    If you are concerned about congressional oversight over a 
deal with Iran, I think approving this nominee is a very 
serious mistake.
    Senator Murphy. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Senator Murphy.
    Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Not 
surprising, I do not share Senator Cruz's characterization of 
the status of the Iran talks, nor do I share his 
characterization of the Administration's dealings with this 
committee. But it is no secret that Republicans on this 
committee are not likely to support whatever deal is submitted 
if a deal is submitted to the Congress. The question is whether 
we are going to hold a mainstream nominee responsible for 
legitimate policy objections that Members of this committee 
have with the Administration. I frankly do not love the 
Administration's policy on Egypt--I have been very public with 
my disagreements--but Barbara Leaf is as qualified a nominee as 
you get, right? She is a former ambassador in the region. She 
has served time all over the Middle East.
    I just think it is not smart precedent for this committee 
to deny qualified applicants, exceptionally-qualified 
applicants like Barbara Leaf entry into leadership positions 
because of legitimate differences we have on the policy. So I 
do not think we can do better than Barbara Leaf, and I would 
hope the committee would support her today.
    The Chairman. Any other comments on the nominee?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Let me just briefly say, first of all, on the 
question of the comments about the Abraham Accords, she was 
working at the National Security Council during all of this 
time where the Secretary of State and everyone who worked for 
him at the State Department has repeatedly referred to Abraham 
Accords as the ``Abraham Accords.'' Matter of fact, the 
Secretary of State was just in the region holding a conference 
with all of the participants in the Abraham Accords directly. 
So I think that it does not hold much water.
    With reference to the JCPOA, I may very well be on the same 
side as Senator Cruz when it is all over. We will see. I have 
not seen the agreement. Until I see an agreement, I cannot make 
the ultimate judgment of it. But if you want to say anything 
about anyone, Jake Sullivan, you know, Rob Malley, Secretary 
Blinken, they are the people leading the effort on the Iran 
agreement. It is not Barbara Leaf. And if she answered at a 
given time that--going back in time that, no, there is nothing 
contemplated, less-or-less, then, at that point in time, that 
may very well be the case.
    So this woman is eminently qualified, and we do not have 
somebody in the position, as we have not had. We do not have 
anybody to engage with that can deal with the very questions 
that the Senator and others have, including myself. So I am 
going to support her, and I think we should move her nomination 
forward.
    Senator Portman. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Yes. Senator Portman.
    Senator Portman. I voted for her by voice vote when she 
passed 7 years ago with many of colleagues, and then just in 
November, I voted for her. In this committee, I voted for her, 
and so I intend to support her again. I do share, Senator Cruz, 
many of your concerns about the broader policy discussions. I 
just do not think that she is the one who is responsible for 
some of those bad policy decisions. So as I supported her 
before, I support her now.
    The Chairman. If there are no other Members seeking 
recognition, the clerk will call the vote on Barbara Leaf to be 
the assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    Senator Markey. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    Senator Booker. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schatz?
    Senator Schatz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Senator Van Hollen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    Senator Risch. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
    Senator Romney. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    Senator Portman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Young?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cruz?
    Senator Cruz. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rounds?
    Senator Rounds. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hagerty?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 14; the nays are 8.
    The Chairman. And the nominee is favorably reported to the 
Senate.
    Okay. Let us now move to legislation. Without objection, we 
will now consider two bills and one treaty. And before I do 
that, let me welcome Senator Shaheen back to the committee.
    Senator Risch. Hear, hear.
    The Chairman. She is well and with us again.
    Senator Shaheen. It is good to be back.
    The Chairman. So thank you very much. Glad to have you back 
with us.
    Without objection, we will now consider S.J.Res. 17, a 
joint resolution requiring the advice and consent of the Senate 
or an act of Congress to suspend, terminate, or withdraw the 
United States from the North Atlantic Treaty. Before we go to 
conversation, is there a motion to adopt the manager's 
amendment?
    Senator Cardin. So move.
    The Chairman. So moved. Is there a second?
    Senator Kaine. Second.
    The Chairman. Okay. Are there any other amendments?
    Senator Paul. I would like to speak in opposition to the 
bill whenever appropriate.
    The Chairman. Yes. The rule of construction about other 
treaties, that there is--this means no reference to the rule of 
construction on other treaties because we are not dealing with 
other treaties, is made clear so that we are not taking a 
position related to those other treaties, but we reserve the 
right to do so.
    Okay. Without any other amendments, we will turn to debate.
    Senator Kaine. Might I--might I offer just----
    The Chairman. Absolutely. I am sorry. Senator Kaine, the 
sponsor of the resolution.
    Senator Kaine [continuing]. So on S.J.Res. 17, let me first 
thank co-sponsors Senators Rubio, Blumenthal, Collins, Coons, 
Duckworth, Durbin, Feinstein, Graham, King, Klobuchar, Merkley, 
Moran, Shaheen, Warner, Cruz, Cardin, and Romney.
    This was a bill that was originally introduced in July of 
2018. The sponsors at that time were Senators McCain, Cory 
Gardner, Jack Reed, and myself. This, I believe, was the last 
bill that Senator McCain introduced before he passed in August 
of 2018. Like a lot of good ideas, I think we all grappled with 
the reality that we introduce bills that are good ideas, but 
sometimes the timing just is not right. The bill did pass out 
of this committee on a voice vote in--at the end of 2019, but 
it never saw floor action. The bill is currently in a very 
similar position to when it was originally introduced.
    It does three things. It requires the President to seek the 
advice and consent of the Senate to terminate U.S. 
participation in the NATO Treaty, or to receive permission via 
an act of Congress. It requires the President to notify the 
relevant committees in both houses within 48 hours if the 
President determines that termination of the treaty is 
necessary, and prohibits use of funds for such termination 
unless or until Congress approves. And finally, it authorizes 
the Senate legal counsel and general counsel of the House to 
represent the Congress should there be a dispute about the 
termination.
    I think bills happen even if they are good. We have all 
filed good bills. They just do not happen unless the time is 
right. The time is right for this bill. I do not think in my 
lifetime--I am 64--there has been a moment where the power of 
NATO has been as dramatically demonstrated as in the last 
month, with the possible exception of NATO coming to the aid of 
the United States after the attack of 9/11 under the Article 5 
joint self-defense obligation.
    I have conversed about this bill with members of the 
Administration. You might think a Presidential administration 
would be wary about this. No, to the contrary, they were very 
excited about the bill because they think it could send a very 
strong bipartisan congressional message of support for NATO. 
And I have also talked, and I think many of you have as well, 
with many of the European ambassadors to the United States from 
NATO member countries, and they also view this as a very 
positive thing. So I think the time is finally right for this 
bill, and this is a bill, as the co-sponsorship demonstrates, 
that is very, very bipartisan. Sending a message of support for 
NATO would not be very good if it were just one side sending 
that message of support. The co-sponsorship list, I think, 
suggests that we can send a very clear message that Congress, 
both sides of the aisle, both houses, strongly support NATO in 
its 72nd year.
    The thing I will say is this. This is a really interesting 
constitutional question because the Constitution is very clear 
about how we enter into treaties, but it is silent about how we 
get out of treaties. And that has led to a variety of actions 
over time--actions taken by Presidents, actions taken by 
Congress. In one such case, and I mentioned it last week when, 
at Senator Paul's request, we held this over. I encouraged 
folks to go read a really interesting case of Goldwater v. 
Carter. In one case that went to the Supreme Court, this issue 
was raised. The Constitution is silent. In that instance, 
President Carter unilaterally withdrew the United States from 
Taiwan Defense Treaty. It is kind of interesting. We are 
talking so much about Taiwan now. This was in 1979.
    A handful of members of Congress sued President Carter and 
said, hey, that was a treaty ratified by the Senate. You cannot 
back out of it without Senate action, and the Supreme Court in 
a 6-3 vote said that is a political question for Congress and 
the executive to work out. And they dismissed the appeal, and 
they noticed--the 6-member majority noted very carefully in the 
opinion that, hey, Congress can act here. The President pulled 
out of the treaty. A handful of Members sued to say the 
President could not do it, but the majority said, wait a 
minute, Congress could act. Congress could pass a statute. 
Congress could say they disapprove of the President's action. 
That did not happen.
    The clear implication of that opinion is this is a matter 
where the executive and the legislature can work out the 
circumstances of when, or whether, or how a treaty can be 
exited. And so this is squarely within our right as Congress, 
particularly in the Senate that ratified this treaty in 1949, 
and I would strongly ask for my colleagues' support.
    The Chairman. Senator Paul.
    Senator Paul. Requiring two-thirds of the Senate for an act 
of Congress for any attempt to withdraw the U.S. from the NATO 
alliance goes against historical precedent. It also goes 
against the NATO Treaty itself. The NATO Treaty gives the 
President the power to enact. We gave the President two-thirds. 
The Congress gave the President the power to enact a treaty, 
which also includes in the words of the treaty, the ability to 
terminate the treaty.
    But it is also most likely unconstitutional. This bill is 
an attempt to alter the Constitution by statute. The 
Constitution is clear that treaties are the sole purview of the 
Senate and the President. To allow the House to vote on 
changing treaties or how they are exited would clearly be a 
change in constitutional power. You are allowing the House to 
enter into something it has no role in whatsoever. It is very 
explicit. It may be silent on how we leave a treaty, but it is 
very explicit that the role in the area of treaties is the 
Senate and the President. The House has absolutely no role. If 
we give them a role in voting on it, that is, without question, 
going to be of dubious constitutionality.
    As far as the historical precedent, beginning in 1793, even 
Washington said Presidents are going to take this power, and he 
took it immediately to get out of an alliance we had in France, 
and it ended up avoiding a war and getting us in a middle of a 
war between France and Great Britain. The Constitution requires 
great deliberation before entering alliances but allows for 
quick withdrawal should international agreements prove 
potentially ruinous to a nation.
    The power to enter treaties is found in Article II, which 
vests the President with the executive power. Unlike the 
legislative body, the President can act with unity and 
dispatch, precisely the qualities needed to negotiate a treaty 
or fight a war, so the founders grounded this authority in 
Article II. But just as we must pay careful to the text of the 
Constitution, so, too, we must take notice of its silence. As 
the Supreme Court pointed out in United States v. Curtiss-
Wright, the powers of an external sovereignty did not depend 
upon the affirmative grants of the Constitution. In other 
words, the executive power to make international agreements 
would exist regardless of whether it was expressly mentioned in 
the Constitution.
    What the Constitution does is carve away things from 
unlimited executive power. It says these certain powers, 
particularly the treaty, are not just the President's. The 
declaration of war is not just the President's. It is also the 
legislature's. So they define executive powers expansively, and 
then it is taken away from the President to say specific 
categories are Congress', but since the Constitution does not 
make expressly make this similar exception for treaty 
termination or withdrawal, it remains the executive power of 
the President. Such power is entirely consistent with the 
notion of a chief executive.
    As the Supreme Court decided after years of debate, a 
president may remove executive officers without the approval of 
the Senate. Andrew Johnson was impeached for violating the 
Tenure in Office Act, but decades later, in the case of Myers 
v. United States, the Supreme Court found that executive power 
includes, in the absence of express words, it does include 
power to unilaterally remove executive officers. In sum, the 
Supreme Court found that the power of removal is incident to 
the power of appointment, not to the power of advising and 
consenting to appointments, and that the executive is entrusted 
with the exclusive power of removal.
    Similarly, legal scholars cite--Saikrishna Prakash and 
Michael Ramsey argue that the President's executive power 
includes a general power over foreign affairs, and where the 
Constitution does not allocate specific foreign power to 
Congress or the Senate, those powers reside with the President. 
Moreover, most treaties, including NATO, explicitly allow for 
termination, so we are passing a law today that actually 
contravenes the NATO Treaty. In the NATO Treaty, two-thirds of 
Congress gave this power to the President to execute the 
treaty, which says he can terminate the treaty. You would 
actually be taking power away from the treaty. The argument 
could be made that terminating the treaty is really a president 
simply executing a portion of the treaty that two-thirds of the 
Senate have already affirmed. Think about it. Two-thirds of the 
Senate gave the President the power to exit the NATO Treaty, 
and now a simple majority of the House and Senate are 
attempting to rescind that power. Noting the constitutional 
problem is between changing something from a supermajority to a 
majority without amending the Constitution, it is hard to image 
the widespread support this bill has gotten, unless it is all 
about NATO and nothing about the Constitution.
    Although it was not always the case, a unilateral 
Presidential treaty withdrawal is now a reasonably settled 
matter of historical practice. Almost all of the over 100 
treaty terminations during the 20th and 21st centuries have 
been effectuated by Presidents who acted alone. Subsequently, 
even the American Law Institute's restatement of foreign 
relations endorses the view that the President has the 
authority to withdraw from a treaty.
    When Congress has attempted to constrain the President's 
authority to exercise their executive power to withdraw from 
treaties, Congress has typically been unable to mount a serious 
challenge. Recently, even when Congress sought to impose 
preconditions on Presidential withdrawal of certain treaties, 
the President simply ignored them. In the 2020 National Defense 
Authorization Act, Congress enacted notification requirements 
and extended the timelines necessary to withdraw from the Open 
Skies Treaty. When President Trump withdrew from the treaty, 
Congress took no action except for a few public statements of 
criticism. Furthermore, there is the question of whether a 
bicameral law, a law voted on by the House and Senate, 
constricts a constitutional power that is entrusted solely to 
the Senate and the President.
    I do not know how a statute can change the treaty power. I 
do not know how you can change the ability to get in or out of 
treaties without doing a constitutional amendment. The House 
was given no role in treaty making or consenting. It would seem 
an attempt to modify this treaty power with the House on its 
face, would appear to be of dubious constitutionality.
    Before we vote, I also ask you to think about what we 
invite when we presume to invade the executive powers of the 
presidency. Many Members of this committee have argued for a 
unitary, all-powerful president with regard to war. While I 
disagree with the initiation of war being a President's 
prerogative, I have actually been one when the war starts and 
where they move troops around, you know, when they put 8,000 
troops here and 5,000 troops there, there are a Commander-In-
Chief prerogatives. This is an attempt to micromanage foreign 
policy.
    This resolution argues for limiting the executive's power 
to engage in diplomacy. These views appear contradictory. On 
the one hand, we have people who believe in unlimited power to 
commit war, and they would want to restrain power to actually 
engage in diplomacy. This resolution would endorse the 
perpetuation of current American commitments, even if they 
become disastrous to American interests.
    I think the vote will be on whether you like NATO or not. 
That is why it will overwhelmingly win. But I think we ought to 
also think about the Constitution, and if this power is 
exclusively given to us and not any of the power was ever meant 
to be a shared power. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Let me very briefly say that I 
think the question of--no law can become more in the United 
States without the House and the Senate passing and the 
President signing it. That is limited role that is envisioned 
here to create a law that then gives the Senate, not the House, 
that is correct, Senator, okay? So it would just give the 
Senate the right to take a position on the question of 
withdrawing from this particular treaty. I think, therefore, 
the House will no longer be engaged in the question of a treaty 
other than having passed a law that gives the Senate the power 
to do that.
    The core question is, why would I vote to allow a president 
to go into a treaty and then take the view that he or she could 
withdraw from that treaty without having any advice of consent 
of the Senate? If I thought it was important enough to commit 
the United States formally to a treaty and voted that way, and 
then that I could have, unilaterally, the President of the 
United States walk away from that treaty without any advice and 
consent of the Senate, to me it seems an undermining of the 
very essence of the constitutional right that was established 
in the advice and consent of a treaty.
    Now, I appreciate the science of the Senator's serious 
concerns about the separation of powers and whether this is an 
appropriate use. I personally fall on the side in this 
particular case that it is an appropriate use, and I will vote 
for the resolution. Is there anyone else seeking recognition?
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Senator Risch.
    Senator Risch. First of all, one thing I agree with Senator 
Paul's analysis--I do not fully agree with the legal analysis 
of it, but from a practical standpoint, this is a really 
important question, all right? It was so important that the 
founding fathers sat around a table like this and argued about 
it, and did not complete the argument. I guess maybe they hit 
5:00 or something and it was time to go to the pub. I do not 
know, but it would have been real simple to say, well, this is 
how you get in, this is how you get it. They did not.
    It would be really nice to have this debate outside of who 
is the President at the current time and outside of the issue 
of NATO that, right now, we all love and embrace and cannot 
wait to get on it. Nonetheless, it is in front of us. I am 
going to support this, but I think this really deserves a 
serious discussion in a more antiseptic atmosphere that is not 
clouded by the other issues.
    The Chairman. I appreciate that, Senator Risch, and I know 
Senator Paul made this argument to me, too, and I think that in 
a broader context, we should look at that question. And it will 
never be antiseptic because there will always be somebody 
sitting in the Office of the Presidency of the United States. 
Whether you like or do not like that person is another 
question. But to the extent that we can try to do it in a more 
broad--without a topic-specific treaty, I think that may be a 
useful enterprise. Senator Paul.
    Senator Paul. I wanted to make one final point on what the 
Court has said on this. Senator Kaine mentioned the Goldwater 
case--when the President unilaterally got out of the Taiwan 
Defense Treaty. While the Supreme Court never really ruled on 
this, their ruling, I think, could arguably be said not to 
really be on point or on the subject, and it's not the case. 
They said it was a non-traditional question. But the D.C. 
Circuit Court did, and this is the highest court in the land 
that has ever written an opinion about this.
    And what the D.C. Circuit Court said was, ``The President's 
authority is at its zenith when the Senate has consented to a 
treaty that expressly provides the termination on 1 year's 
notice, and the President's action is giving the notice of 
termination.'' And this is a conundrum for those of you who 
really love the NATO Treaty: you are actually seeking to 
abbreviate or constrict the treaty. You are seeking to take 
away by statute something that was passed by two-thirds of the 
Senate, and you are willing to simply be saying that two-thirds 
of the Senate, saying you can get--the President can execute 
this, and one of the things he can execute is this clause on 
termination. The Senate gives it back to the President to 
execute the treaty. It is in the treaty, so you are actually 
voting to overturn part of the NATO Treaty today.
    The Chairman. Any other debate?
    Senator Risch. I do not want to extend this, but with all 
due respect to that argument, we do not know because there has 
not been a definitive question of whether the President can 
withdraw. If the treaty itself said he could, it would be 
unconstitutional. So that part of the treaty would not be in 
accord with the U.S. Constitution. So that argument, I do not 
think----
    Senator Paul. If the treaty said what?
    Senator Risch. If the treaty says the President can get 
out.
    Senator Paul. Right.
    Senator Risch. What if, although we have not--it has not 
been decided yet, but what if the actual law is that the 
President cannot withdraw? That provision of the treaty would 
be unconstitutional. So anyway, we are arguing about how many 
angels can dance on the head of a pin----
    Senator Paul. That is what the D.C. Circuit Court ruled.
    The Chairman. Hold on a minute. Let me turn to Senator 
Coons and then Senator Romney.
    Senator Coons. I will just simply reinforce the point made 
by the Chair and Ranking Member. Senator Paul raises some 
intriguing, engaging legal questions. I intend to ask the 
nominee to be the legal adviser to the State Department, who 
was a classmate of mine and is a scholar in this area, for her 
views on it and some other scholars. In the current context in 
which we find ourselves, I think we should proceed, and I look 
forward to my colleague, Senator Kaine, answering some of these 
questions. One of the great things about having a markup is we 
get to hear issues debated and discussed. I wish we had more 
markups. I have 10 bills that are all bipartisan and waiting 
for a markup. I think this is a great, frankly, opportunity for 
us to put things on the table and work through them, and I 
defer to my colleague to get this resolved. But, please, let us 
move forward.
    The Chairman. Senator Romney.
    Senator Romney. Mine was a question to Senator Risch. You 
said that the NATO Treaty says the President may withdraw?
    Senator Risch. I think that is what--under certain 
circumstances.
    Senator Romney. The treaty----
    Senator Paul. Basically, when we pass a treaty, we pass it 
back off to the President who executes the treaty.
    Senator Romney. I understand that argument.
    Senator Paul. And that----
    Senator Romney. My point is the treaty does not say the 
President may withdraw. The treaty only says America may 
withdraw. It is up to the country to decide how that could be 
done.
    Senator Paul. And the only person--the only person that 
executes the treaty is the President. No one else actually----
    Senator Romney. That is your argument.
    The Chairman. Senator Romney has the floor.
    Senator Romney. That is your argument and I understand that 
argument, and it may well be valid. But I just wanted to 
correct what I heard from Senator Risch, which is the treaty 
does not say that the President may withdraw from the treaty. 
It only says that America may withdraw--any member may withdraw 
from the treaty. How they do so would conceivably be up to the 
respective countries. And you may be right that the President 
should have that right, but the treaty itself does not say that 
the President has that power.
    The Chairman. Senator Cruz.
    Senator Cruz. Listen, I think Senator Paul raises real and 
substantive concerns, and they are heartfelt on his part. I 
think the question of whether the President can withdraw from a 
duly-ratified treaty is a question on which there is 
constitutional ambiguity, and there are arguments that can be 
made on both sides. I also agree with the Supreme Court in the 
Goldwater case that that is ultimately a political question 
decided in the checks and balances and wrestling between the 
branches.
    And when we talked last week about this resolution--I am a 
co-sponsor of this resolution, and I am going to vote for it. 
There was some discussion last week at making it broader and 
saying the President cannot pull out of any treaties. I would 
oppose that. I think that would be far too broad. I support 
this because I think NATO is exceptionally important, and I 
think in the back and forth and the wrestling between Congress 
and the executive which the framers designed, this is an 
appropriate wrestling back to say this agreement we think is 
particularly important, and we are exercising our 
constitutional prerogatives.
    But I am glad that this is limited to NATO and not sweeping 
in every treaty that has ever been adopted. There may well be a 
time when a President makes a determination and a reasonable 
determination to pull out of a treaty, and if we disagree with 
it then, we can press back and that is the give-and-take of the 
system.
    The Chairman. Senator Paul.
    Senator Paul. With regard to whether the NATO Treaty gives 
the President the power to pull out of this, it does not say 
the word ``President,'' but there is no one else who actually 
uses the treaty. Historically, Presidents execute treaties. 
None of us can execute a treaty. The President, the executive 
branch, does, and that is what it has always been in every 
treaty over 250 years. So when it gives the right to terminate 
a treaty, it is giving a right to those who execute the treaty. 
That is the President. And so, yes, this law that you passed 
will contravene and contradict the actual NATO Treaty because 
you are now limiting by majority vote something that was passed 
by two-thirds of the Senate.
    The Chairman. All right. I think we have had a robust 
debate. I would just say that it could be considered that the 
President is acting and functioning on behalf of the United 
States of America when he does that, if the Senate were to 
agree with him. But I think we have had a robust debate. There 
is obviously, in the broader context, going to be future 
hearings.
    First, a motion has been made and seconded to adopt the 
manager's package.
    All those in favor will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed?
    Senator Paul. No.
    The Chairman. The ayes have it, and the manager's package 
is adopted.
    I will move to have a voice vote on--Senator, do you seek a 
voice vote?
    Senator Paul. I think we should have a roll call. We had a 
good debate. Let us have a recorded vote.
    The Chairman. Okay. The clerk will call the roll on 
S.J.Res. 17, as amended.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    Senator Markey. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schatz?
    Senator Schatz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Senator Van Hollen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    Senator Risch. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
    Senator Romney. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Young?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cruz?
    Senator Cruz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rounds?
    Senator Rounds. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hagerty?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 21; the nays are 1.
    The Chairman. The majority of Members present having voted 
in the affirmative, the ayes have it, and the legislation is 
agreed to and sent to the Senate.
    All right. Finally, without objection, we will now consider 
S. 3199, the Ethiopia Peace and Democracy Promotion Act of 
2021. Is there a motion to adopt the manager's package?
    Senator Cardin. So move.
    The Chairman. So moved. Is there a second?
    Voice. Second.
    The Chairman. All those in favor will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Opposed, no.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it, and the manager's package 
is approved.
    Are there any amendments?
    Senator Rounds. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Senator Rounds.
    Senator Rounds. I would call up Rounds 1, Degree 1.
    The Chairman. Why does the Senator not speak to the 
amendment?
    Senator Rounds. Did you want me to speak to the amendment?
    The Chairman. If you wish.
    Senator Rounds. I would, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Okay.
    Senator Rounds. I was under the impression that with a 
voice vote, you would prefer to move on to the discussion of 
the bill.
    The Chairman. Okay. Yes. I mean, if the Senator does not 
wish to speak to it, I intend to accept it by voice vote.
    Senator Merkley. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak to it.
    The Chairman. Yeah. Okay. So the Senator is offering his 
amendment. It is my intention to take it by voice vote. Before 
that, we will entertain any debate on the amendment.
    Senator Merkley. Thank you. I was actually looking forward 
to your presentation on it to better understand the context, 
and I do understand the role of the--that Turkey is playing in 
this. I cannot help but reflect, though, on an experience I had 
early in life in living in an Ashanti Village in West Africa, 
and right over the hill was Capri Village, and the two tribes 
absolutely hated each other. Very amazingly different 
languages, just a small area to small area.
    In these tribal settings, when arms dealers are free to 
provide arms to all sides, it changes kind of traditional 
hatreds and fears into sometimes bloody, bloody conflicts. When 
I read the language--that is why I wanted to hear your 
presentation on it, that this allows support for a weapon 
systems to go to any side. It disturbed me because so often 
these conflicts are amplified by arms dealers selling. I 
understand there is a clear context here with Turkey, but I 
feel like the waiver power of the President might be the 
appropriate way to address that rather than taking off the 
sanction completely. And just all around the world, we have 
seen--but particularly in Africa, we have seen amplification of 
the arming of all sides, so that is my concern.
    The Chairman. Senator Rounds, do you wish to----
    Senator Rounds. Well, Mr. Chairman, just simply, with the 
adoption of the manager's package and with the adoption of this 
clarifying--the issue regarding the--our members, including 
NATO and other countries, would not be retrospectively 
identified as being subject to sanctions, I felt that this was 
something--a clarification and we did not have a debate 
necessarily, with your acceptance of the--or the motion on this 
with a voice vote. But if you would prefer, I would be happy to 
get into the substance of the amendment as well.
    The Chairman. Well, we are happy to accept it. I think 
Senator Merkley was just looking for some information. I think 
the concern here, Senator Merkley, is that the retroactivity of 
some of the provisions would have involved NATO allies who are 
engaged with us, and for which maybe the sale of some of their 
equipment is desirable in some places, like in Ukraine, but 
maybe not elsewhere. And so the question was to leave that off 
the table for the moment. The Administration can still pursue 
its interests as it would choose to do so in this regard. And 
in the pursuit of the greater good that I think the bill does, 
I am willing to accept the Senator's amendment. It does not 
mean we cannot----
    Senator Merkley. Point of clarification. Would not the 
President, under the manager's package waivers, have the 
ability to provide those waivers from past provisions and apply 
them prospectively forward as needed in the judgment of the 
President, without creating a complete kind of sanction-free 
realm for providing arms to all sides?
    The Chairman. I believe the answer to that question is, 
yes, that waiver could be used in that regard as the Senator 
has described.
    Senator Merkley. Listen, I do not mean to prolong the 
discussion, but I wanted to understand it better, and after we 
vote, I will ask to be recorded as ``no.''
    The Chairman. All right. A voice vote is----
    All those in favor will say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All those opposed, say no.
    Senator Merkley. No.
    The Chairman. The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed 
to.
    Voice. Mr. Chair.
    The Chairman. Is there any other amendment? Senator Van 
Hollen.
    Senator Van Hollen. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak to 
the bill and----
    Senator Merkley. I would like to be recorded as ``no'' on 
that vote, please.
    The Chairman. Senator Merkley shall be recorded as ``no.''
    Senator Van Hollen [continuing]. Obviously what is 
happening in Ethiopia is a very serious situation. I am glad we 
are giving it this attention. This bill is also a pretty broad 
bill, and it states the obvious that the situation in Ethiopia 
is very complex, so we can spend all day going through the 
history that brought us to this point. There are no clean hands 
in this, and my biggest fear with the original bill was that we 
would have unintended consequences.
    I think everybody here wants all sides to come to the peace 
table. Everybody here wants to hold everybody equally 
accountable. But the original bill, as I read it, applied very 
tough mandatory sanctions, some to everybody potentially, but 
some only apply to the Government of Ethiopia, so I did not 
think it met the standard of trying to hold everybody equally 
accountable. I want to thank Senator Rounds and Senator Murphy 
for joining me on the amendment to provide waiver authority to 
the sanctions provisions so that the President is not required 
to apply sanctions that can only be escaped through very tough, 
narrow criteria, and very rigid criteria.
    I do want to point out to our colleagues the unintended 
consequences we often see from sanctions. So we have an AGOA 
provision that the Administration felt was triggered, so we now 
deny any kind of trade status for the products from Ethiopia. 
The result of that is punishing lots of Ethiopian farmers, but 
the day that happened, the Government of China said to the 
Continent of Africa, the United States is unreliable. We are 
going to purchase $300 billion of products. So I think we need 
to be very careful as we go down this road.
    I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, for 
accepting that amendment, and as a result, it can move forward. 
But let me just also mention something that we just changed 
last night, and this goes to the issue of, you know, just big 
bills before the committee. There was a big First Amendment 
problem here. There was a provision in this bill that 
essentially instructed the Government of the United States to 
monitor disinformation, including among American citizens, with 
respect to narratives that are favorable or unfavorable to 
either party and to report on those citizens. That is a big 
First Amendment problem, and it just goes, in my view, to the 
issue that we got to really scrutinize these bills carefully. 
There may be other parts of this bill that still suffer from 
that challenge. I am glad we removed that last night. If we 
applied the issue of disinformation standard of holding America 
accountable in this environment, we are all in big trouble.
    Timing. Mr. Chairman, you know that the Assistant Secretary 
of State for African Affairs expressed concern about the timing 
here with respect to very sensitive negotiations. I am fine 
moving this bill forward, as you say, to the floor. I would, at 
this point, oppose trying to move forward on the floor given 
the very sensitive situation. I think it could be 
counterproductive, and she is a great diplomat and that was her 
assessment.
    The thing I just ask and it actually goes to the amendment 
that Senator Rounds offered. Until last night, we were told by 
committee counsel that the sanctions in this bill applied 
retroactively to the beginning of the conduct, retroactively 
and potentially even before, which is why Senator Rounds has 
been concerned about the sanctions inadvertently even hitting 
the U.S., NATO partners, Israel, and others. My understanding, 
Mr. Chairman, and I would like to clarify this here, is that 
the sanctions in this bill apply only going forward from the 
date of enactment of the bill. That is what we have been told, 
and it is a very big difference in interpretation of the bill, 
which we learned about late last night.
    The Chairman. Yes, the sanctions apply only prospectively. 
They cannot be imposed on acts that occurred prior to 
enactment.
    Senator Van Hollen. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Is there any other remarks?
    Senator Rounds. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. In a moment, I am going to acknowledge 
Senator Rounds--when we want markups, which I am all for, we 
have to stay for the debate, and then we have to stay for 
votes. I need 12 Members to be present in order to cast a vote. 
So when----
    Senator Romney. So you called me back.
    The Chairman. And I appreciate it very much.
    Senator Romney. I have learned when you leave, leave early, 
number one.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Romney. But number two----
    The Chairman. I am just giving the broader notice to 
everybody for future purposes. We want markups, but we have to 
be able to stay.
    Senator Romney. I keep asking Senator Cardin to leave. Is 
that----
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. Senator Rounds.
    Senator Rounds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. It is the ultimate expression of 
bipartisanship.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Rounds. Well, first of all, let me just say thank 
you to Senator Van Hollen. He is the Chair of the Subcommittee 
on Africa and Global Health Subcommittee. I am the Ranking 
Member. I do have serious concerns about S. 3199, the Ethiopia 
Peace and Democracy Promotion Act. I will vote ``no'' on this 
bill at this time. I have traveled to Ethiopia on multiple 
occasions and consider Prime Minister Abiy a friend of the 
United States. After 16 months of cruel civil war, it may be 
hard to remember Abiy's ascension to prime minister in Ethiopia 
in 2018, and the immediate steps he took to free political 
prisoners, welcome back refugees, and make peace with Eritrea. 
The latter action earned him the Nobel Peace Prize. I continue 
to believe he has the right vision for his country, one that is 
difficult to achieve given Ethiopia's chronic societal schisms, 
instability, and propensity for political violence. Under these 
trying circumstances, Prime Minister Abiy remains our best bet.
    This bill was originally proposed in November of 2021. In 
November, the situation on the ground was considerably 
different than it is today with many observers even thinking 
that the TPLF might advance on Addis and topple Abiy's 
government. It was in November that Ethiopia declared a state 
of emergency and Prime Minister Abiy went to the front lines to 
lead the counter-offensive. On November 5th, the State 
Department was so concerned that the U.S. Embassy in Addis went 
on ordered departure. The facts on the ground have changed 
dramatically in Ethiopia, and the situation remains fluid.
    I understand the desire to do something and seek redress 
for its unfortunate victims, and I understand that the tragedy 
of this horrible civil war continues today. But I do not see 
the wisdom of injecting ourselves in the civil war at a 
delicate moment when parties to the conflict appear to be 
making some tentative, but real, steps towards peace. Just last 
Thursday, the Ethiopian Government announced a humanitarian 
truce, which the Tigray People's Liberation Front--the TPLF--is 
also observing. The State Department has also reported a 
renewed willingness by the Ethiopian Government to 
substantively engage with the United States on this issue. I 
have also heard that the Government is in early stages of 
planning a national dialogue.
    In light of this progress alone, I believe S. 3199 is ill-
conceived and will jeopardize relations with Ethiopia. I just 
personally believe that this is not the right time for this 
bill. I think it sends a tough message to Ethiopia as China 
sits in the wings and watches. In closing, I believe that we 
should allow Prime Minister Abiy the space to continue this 
progress which is currently in place. So with that, I will vote 
``no'' and would offer that I think it is appropriate that we 
hold this in committee until such time as we see changes in the 
modifications or changes in Ethiopia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Coons.
    Senator Coons. Thank you, Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member 
Risch. I want to start by thanking Senator Van Hollen for his 
very constructive amendments and engagement on this. A year 
ago, I traveled to Ethiopia and met with Prime Minister Abiy, 
and I will agree with Senator Rounds that he is an engaging, 
charismatic, capable leader. Ethiopia is an ancient nation of 
120 million people with very complex internal divisions of 
ethnicity, religion, and language, similar to the former 
Yugoslavia, a very complex federal republic with very complex 
dynamics.
    After 2 days of intense conversation, he made a series of 
five promises to me, to our President, I would argue to us, and 
acted on some and failed to act on others, and ultimately, a 
year of brutal civil war has ensued. Rather than re-litigating 
any of that, let me just recognize two realities. One, Senator 
Rounds correctly assessed there have recently been some very 
encouraging developments in terms of a humanitarian ceasefire, 
release of prisoners, the TPLF agreeing to a ceasefire, and 
there being the possibility of several of those key promises 
around humanitarian relief and a national dialogue finally 
moving forward. As to the promise to have the Eritreans depart, 
I see no progress.
    Given how rarely this committee meets in markup, I will 
support moving forward with this legislation today so that we 
have it with a full presidential waiver, so that in the event 
there is, again, one step forward and two steps back, and no 
real progress, and fighting resumes, the Administration and 
this Senate will have the opportunity to consider this 
legislation on the floor. On the other hand, if the recent 
developments continue to move forward, there will be no need 
for this legislation. We may be on the cusp of a balanced path 
forward for accountability for all parties--TPLF, ENDF, Amhara, 
Eritreans, and others--who have committed crimes against 
humanity. If the current progress holds, there may be a path 
forward on humanitarian relief, but, tragically, we have seen 
this moment several times in the last year, and I think we need 
to empower the Senate with the ability to vote on this on the 
floor if necessary. I pray it is not necessary and that we will 
finally see a resolution to this brutal civil war.
    So with that, I intend to support the bill. I want to thank 
my colleagues for their very active and very productive 
engagement on this issue. I recognize Prime Minister Abiy has 
taken political risk in extending his hand, I recognize this is 
a very difficult conflict, but I think we should proceed and 
move forward with this bill today.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Merkley.
    Senator Merkley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really 
appreciate the hard work that our special envoy for the Horn of 
Africa has been doing--Mr. Satterfield--and who has remained in 
the region to try to push forward as well, as our Assistant 
Secretary, Molly Phee, and has rightly pointed out all of these 
steps of progress that have occurred over the past 2 months. 
She has also pointed out that the convoys providing food have 
failed month after month, and that now we are at this point. 
And I take this back from elsewhere that it is estimated 700 
trucks per week are needed to reverse the famine conditions and 
none have progressed since December, and that there are 
multiple routes into the region; that the international groups 
that my team has spoken with do not feel like the effort to get 
food in Tigray has been fully, enthusiastically supported by 
the Government. The Government does point out tribal obstacles 
along the way. Those are real.
    But my point here is that you have three-quarters of the 
7.7 million people in the Tigray region who are on the brink of 
famine, and that it is important for us to act, to back up the 
notion that starving that region is unacceptable. There was 
supposed to today be another effort to provide a convoy. We 
will look and see how - whether that succeeds, but it is 
important to send the message that we are paying attention and 
really strongly encouraging the Government to find a way to 
provide relief.
    It cannot be done by air. We are told medical supplies have 
been provided by her, and that is one of the steps forward over 
the last 2 months as well as other pieces: looking at a state 
of emergency, release of some political prisoners. They are 
reducing the air operation. All those are very positive, and I 
do want to make sure that the Government of Ethiopia is aware 
that we are aware of those positive steps, but that it is 
extremely important that this not be the moment where those 
positive steps end, and that famine affecting men, women, and 
children in that region be allowed to continue.
    The Chairman. Thank you. If there is no one else seeking 
recognition, I will just simply say I have said that the 
Administration has made important progress. We recognize that. 
I appreciate the incredible work that they are doing into that, 
but I do not share the view that marking up the legislation 
will impede the ongoing diplomatic efforts. In fact, President 
Abiy is aware of this legislation. The House Foreign Affairs 
Committee discharged its version of the bill in February and 
negotiations continued. It did not impede it. Maybe in some 
respect, it incentivizes it. The bill has been made, I think, 
far more flexible in terms of the issues that many Members are 
concerned about. And even though the humanitarian ceasefire 
last week is very promising, I have seen breakthroughs like 
this in the past and not have ushered in a process forward. So 
I think being ready to act if that moment in time comes, from 
my perspective, I hope they achieve the success we all want to 
see and we never move the bill on the floor. But having that 
possibility, I think, is important.
    With that, the clerk will call the roll on S. 3199, as 
amended. Is a voice vote acceptable here? Members can be 
recorded ``no'' if they wish.
    Okay. All those in favor will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All those opposed will say no.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. No. Okay. There are two ``noes''--Senator 
Paul, Senator Rounds--and the legislation will be reported to 
the Senate.
    Finally, without objection, we will now consider the tax 
treaty on the agenda: the resolution of advice and consent to 
the ratification of the convention between the Government of 
the United States and the Government of the Republic of Chile. 
Are there any amendments to the resolution of advice and 
consent? Senator Paul.
    Senator Paul. I have been following these tax treaties for 
a long time, and my biggest concern is that I think they codify 
or allow a transfer of information that is at a lower standard 
than what we provide for our own citizens in this country. So 
my amendment would be to the reservations, and it changes the 
standard. We are all familiar with probable cause as a 
standard. We also have reasonable suspicion. The standard in 
these treaties is that it should be relevant to the treaty, 
which I think means nothing. And so while if you are an 
American overseas and the Democrats abroad as well as the 
Republicans overseas agree that 9 million Americans are 
concerned about doing their banking, that ``relevant to the 
treaty'' means that the Government can scoop up all of your 
information with no accusation and no individualization.
    In our country, it does not take much to get banking 
records, but at least have the name, you know? They have to 
accuse you of something. What we are allowing through these tax 
treaties is huge bulk transfers of just pushing a button and 
every American's information is going to be transferred to the 
IRS, so I think it harms the due process protections. My 
amendment is to the reservation, so it does not require a 
renegotiation of the treaty. What it requires is, or what it 
would do is it would limit the American Government to either 
ask for or give that information, oversee that information on 
Americans, so it would affect the American side.
    The treaty would still pass with the reservation, and if 
nobody complains, it becomes part of the treaty in about a 
year. I do not see why anybody else would complain simply 
because it is not affecting anything that Chile does. It is 
only affecting Americans' ability to act overseas. I think all 
Americans, whether they live here or abroad, do deserve the due 
process of the Government not just snooping or sifting through 
your bank records without any kind of cause.
    The Chairman. All right. I respect the Senator's concern. I 
do not read it as he does, and I will oppose the amendment. 
Will you accept a voice vote or do you----
    Senator Paul. I have been working on this for 10 years. We 
might as well all be on the record.
    The Chairman [continuing]. Okay. The clerk will call the 
roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    The Chairman. No by proxy
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    Voice. No by proxy.
    The Chairman. Who is that for--Markey? No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    Senator Booker. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schatz?
    Senator Schatz. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Senator Van Hollen. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    Senator Risch. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    Senator Portman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Young?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cruz?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rounds?
    Senator Rounds. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hagerty?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No.
    The clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 2; the nays are 20.
    The Chairman. And the amendment is not agreed to.
    Is there any other amendment to be offered?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, I would entertain a motion to approve 
the resolution of advice and consent.
    Senator Cardin. So move.
    The Chairman. So moved. Is there a second?
    Voice Second.
    The Chairman. Second. All those in favor will say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All those opposed will say no.
    [A chorus of noes.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it, and a majority of the 
Members present having voted in the affirmative, the ayes have 
it, and the resolution of advice and consent is agreed to.
    With that, I ask that the--unanimous consent that staff be 
authorized to make technical and conforming changes.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    And this meeting is adjourned.


    [Whereupon, at 11:48 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]



                            BUSINESS MEETING

                               ----------                              


                         WEDNESDAY, MAY 4, 2022

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


                Summary of Action Taken by the Committee

                              NOMINATIONS

  Dr. John N. Nkengasong, of Georgia, to be Ambassador at Large, 
        Coordinator of United States Government Activities to Combat 
        HIV/AIDS Globally--agreed to by voice vote

  Mr. Marc B. Nathanson, of California, to be Ambassador Extraordinary 
        and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the 
        Kingdom of Norway, agreed to by voice vote

  Ms. MaryKay Loss Carlson, of Arkansas, 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 the Philippines--agreed to by voice 
        vote (Cruz recorded as no)

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

  The Honorable Caroline Kennedy, of New York, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Commonwealth of Australia--agreed to by voice 
        vote

                                TREATIES

  Amendments to the Treaty on Fisheries between the Governments of 
        Certain Pacific Island States and the Government of the United 
        States of America (Treaty Doc. 115-3)--agreed to by voice vote

     Treaty Doc. 115-3--Resolution of Advice and Consent to 
            Ratification--agreed to by voice vote

  Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and 
        the Government of the Republic of Croatia comprising the 
        instrument as contemplated by Article 3(2) of the Agreement on 
        Extradition between the United States of America and the 
        European Union, signed June 25, 2003, as to the Application of 
        the Treaty on Extradition signed on October 25, 1901 (the 
        ``U.S.-Croatia Extradition Agreement''), and the Agreement 
        between the Government of the United States and the Government 
        of the Republic of Croatia comprising the Instrument as 
        contemplated by Article 3(3) of the Agreement on Mutual Legal 
        Assistance between the United States of America and the 
        European Union signed at Washington on June 25, 2003 (the 
        ``U.S.-Croatia Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement''), both 
        signed at Washington on December 10, 2019 (Treaty Doc. 116-2)--
        agreed to by voice vote

     Treaty Doc. 116-2 (Extradition)--Resolution of Advice and Consent 
            to Ratification--agreed to by voice vote

     Treaty Doc. 116-2 (MLAT)--Resolution of Advice and Consent to 
            Ratification--agreed to by voice vote

  Amendment to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the 
        Ozone Layer (the ``Montreal Protocol''), adopted at Kigali on 
        October 15, 2016, by the Twenty-Eighth Meeting of the Parties 
        to the Montreal Protocol (the ``Kigali Amendment'') (Treaty 
        Doc. 117-1), agreed to by voice vote (Barrasso recorded as no)

     Treaty Doc. 117-1--Resolution of Advice and Consent to 
            Ratification--agreed to by voice vote (Barrasso recorded as 
            no)

                           Meeting Transcript

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m., in 
Room S-116, The Capitol, Hon. Robert Menendez, Chairman of the 
committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Menendez [presiding], Cardin, Shaheen, 
Coons, Kaine, Markey, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen, Risch, Rubio, 
Romney, Portman, and Rounds.

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

    The Chairman. This business meeting of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee will come to order.
    Today we are considering a handful of nominations and 
several treaties, but let me first turn to nominations.
    I am pleased that we are considering five nominees today, 
including Dr. John Nkengasong to serve as ambassador-at-large 
to lead our global HIV/AIDS work. All of the nominees are 
superbly qualified in their knowledge and expertise and are 
needed at the posts for which they have been nominated. I was 
disappointed it has taken more than 5 months to get a committee 
vote for Dr. Nkengasong, who brings immense experience and 
expertise, which is particularly critical at a time when the 
COVID pandemic has ravaged communities and overshadowed the 
fight on HIV/AIDS. We have received multiple letters of support 
for Dr. Nkengasong, including from former Senators Bill Frist 
and Tom Daschle and from multiple faith-based organizations, 
and I ask unanimous consent for these letters to be entered 
into the record.
    Without objection, so ordered.

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

    The Chairman. And I urge all of my colleagues to support 
his nomination and the other nominees today and work towards 
their swift confirmation.
    Let me turn to the treaties before us today. Our committee 
has a critical role to play in the constitutional treaty-making 
process. We are the only committee in the entire Congress with 
jurisdiction over treaties, and I appreciate the efforts of the 
Ranking Member and his staff in helping us fulfill our 
responsibilities in this area. The treaties we consider today 
make technical updates to the framework from years past to 
modernize our existing relationships with other countries in 
critical areas.
    We heard last month from government experts and business 
representatives who made the strong case for why we must 
urgently provide our advice and consent to ratifying these 
treaties to protect and advance U.S. business interests in a 
wide-ranging sector of the economy, and to facilitate critical 
law enforcement cooperation with Croatia, a key U.S. ally in 
Europe. The treaties with Croatia that are before us will 
enhance the ability to extradite criminals, share information, 
and exchange evidence for investigations and prosecutions.
    The amendments to the 1987 South Pacific Tuna Treaty secure 
a better deal for the U.S. tuna fishing fleet, making it easier 
for U.S. fishing vessels to fish on the high seas and to make 
arrangements directly with our Pacific Island partners without 
the Federal Government as a middleman. And the Kigali amendment 
to the Montreal Protocol modernizes the protocol, which has 
been a cornerstone of international manufacturing and business 
related to refrigerants by addressing chemicals called 
hydrofluorocarbons, HFCs. Senate approval of the Kigali 
amendment will not only help U.S. businesses, including 
manufacturers in Texas, Tennessee, and Wisconsin, develop and 
access global markets, but it will also ensure that our 
manufacturers are not shut out of those markets.
    Let me be more explicit here. Through the AIM Act, we are 
already taking the domestic steps that Kigali would require, so 
the only question is whether we will join the treaty, expand 
business opportunities for U.S. companies, and create thousands 
of jobs, or stay on the outside and lock our companies out of 
foreign markets. We have received an outpouring of support for 
the Kigali amendment from the business community. We approved 
each of the prior four amendments to the Montreal Protocol with 
overwhelming bipartisan support, and we should do so with 
Kigali as well. I welcome the opportunity to take up the four 
treaties today, and I urge all Members of the committee to 
support them.
    Let me turn to the Ranking Member, Senator Risch, for his 
comments.

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

    Senator Risch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In short, I intend 
to vote for all the treaties and all the nominees on the agenda 
today.
    First of all, with Croatia, the Mutual Legal Assistance 
Agreement with Croatia would help streamline the process for 
securing the evidence and testimony we need to enforce our 
laws. The South Pacific Tuna Treaty amendments are important 
and strengthen the ability of U.S. tuna fishing vessels to fish 
in the South Pacific where as much as 60 percent of the world's 
tuna catch can be found. This treaty is supported by the 
industry, and I think it will be helpful for America.
    The Kigali amendment is the most complex of all of these. 
With ratification of the amendment, the U.S. will join about 
130 countries in a multi-decade plan to phase down the 
production and consumption of 18 highly-polluting substances 
known as HFCs. The Kigali amendment will facilitate the 
transition to the next generation of refrigerants. That alone 
is enough to support this treaty, but on top of that, the U.S. 
is an innovator in the substitutes for what will be used in 
refrigeration. This is strongly supported by industry and gives 
America's businesses a leg up. I support those. I ask--Mr. 
Chairman, if--I understand you are going to have a voice vote.
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Senator Risch. Which is agreeable as long as everyone can 
record the--unless someone has a specific objection. Anyone who 
wants to be recorded as ``no'' on any of these, of course, can.
    The Chairman. Yes, that would be fine. Thank you, Senator 
Risch.
    Without objection then, we will now consider, en bloc, the 
entire agenda that was noticed for today's business meeting, 
all of the nominations and resolutions of advice and consent 
for the treaties. I think they are all before the committee 
Members here and are noticed and is the group that we are 
moving. Would any Members like to comment on any of these items 
before we vote?
    Senator Portman. Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk about 
the Kigali amendment after we vote.
    The Chairman. After. Absolutely.
    Senator Coons. Mr. Chairman, the same.
    The Chairman. After----
    Senator Coons. After the vote.
    The Chairman. Okay. All right. So I will entertain a motion 
to approve all of these items, en bloc.
    Senator Kaine. So moved.
    The Chairman. Is there a second?
    Voice. I will second.
    The Chairman. Seconded. All those in favor will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All those opposed will say nay.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it, and the nominees and the 
treaties are favorably reported to the full Senate.
    I am happy to recognize Senator Portman.
    Senator Portman. Well, are we going to do the nominees 
next, Mr. Chairman?
    Senator Risch. We did them all.
    The Chairman. We just did them.
    [No response.]
    Senator Portman. Well, I just want to talk about Kigali for 
a second and why it makes so much sense. You mentioned Texas as 
one of the States. Ohio is one of those States that produces a 
product that will actually be advantaged by this amendment 
because we have the new technology. So we are phasing out HFCs, 
as we should and as the Trump Administration agreed we should. 
We are in a position in the United States to actually increase 
our trade probably by 25 percent in terms of some of these 
items, like refrigeration. So this is good for Ohio. It is good 
for our country.
    I will say that I continue to be concerned that the EPA has 
overstepped its statutory authority under the broader AIM Act 
under which this is being accomplished by banning what are 
called non-refillable cylinders, which the law did not address. 
So I just advocate for agencies to listen to what we say here 
and follow the law. In this case I believe the EPA has not done 
that, and I would hope that they would. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Coons.
    Senator Coons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Some have heard of 
a little company in Delaware named DuPont. They innovated 
something called freon decades ago. It had the unexpected, 
unintended consequence of creating a hole in the ozone layer. 
Many years later, innovation by American companies produced the 
next generation of refrigerants. By ratifying this Kigali 
amendment, we create the market opportunity for those next-
generation refrigerants to replace the old HFCs. If we fail to 
ratify this on the floor of the Senate, we lock in China's 
competitive advantage as they continue to make and export the 
old, more polluting refrigerants. This is a real chance for us, 
on a bipartisan basis, to move forward in innovation and 
American manufacturing. The bipartisan Senate Climate Solutions 
Caucus--a majority of the Members sent a letter in support.
    One other sentence, if I might, Mr. Chairman. Later today, 
I believe you are meeting with the foreign minister of Sweden. 
I just met with her. A number of us have met with leaders of 
Finland and Sweden. I think it is a very positive development 
for the security of the West if Finland and Sweden do, indeed, 
proceed to seek to join NATO, and we should do everything we 
possibly can to clear the path for ratification of their 
admission to NATO, and to make sure that we can get that treaty 
ratified before the August recess because there is a period of 
great danger, I think, between their application, and 
accession, and ratification. And I know as the Chairman of this 
committee, you and the Ranking Member will lead that process 
ably and well, and I look forward to supporting you in that.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much. I am in agreement with 
your comments both on Kigali and the importance of their 
accession into the NATO treaty. Any other Member who wishes to 
speak to any----
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Senator Risch.
    Senator Risch. First of all, I agree with Senator Coons on 
most of what he said, but particularly on the accession to 
NATO. We have all met with the Fins and the Swedes. You could 
not help, if you were a person who lived in that country and 
looked at what just happened in Ukraine, and say, whoa, you 
know. We have been trusting all these years. It turns out we 
cannot trust. There is a better path, and I think it took them 
a while to come to the realization. I met with them shortly 
before the invasion, and I can tell you that the enthusiasm and 
the heat has changed dramatically to now. So I am not sure that 
I agree that there is that period of danger between the time 
they apply and the time that it actually is completed. 
Certainly that would be argued. I know Putin will argue that. 
He already has. He has not scared them so far, and I do not 
think he will scare them now.
    So but having said that, I think in the past, these have 
taken a year. This is a whole different kettle of fish, I 
think. These people are ready. The work has been done. I have 
written the Administration telling them to get the stuff ready 
so that when it does come, we can move it quickly, and I think 
probably we are going to have pretty much unanimous acceptance. 
In addition to that, from a pure financial standpoint, you 
know, after the dust settles, we are going to wind up hardening 
the Eastern flank, and it is going to cost a lot of money. The 
more pocketbooks we have got stepping up to the line, I think 
the better off we will be.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Any other Members wishing to make 
a comment?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, with the thanks of the Chair for all 
of your attendance, this business meeting is adjourned.


    [Whereupon, at 10:18 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]



                              ----------                              

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]






                              ----------                              




                            BUSINESS MEETING

                               ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, MAY 18, 2022

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

                Summary of Action Taken by the Committee

                              LEGISLATION

  S. Res. 341, a resolution commemorating the 70th anniversary of the 
        signing of the Security Treaty among Australia, New Zealand, 
        and the United States of America--agreed to by voice vote

  S. Res. 529, a resolution supporting a democratic, pluralistic, and 
        prosperous Bosnia and Herzegovina on the 30th Anniversary of 
        its declaration of independence, with amendments--agreed to by 
        voice vote

     Shaheen 1st Degree Amendment #1--agreed to by voice vote

     Shaheen 1st Degree Amendment #2--agreed to by voice vote

  S. Res. 499, a resolution celebrating 100 years of diplomatic 
        relations between the United States and the Baltic States--
        agreed to by voice vote

  S. Res. 615, a resolution expressing appreciation for the efforts of 
        the Republic of Poland to assist Ukrainian refugees and support 
        the sovereignty of Ukraine following the Russian invasion of 
        Ukraine--agreed to by voice vote

  S. Res. 538, a resolution expressing support for a second United 
        States-Africa Leaders Summit as an important opportunity to 
        strengthen ties between the United States and African partners 
        and build on areas of mutual interest--agreed to by voice vote

  S. Res. 390, a resolution expressing appreciation for the State of 
        Qatar's efforts to assist the United States during Operation 
        Allies Refuge--agreed to by voice vote

  S. Res. 632, a resolution calling for the immediate release of 
        Russian opposition leader Vladimir Kara-Murza, who was unjustly 
        detained on April 11, 2022--agreed to by voice vote

                              NOMINATIONS

  Ms. Bernadette M. Meehan, of New York, to be Ambassador Extraordinary 
        and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the 
        Republic of Chile--agreed to by voice vote (Rubio, Barrasso, 
        and Cruz recorded as no)

  The Honorable Jane Hartley, of New York, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern 
        Ireland--agreed to by voice vote (Rubio recorded as no)

  Ms. Constance J. Milstein, of New York, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Republic of Malta--agreed to by voice vote 
        (Risch, Rubio, Johnson, Portman, Paul, Young, Barrasso, Cruz, 
        Rounds, and Hagerty recorded as no)

  Dr. Bruce I. Turner, of Colorado, for the rank of Ambassador during 
        his tenure of service as U.S. Representative to the Conference 
        on Disarmament--agreed to by voice vote

  The Honorable Alexander Mark Laskaris, of the District of Columbia, a 
        Career member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-
        Counselor, to be an Ambassador Extraordinary and 
        Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic 
        of Chad--agreed to by voice vote

  The Honorable Bridget A. Brink, of Michigan, a Career member of the 
        Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be 
        Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United 
        States of America to Ukraine--agreed to by voice vote

  Mr. Alan M. Leventhal, of Massachusetts, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Kingdom of Denmark--agreed to by voice vote 
        (Rubio, Johnson, Paul, Barrasso, and Hagerty recorded as no)

                           Meeting Transcript

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:07 p.m., in 
Room S-16, The Capitol, Hon. Robert Menendez presiding.
    Present: Senators Menendez [presiding], Shaheen, Risch, 
Romney, and Portman.

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

    The Chairman. This business meeting of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee will come to order.
    Today, we are considering a number of nominations and 
legislative items for planning purposes. I just want to let 
Members know I intend to hold, working with the Ranking Member, 
another legislative markup on May 26th before the end of this 
work period.
    Let me turn, first, to nominations. I am pleased that 
today's agenda includes Ambassador Bridget Brink to be the 
Ambassador to Ukraine, whose appointment and, I hope, expedient 
confirmation on the Senate floor is critical to our efforts and 
ability to stand with Ukraine.
    As Russia continues its the brutal assault on Ukraine, the 
Ukrainian people have shown remarkable resolve. The United 
States and the international community have also shown our 
commitment to supporting those on the frontlines in defending 
democratic systems of government against autocracy.
    There is, obviously, no question about the U.S. commitment 
to Ukraine but having such a capable, qualified, professional 
diplomat in Kyiv will be critical to ensuring we continue not 
just immediate military humanitarian support but a long-term 
partnership.
    I am also pleased that we are considering a number of other 
well-qualified nominees for important posts, including Jane 
Hartley to be the Ambassador to the United Kingdom, Alexander 
Laskaris to be the Ambassador to Chad, Alan Leventhal to be 
Ambassador to Denmark.
    I will not speak about each of the nominees individually 
but I will reiterate what we all know. It is critical to our 
national security to have a full team in place at the State 
Department and our embassies around the world. We need to 
confirm these people quickly.
    Turning to legislation, we will vote on seven resolutions 
that represent the good bipartisan work of many Members of the 
committee and the Senate, including Senators Risch, Shaheen, 
Coons, Murphy, Portman, as well as Senators Graham and Durbin.
    I will not speak about all the resolutions but I want to 
thank Senators Risch, Durbin, and Blunt for joining me on 
Resolution S. Res. 341, which commemorates the 70th anniversary 
of the signing of the security treaty among Australia, New 
Zealand, and the United States.
    I also want to applaud Senators Coons and Rubio for their 
respective bipartisan resolutions, one expressing appreciation 
for the efforts of Poland to assist Ukrainian refugees, and the 
other calling for the immediate release of Russian opposition 
leader Vladimir Kara-Murza, who has been unjustly detained for 
his tireless efforts to advance freedom and human rights for 
the people of Russia.
    On Poland today, we commend the country for opening its 
doors to more than 3 million people fleeing the war in Ukraine.
    Yet, I must also note concerning reports that Roma and non-
Ukrainians, such as African and Asian students, continue to 
experience differential treatment at and beyond Ukraine's 
border, and we call for Poland and other countries providing 
safe harbor from this terrible conflict to treat everyone with 
dignity and respect and provide comparable humanitarian 
assistance.
    In addition, as the committee continues its effort to 
examine and address Russia's horrific invasion of Ukraine as 
well as the ongoing crackdown on independent voices in Russia, 
I am pleased we will be moving these resolutions forward.
    Finally, I want to take a moment to say that we are 
thinking of Senator Van Hollen, that we wish him a speedy 
recovery.
    From all indications, Senator Cardin has shared with many 
of us that he spoke to him and he is doing well and we look 
forward to him being back with us. He is an incredibly valuable 
Member of the committee and we appreciate his voice on so many 
different issues. We wish him well.
    With that, let me turn to the Ranking Member, Senator 
Risch, for his opening remarks.

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

    Senator Risch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me take up 
where you left off. Likewise from our side, we wish Senator Van 
Hollen the best and hoping to get back here. He is a very 
valuable contributing member to our committee here.
    First of all, I am glad to be having this business meeting. 
We have some of these that are really urgent. Of course, I am 
disappointed it took the President 15 months to nominate an 
ambassador to Ukraine, particularly under the circumstances.
    But we got the right person for the job now. The sooner we 
get her on the job the better off we will be. Same way with 
Hartley's nomination. I think that those are two that we need 
to move, hopefully, on the floor as quickly as we can.
    With the others, we have a mixture, Mr. Chairman. I do not 
know how you intend to do the vote, but if anybody wants a roll 
call or a voice vote or what have you, obviously, you will 
accommodate us as you usually do, I would assume, so we can get 
recorded the people who want to be recorded as backup
    The Chairman. Sure. It is my intention to consider an en 
bloc for the entire agenda but we will recognize dissenting 
voices on any specific nominee or legislative item.
    Anyone else wishing to address this? Senator Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. Yes. I just wanted to urge support for 
S.Res. 529, which is a resolution that supports a democratic, 
pluralistic, and prosperous Bosnia-Herzegovina on its 30th 
anniversary of its declaration of independence.
    Ron Johnson, who is the Ranking Member with me on the 
European Affairs Subcommittee, and I are supporting this and I 
am proposing two amendments.
    Senator Murphy and I, along with Senator Tillis, visited 
Bosnia the last week in April. I have been there a number of 
times over the last 12 years and I can tell you, I left--and I 
think Chris and Tom shared this--feeling more worried about 
what is happening there than any other time I have been there.
    I think it is--has the potential to have real difficulty. 
Russia is, clearly, continuing to meddle in the Republic of 
Srpska, and so what these two amendments would do is address 
what we heard when we were there.
    One, it would change the findings around Milorad Dodik, who 
is the Serbian president in Bosnia who has been creating so 
many challenges. The other one would address concerns we heard 
about the posture--the force posture and NATO and what will 
happen if Russia does not vote to authorize that this fall.
    I think it is really important for us to continue to pay 
attention to what is happening in the Western Balkans. This is 
the country that right now, I believe, has the biggest 
challenges and, hopefully, we can support this because I know 
they are paying attention to what we are doing here and they 
know if we are watching what happens there.
    I hope people will support this.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Any other Members seeking 
recognition on any of the items of the agenda?
    I will just echo, first of all, my thanks to Senator 
Shaheen and Murphy for their engagement in the Balkans--
incredibly important.
    This is the region of the world that has created the 
impetus of two world wars so we, certainly, are concerned that 
we can create peace and stability, and for sometimes when 
people--colleagues--ask me what do these resolutions matter, 
your observation that they pay attention of what we are saying 
is incredibly important.
    Without anyone else seeking recognition, I will ask, 
without objection, that we consider en bloc the entire agenda 
for today, which includes seven nominations, seven resolutions, 
including incorporation of Shaheen first degrees one and two to 
S.Res. 529 on Bosnia.
    We have the whole list that is before you. I do not think I 
need to read through them. And if there is no one seeking 
recognition I will move that we approve the agenda en bloc.
    Is there a motion to that effect?
    Senator Booker. So moved.
    The Chairman. So moved. And seconded?
    Senator Shaheen. Second.
    The Chairman. All those in favor will say aye.
    All those opposed?
    The ayes have it and the agenda is agreed to en bloc.
    The nominations are approved favorably to the Senate as are 
the resolutions, and whatever Members the Ranking Member 
advises us wants to vote no on some of these items we are happy 
recognize that.
    Senator Risch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    On Milstein, I think I am going to ask that every 
Republican be----
    [Interruption.]
    The Chairman. That was not me.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. I was not talking to you. Okay.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. Okay.
    Senator Risch. This is--it is very distracting. I am going 
to ask on Milstein that everyone be recorded as a ``no'' on the 
Republican side.
    Senator Romney, did you want to be an aye on that one?
    Senator Romney. I am fine where we are.
    Senator Risch. I am sorry?
    Senator Romney. I voted aye on all of them.
    Senator Risch. Okay. That is good. All right. But the 
other--the others of us would like to be recorded as a ``no.''
    The Chairman. Those shall be so recorded.
    Senator Risch. On Leventhal, I have a number of requests to 
be recorded as ``no.'' That would be Rubio, Johnson, Paul, 
Barrasso, Cruz, and--excuse me, and Hagerty.
    Can you leave it open till later today so we can record 
before----
    The Chairman. Okay. We will do----
    Senator Risch. Is that agreeable? Okay.
    The Chairman. Happy to accommodate them.
    Senator Risch. That is what we have.
    The Chairman. Okay.
    Senator Portman?
    Senator Portman. I do not know if anybody else wanted to 
wait till the end but I just want to thank you and Senator 
Risch for moving Ambassador Brink to the floor and urge that we 
take her name up as soon as possible on the floor.
    As you know, they opened the embassy in Kyiv today after 
many of us have been urging them to do that for a few weeks. 
Over two dozen countries have already done it before us and it 
is critical we get her there.
    Thank you for moving her expeditiously through committee 
and let us know what we can do to help get her on the floor as 
soon as possible.
    The Chairman. I appreciate those comments. It is my 
intention--I will have a conversation with the majority leader 
as well as a conversation with the Republican leader--but to 
move her by consent unless someone has an objection.
    As soon as that moment is ready for the floor to do that at 
the very first earliest moment----
    Senator Portman. I would support that.
    The Chairman [continuing]. That is what I intend to do, and 
those of you who could speak to Senator McConnell, I am sure he 
is--having had a visit very recently, he would appreciate, I 
would assume, making that move as well. This is one we should 
all be able to agree to let go.
    Seeing no other--oh, yes, I am sorry. I forgot about the 
technical.
    I ask unanimous consent that the staff be permitted to make 
technical and conforming amends to all of the items that have 
been passed, without objection.
    With that, this meeting is adjourned.


    [Whereupon, at 2:17 p.m., the business meeting was 
adjourned.]



                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                         THURSDAY, MAY 26, 2022

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

                Summary of Action Taken by the Committee

    [No action was taken at this meeting due to the absence of a 
quorum.]

                           Meeting Transcript

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:11 a.m., in 
Room S-116, The Capitol, Hon. Robert Menendez presiding.
    Present: Senators Menendez [presiding], Cardin, Shaheen, 
Coons, Kaine, and Risch.

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

    The Chairman. This business meeting of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee will come to order.
    Today, we were supposed to be considering two nominations 
and two FSO lists. We received a holdover request for all 17 
legislative items that were originally on the agenda for today.
    We also received a holdover request for Ambassador 
Elizabeth Richard, the nominee to be Coordinator for 
Counterterrorism at the Department of State.
    And, of course, as I have in the past, I will honor those 
requests and we will take those items in the June work period.
    But let me speak for a moment on the holdover of every 
legislative item on the agenda. As I was compelled to explain 
many times last year in relationship to blanket obstruction on 
nominees, the holdover was never intended to be used in such a 
comprehensive fashion.
    In this committee, it has always been treated as a 
courtesy--it is not written in the rules--afforded to a Senator 
who sought additional time to consider a specific matter, not 
to delay the entire business meeting of the committee.
    The rules of this committee require a seven-day advance 
notice for business meetings unless, of course, the Chairman, 
in consultation with the Ranking Member, determine there is 
good cause to proceed with less than seven days.
    However, I have ensured that this committee abides by this 
rule. Every markup this Congress has been noticed seven days in 
advance. This business meeting should not have been a surprise 
to anyone. It has been the subject of informal negotiations 
between majority and minority staff for weeks and, through 
those staff, shared with Democratic and Republican offices.
    At our business meeting on May the 18th, I informed the 
committee that we would be holding a legislative markup on May 
26th.
    So, if we continue to see Members go down this path, I will 
have a different view about observing this courtesy. I have 
been incredibly tolerant. But it makes no sense. If somebody 
had a specific problem with a piece of legislation, they needed 
more time to figure out whether they wanted to offer amendments 
or what not, that is fine.
    But to take the whole calendar and throw it all out, that 
is ridiculous, and because we do not have enough people here 
today as well----
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chair? Mr. Chair?
    The Chairman. If I may finish.
    Senator Risch. I am sorry.
    The Chairman [continuing]. Because we do not have enough 
people here as well, I am going to hold over the entire rest of 
the agenda so that nobody else can hold it over the next time, 
and we will consider it at the next business meeting. But I 
have had enough.
    Senator Risch?

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

    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman, fair points made. Obviously, 
as Ranking Member I did not do this and I can tell you that it 
was not the majority of the minority that did this. I 
understand the Chairman's frustration and many fair points 
made. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Senator Kaine, you had something you wanted 
to----
    Senator Kaine. Yeah. I just wanted to let committee Members 
know the State Department yesterday asked if I would lead a 
group of Senators to the Summit for the Americas in L.A. on 
Thursday, June 9, Friday, June 10.
    The summit is the 8th, 9th, and 10th and we would leave 
here after the last vote on Thursday, fly out Thursday, Friday, 
and then red-eye back Friday night to Andrews.
    So, it is last minute. I was asked at the last minute. I 
would love anybody to go and I will distribute cards. I know we 
do not have full attendance but I will give everybody cards 
with that information.
    I think it is an important opportunity. The U.S. has not 
hosted the summit since 1994 in Miami and it would be good to 
have a good showing.
    The President and Vice President will be there. We will 
arrive in time for a reception that Secretary Blinken is having 
for foreign ministers who attend.
    The Chairman. Senator Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your 
frustration and I know that, as Senator Risch says, that this 
is not the majority of the minority.
    But I am sure I speak for all of us when I say I am really 
tired to getting jerked around in this body by one or two 
Senators who have their own agenda that has nothing to do with 
foreign policy of this country.
    And I do not know if we have the capacity on this committee 
to change the rules. But I would encourage that we look at that 
and that we see that there need to be some other safeguards put 
in so that we cannot have this continue to happen meeting after 
meeting.
    I do not think anybody wants to go out of here and have the 
press write that we were not willing to pass a resolution 
recognizing, honoring, and commending the women of Ukraine or 
expressing the Senate's support for Finland and Sweden's 
accession to the NATO, or all the other items that are on here.
    These are not controversial. These are things that we all 
ought to be able to support, and I hope for all of you who may 
be here, staff members who represent those Senators who have 
this on hold, that you will go back and report to your Senators 
that we had this conversation.
    Because I think we should be done with this now. It is time 
for us to behave like adults who are responsible for the future 
of this country and that is not what we are seeing from certain 
individuals.
    The Chairman. Anyone else?
    Senator Coons. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Senator Coons?
    Senator Coons. I served on another committee that has, 
frankly, ground to a halt due to an inability to make any 
progress on its meetings, its agenda, and I have to agree with 
my colleague from New Hampshire. A resolution welcoming the 
prime minister of Greece to address the joint session of 
Congress when that has already happened----
    Senator Shaheen. Embarrassing.
    Senator Coons [continuing]. A resolution recognizing the 
75th anniversary of UNICEF, these are not--I respect that every 
member has the right to have an extra week to look at 
complicated, pressing, authorizing pieces of legislation.
    But we have had precious few markups. This committee is at 
risk of grinding into irrelevance. I think we ought to be able 
to take a bipartisan three-quarters vote of the committee to 
proceed with certain issues where we have got one or two 
holdouts who just do not reflect the overwhelming majority of 
the committee.
    Otherwise, we are going to be at risk, going forward, of 
being able to get nothing done.
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Senator Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Just to underscore what Senator Shaheen and 
Senator Coons are saying.
    Senator Risch, I appreciate your working with us and trying 
to make sure that this committee's agenda moves forward. I 
really do. We know that it is not always easy with the 
pressures that you have within your own caucus--the same thing 
with Senator Menendez, the pressure he has with his caucus.
    But I just really want to underscore the point you both 
have made. We are now seeing the floor of the United States 
Senate of Senators holding up the process of moving forward 
with legislation in order to get their particular issue 
considered not by a vote on the floor of the United States 
Senate but by edict that it is automatically adopted.
    That has happened to us now at least twice that we have had 
to deal with that type of a situation where the Senators were 
offered a democratic process on the floor of the Senate for the 
consideration of their legislation. They did not even want 
that.
    So, this is an abuse of the rights of an individual 
Senator. We know that any one Senator can stop the process of 
the Senate operating in an orderly way. We know that.
    But over the history of the United States Senate we have 
seen comity where we have been able to work together. I am 
getting to where Senator Shaheen is, who has expressed her 
frustration.
    We are getting to the point where we need to look at the 
leadership of the Senate, Democrats and Republicans, to 
recognize we want to protect the rights--legitimate rights--of 
the minority, the legitimate rights of the committee, the 
legitimate rights to have issues considered.
    But the abuse of individual Members here has gone beyond 
the limits and we really need to think about where we are in 
that regard.
    The Chairman. Anyone else?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. This meeting is adjourned.


    [Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m., the business meeting was 
adjourned.]



                              ----------                              




                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                         THURSDAY, JUNE 9, 2022

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

                Summary of Action Taken by the Committee

                              LEGISLATION

  S. 4171, International Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization 
        Act of 2022, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute--
        agreed to by voice vote

     Substitute Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

  S. 1160, FENTANYL Results Act, with an amendment in the nature of a 
        substitute--agreed to by voice vote

     Managers Substitute Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

  S. 3211, Eliminate, Neutralize, and Disrupt Wildlife Trafficking 
        Reauthorization and Improvements Act of 2021, with an amendment 
        in the nature of a substitute--agreed to by voice vote

     Substitute Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

  S. 3861, Somaliland Partnership Act, with an amendment in the nature 
        of a substitute--agreed to by voice vote

     Substitute Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

  S. 3895, United States Commission on International Religious Freedom 
        Reauthorization Act of 2022, with an amendment in the nature of 
        a substitute--agreed to by voice vote

     Substitute Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

  H.R. 4250, War Crimes Rewards Expansion Act--agreed to by voice vote

  H.R. 6089, Stop Iranian Drones Act, with amendments--agreed to by 
        voice vote

     Cruz 1st Degree Amendment #1--agreed to by voice vote (Markey 
            recorded as no)

     Johnson 1st Degree Amendment #1--not agreed to by roll call vote 
            (9-13)

          Yays: Risch, Rubio (proxy), Johnson, Portman, Young (proxy), 
        Barrasso (proxy), Cruz, Rounds, Hagerty (proxy)

          Nays: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, Kaine, 
        Markey, Merkley (proxy), Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen, Romney, 
        and Paul (proxy)

  H.R. 7276, Ukraine Invasion War Crimes Deterrence and Accountability 
        Act--agreed to by voice vote

  S.Con.Res. 40, A concurrent resolution welcoming the Prime Minister 
        of Greece to the United States for an address to a joint 
        meeting of Congress--agreed to by voice vote

  S.Res. 124, A resolution celebrating the heritage of Romani 
        Americans, with amendments--agreed to by voice vote

     Preamble Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

     Resolving Clause Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

  S.Res. 394, A resolution recognizing the 25th anniversary of Radio 
        Free Asia and its mission to provide an independent source of 
        news to closed societies in Asia, with amendments--agreed to by 
        voice vote

     Preamble Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

     Resolving Clause Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

  S.Res. 458, A resolution recognizing the 75th anniversary of the 
        establishment of the United Nations Children's Fund, with 
        amendments--agreed to by voice vote

     Preamble Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

     Resolving Clause Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

  S.Res. 540, A resolution supporting the goals of International 
        Women's Day, with an amendment--agreed to by voice vote

     Preamble Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

  S.Res. 568, A resolution supporting the goals and ideals of 
        ``Countering International Parental Child Abduction Month'' and 
        expressing the sense of the Senate that Congress should raise 
        awareness of the harm caused by international parental child 
        abduction--agreed to by voice vote

  S.Res. 589, A resolution recognizing, honoring, and commending the 
        women of Ukraine who have contributed to the fight for freedom 
        and the defense of Ukraine, with amendments--agreed to by voice 
        vote

     Preamble Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

     Resolving Clause Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

  S.Res. 638, A resolution commending the Government and people of the 
        Republic of Moldova for their heroic efforts to support 
        Ukrainian refugees fleeing President Putin's illegal war 
        against Ukraine, with an amendment--agreed to by voice vote

     Resolving Clause Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

  S.Res. 646, A resolution expressing the Senate's support for Finland 
        and Sweden's accession into the North Atlantic Treaty 
        Organization (NATO) and the expedited ratification of accession 
        protocols, with an amendment--agreed to by voice vote

     Managers Preamble Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

                              NOMINATIONS

  The Honorable Mari Carmen Aponte, of Puerto Rico, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Republic of Panama--agreed to by voice vote 
        (Barrasso recorded as no)

  Ms. Michelle Kwan, of California, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and 
        Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to Belize--
        agreed to by voice vote (Rubio recorded as no)

  The Honorable Elizabeth H. Richard, of Virginia, a Career member of 
        the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Career Minister, to be 
        Coordinator for Counterterrorism, with the rank and status of 
        Ambassador-at-Large--agreed to by voice vote (Rubio and 
        Barrasso recorded as no)

  Dr. Francisco O. Mora, of Florida, to be Permanent Representative of 
        the United States of America to the Organization of American 
        States, with the rank of Ambassador--Held over

  Mr. Michael J. Adler, of Maryland, a Career member of the Senior 
        Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Republic of South Sudan--agreed to by voice vote

  The Honorable Reuben E. Brigety II, of Florida, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Republic of South Africa--Held over

  Ms. Margaret C. Whitman, of Colorado, to be Ambassador Extraordinary 
        and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the 
        Republic of Kenya--agreed to by voice vote

  The Honorable Michael Battle, of Georgia, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the United Republic of Tanzania--agreed to by voice 
        vote

  Mr. John T. Godfrey, of California, a Career member of the Senior 
        Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Republic of the Sudan--agreed to by voice vote

  Mr. Michael C. Gonzales, of California, a Career member of the Senior 
        Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Republic of Zambia--agreed to by voice vote

                               FSO LISTS

  Roxanna Aguirre, et al., dated November 17, 2021 (PN 1417)--agreed to 
        by voice vote

  Barrett David Bumpas, et al., dated February 28, 2022 (PN 1812), as 
        modified--agreed to by voice vote

                           Meeting Transcript

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:38 a.m., in 
Room S-116, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert 
Menendez presiding.
    Present: Senators Menendez [presiding], Cardin, Shaheen, 
Coons, Murphy, Kaine, Markey, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van 
Hollen, Risch, Johnson, Romney, Portman, Cruz, and Rounds.

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

    The Chairman. This business meeting of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee will come to order.
    Today, we are considering a number of nominations, bills, 
and resolutions. All of the legislative items were on the 
business meeting agenda scheduled for May 26th. Regretfully, 
there was a holdover request for every item, which the Chair 
honored at that time.
    As I have said before to Members of the committee and feel 
compelled to do so again, holdover requests are not and were 
never intended to be used in such a comprehensive fashion.
    These requests have historically been a courtesy to a 
Senator who sought additional time to consider a specific 
matter, not to delay the entire business of the committee.
    I will just publicly say I am not inclined to observe a 
holdover of the entire agenda in the future regardless of who 
asks for it.
    Turning to today's agenda, first, to nominations, I am 
pleased that we are considering eight nominations and two FSO 
lists. There was a holdover request for two nominees, Frank 
Mora and Reuben Brigety, which the Chair will honor.
    In the interest of time, I am not going to speak on all of 
them individually, just simply note they are well qualified and 
should be confirmed quickly.
    On Elizabeth Richard, I entered a number of letters of 
support into the record highlighting her extensive experience 
as Service Coordinator for Counterterrorism.
    Without objection, I would like to submit one more letter 
for the record from General Joseph Votel, former commander of 
CENTCOM.

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

    The Chairman. I will reiterate what we all know. It is a 
disservice to our national security if we do not fulfill our 
duty and confirm qualified individuals to represent the United 
States on the global stage. I urge all of our colleagues to 
support these nominations today and work towards their swift 
confirmation. We also have votes on eight bills and nine 
resolutions. I will highlight just a few.
    S. 4171, first, the International Trafficking Victims 
Protection and Reauthorization Act.
    We all know that human trafficking remains a horrific 
reality for millions of women, men, and children around the 
world. Traffickers seize any opportunity to exploit people in 
desperate circumstances, particularly victims of war and 
conflict.
    As we speak, thousands of Ukrainian women and children who 
have fled Putin's brutal invasion are at peril of being preyed 
upon. There is an urgent need to pass this bill and increase 
protections for victims of human trafficking and to prevent 
millions more from falling into the hands of traffickers.
    I want to thank the Ranking Member for his work on the bill 
and am pleased that he is the lead co-sponsor. Without 
objection, I would also like to add Senator Coons as an 
original co-sponsor of the bill.
    I would like to thank, on S. 1160, Senators Shaheen and 
Portman for their efforts on the Fentanyl Results Act. As the 
opioid epidemic continues devastating our communities and 
taking lives, this bill is an important step in addressing this 
challenge.
    It provides additional tools, strengthens the capacity of 
our law enforcement agencies, and prioritizes efforts to 
address the synthetic drug crisis in our country.
    S.Res. 568, Supporting the Goals and Ideals of Countering 
International Parental Abduction Month, is a bipartisan 
resolution by Senators Feinstein and Tillis, which, I believe, 
as the author of the 2014 Sean and David Goldman International 
Child Abduction Prevention and Return Act, supports all efforts 
to focus the attention on this heartbreaking issue.
    Finally, I want to recognize three pieces of legislation 
related to Ukraine: S.Res. 638, introduced by Senator Shaheen, 
to honor the immense sacrifices and horrors incurred by the 
women of Ukraine; H.R. 7276, the Ukraine Invasion War Crimes 
Deterrence and Accountability Act, which will provide critical 
information on U.S. efforts to collect evidence and information 
related to war crimes and other atrocities committed by Russia 
in Ukraine; and S.Res. 638, a resolution I introduced to 
commend the people of Moldova for their inspiring efforts to 
welcome Ukrainian refugees.
    Finally, I will reiterate my view that the committee is at 
its best and most relevant when we are legislating on the 
important issues of our time and we need to be doing more on 
the legislative front.
    I know there is a significant demand among many of you to 
do so and I have heard from you. I am aware of 15 or so strong 
bipartisan bills that are, basically, ready for committee 
consideration.
    The Ranking Member has a list and he is aware of my efforts 
to get another markup on the books in short order, and I hope 
we can do so, so that we can move a lot of very good 
legislation that is supported in a bipartisan fashion.
    With that, let me turn to the Ranking Member for his 
remarks.

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

    Senator Risch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, first of all, 
I am glad to see this robust agenda here today and I will 
continue to work with you and get, hopefully, another robust 
agenda on legislative items.
    I would like to thank the Chairman, Senators Shaheen, 
Johnson, Cardin, Coons as well as Leader Schumer and Minority 
Leader McConnell for joining me in introducing Senate Res. 646 
expressing our support for Finland and Sweden's accession into 
NATO.
    I expect this committee will take up these protocols in the 
coming weeks and I strongly urge the Administration to act as 
quickly as possible.
    Today we will also consider Senate Bill 3861, the 
Somaliland Partnership Act, which requires additional reporting 
on the assistance provided to Somaliland and assesses the 
feasibility of establishing a security partnership with that 
region. I would like to thank Senator Rounds and Senator Van 
Hollen for joining me in this effort.
    And, finally, we have a robust list of appointments that 
always engender considerable debate. I would like to suggest, 
and only suggest, that we take up the legislative package 
first, pass that, then move to the other and do what we do to 
try to get a vote on the whole package. And if somebody wants 
to pull one off, we have a debate on one and everybody get the 
chance to record their noes if that is agreeable with the 
Chairman. It is just a suggestion.
    The Chairman. Okay.
    I appreciate that. Let us start off by--I was going to seek 
to move the entire agenda en bloc and then, of course, subject 
to any amendments, comments, or if someone wants a specific 
roll call vote, and then we will recognize individuals for 
comments.
    So, let me entertain a motion that we consider en bloc the 
entire agenda that we have noticed for this business meeting--
all of the bills, resolutions, nominations, and FSO lists with 
the exception of Ambassador Brigety and Mr. Mora, who have been 
asked to be held over.
    Is there a motion to that effect?
    Senator Cardin. So moved.
    The Chairman. So moved. Is there a second?
    Senator Kaine. Second.
    Senator Shaheen. Second.
    The Chairman. Second? Okay. A motion has been made to 
second.
    Let me recognize Senator Cardin.
    Senator Cardin. Just so I understand, I know that, for 
example, in regards to S. 1160 we have an agreed-to amendment, 
and I want to thank Senators Shaheen and Portman for their work 
and recognize Senators Hagerty and Cornyn for their incredible 
amount of work they did in precursor drugs also being included. 
There was a lot of work done on that and I really want to 
congratulate everyone involved with working that out.
    Mr. Chairman, am I correct that that amendment is 
incorporated in your motion or do we have to take it up 
separately to offer that amendment?
    The Chairman. It is incorporated.
    Senator Cardin. Thank you. I appreciate that.
    Let me just say I am very pleased we are passing the Roma 
resolution. It is the first one this committee has done.
    And lastly, I have noted an amendment in regards to the 
Combating Global Corruption Act to the reauthorization of the 
Trafficking Victims Act. I am not offering that amendment but 
it is just my sense that we need action on this.
    Senator Young and I introduced this bill, acted on by this 
committee a year ago. I know we have work to do in the House 
and the full Senate, and I look forward to working with you to 
see that bill reach the finish line.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Any other Members seeking recognition?
    Senator Shaheen. Yes.
    The Chairman. Senator Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
    First, on the Fentanyl Results Act, I had the opportunity 
yesterday to hear from Anne Milgram, who I am sure the Chairman 
knows very well. She is the former Attorney General of New 
Jersey who is now head of the Drug Enforcement Agency, and she 
was speaking to a group of business people and one of the 
things she was talking about was the fentanyl challenge that we 
have in this country.
    It is a huge problem in New Hampshire. And she gave an 
example that I thought was really relevant for our thinking 
about this drug. She said she tries to gather her nieces, 
nephews, young people, and she holds in her hand about 12 to 15 
grains of salt and she points out to them that those 12 to 15 
grains of salt are deadly when it is fentanyl. That is all it 
takes.
    So, this legislation is really important, all the work that 
was done by everyone involved, and I hope that we will support 
it and look for other ways we can reduce the trafficking of 
fentanyl.
    I also wanted to speak to S.Res. 540, which is the 
resolution supporting the goals of International Women's Day, 
and S.Res. 589, which the Chairman mentioned, around the women 
of Ukraine.
    I think both of these are particularly relevant this year 
because this has been a really devastating year for women 
around the world. As we look at Afghanistan and what is 
happening in Afghanistan, it is women who are bearing the brunt 
of the Taliban.
    It is women and children across the world who are most 
affected by hunger as we look at the challenges that the world 
is facing with hunger. And, of course, in Ukraine, it is women 
and children who have been most affected in terms of being 
disrupted from their homes and now are facing other challenges 
around trafficking.
    I think these resolutions are really important and they 
really do make a difference for women around the world and for 
people in other countries when they see that we have taken 
action.
    I think we should all recognize the importance of what we 
are doing here today.
    Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Well said.
    Any other Members seeking recognition?
    Senator Johnson?
    Senator Johnson. Mr. Chairman, is this the time to offer 
amendments?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Senator Johnson. First of all, I want to thank you for the 
hearing yesterday. I was not able to attend the hearing but I 
watched it on WebEx and I thought the testimony of the 
Gravedigger was--what is the right word--compelling.
    I hope you distribute that broadly and I hope more Members 
here will see it. I hope more Americans do as well.
    But I would like to offer an amendment to H.R. 6089, the 
Stop Iranian Drones Act. My amendment will simply add two new 
subsections to CAATSA Section 107. The first would deem any 
agreement by the president of Iran related to Iran's nuclear 
program a treaty subject to the advice and consent of the 
Senate.
    The second subsection would bar the President from waiving, 
suspending, or otherwise limiting the application of any 
existing sanctions on Iran as part of any nuclear agreement 
with Iran.
    I offered an amendment during the JCPOA to our--the 
legislation we passed through the Senate to deem that agreement 
a treaty. I think, in hindsight, I hope people would agree with 
me that, had the Obama administration been forced to submit an 
agreement to the Senate as a treaty, A, it would have been a 
more effective agreement, and B, it probably would have been 
more difficult to withdraw from the agreement and maybe Iran 
would not be in the place it would be.
    I think the Senate has abdicated so much of its 
responsibility by not insisting on these incredibly important 
agreements. Again, I looked through the State Department's 
guidelines on this and it is pretty convoluted in terms of 
exactly what the rules are whether something is an agreement or 
a treaty.
    But something this momentous, something this important, as 
these agreements that--trying to keep Iran from becoming a 
nuclear power, which would be so unbelievably disruptive to 
world peace--certainly should rise to the level of a treaty and 
subject to ratification in the sense of advice and consent.
    I would urge all my colleagues to support this amendment, 
which would, again, require any agreement this administration 
enters into with Iran to become a treaty and be ratified by the 
Senate.
    The Chairman. Any other Members seeking recognition?
    Senator Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. Mr. Chair, I want to speak to Senator 
Johnson's amendment but, more broadly, to other amendments that 
could be offered on the same bill, 6089.
    I worked with many of my colleagues around this table to 
come up with the INARA review that President Obama did not 
like. He said he was going to veto it until the votes of the 
Senate were so overwhelming that he could not.
    There was an original intent to do a JCPOA that would not 
be submitted to Congress for review, but this committee acted 
in a bipartisan way to require that it be submitted.
    I continue to believe that that is the right standard for 
congressional review, should the Biden administration find a 
JCPOA that they think is worthy or something they think is 
worth entering into.
    And so, I am going to vote against a number of the 
amendments. Actually, I think the underlying bill is a good 
bill. I am going to vote for the bill. But I am going to vote 
against a number of amendments that I think are, basically, 
trying to sort of change the standard of congressional review 
or put obstacles in the way of the Biden administration, which 
is trying to reach an agreement.
    I recognize there is significant difference around the 
table about whether the Biden administration should even reach 
an agreement or not, or, if so, what the agreement should 
contain.
    But INARA is still on the books and the Biden 
administration said they are going to bring any deal they reach 
back to us under the INARA provision and I think that is the 
right standard.
    I am going to be opposing a number of the amendments. I 
recognize my colleague, Senator Johnson, has been very 
consistent about this. He has never changed his position since 
we had this conversation back in 2015 and I appreciate that 
consistency.
    But I think INARA sets the right standard and so for that 
reason I am going to oppose a number of the amendments to 6089.
    The Chairman. Any other Members seeking recognition?
    Senator Cruz?
    Senator Cruz. I would be curious to ask my friend from 
Virginia. I know he thinks about these issues hard and 
carefully.
    You are right. INARA had a vote, but it also reversed the 
presumption. We had a vote. We had a bipartisan majority in the 
Senate that voted against the Iran deal. But under INARA it 
still went into effect.
    So, the vote, I guess, made us feel good but did not stop 
the agreement, and I would just be curious--look, I recognize 
now there is a Democratic president so Democratic Senators are 
happier with the sorts of agreements he would enter into.
    With a Republican president, I suspect you would be less 
happy with the sorts of agreements he would enter into. I would 
be curious what the Senator from Virginia thinks the treaty 
standard should be because under INARA there is not a two-
thirds ratification and under the treaty powers if it does not 
get ratified it does not go into effect.
    INARA flips that entirely and says the president can 
implement it even if, as was the case last time, a bipartisan 
majority of the Senate opposes.
    I know you have thought carefully about it so I would just 
be interested in your thoughts of when something should not be 
a treaty and when it is not.
    Senator Kaine. As to expand upon a topic that is so 
challenging, I am not going to give an answer on that question 
that is going to be satisfactory to anybody, including me.
    I think the difference between what is an executive 
agreement and what is a treaty is really murky when we have had 
executive agreements in the international space since George 
Washington was president that were not submitted under the 
treaty clause of the Constitution to the Senate for 
ratification.
    It is a complex matter. The way INARA came together was 
sort of thinking that presidents do have powers to conduct 
diplomacy, short of treaties, and it is a clear Article 2 power 
contemplated by the Framers, and that all presidents have 
carried out. Presidents do a lot of things that do not come 
back to the Senate for a treaty vote.
    The INARA structure, basically, said this--and I would 
support the structure whether the President was a Democrat or a 
Republican--that in this particular instance dealing with Iran, 
if the President proposed to take actions either with respect 
to executive sanctions that he could impose or sanctions that 
were imposed pursuant to U.N. rules, the President should have 
the ability to do that. That is executive.
    But as soon as the President touches sanctions packages 
that are put together by Congress, that a president being able 
to use a waiver power or something to end run the congressional 
sanctions, we should not allow that. And we did it, and INARA 
set up a standard that as soon as the President touches any 
congressional sanctions that has to come back to Congress.
    The question would be, okay, it comes back to Congress and 
what should the rule be? Should the rule be you need 
congressional approval or should the rule be you can act unless 
there is congressional discipline?
    And so what INARA did is set up sort of like an--almost 
like fast track on trade deals. You are guaranteed a vote up or 
down on what the President is doing and so you get that and you 
get it in a timely fashion. So, Congress cannot just kind of 
run out the clock.
    A president must submit it and Congress must act. But we 
felt like the right balance at the time between the Article 1 
and 2 powers is if the President touches anything Congress did 
the President has to submit it to Congress. But the President 
can then go forward and do it unless there is congressional 
disapproval.
    So, you are right. I do not know there was a flip of the 
presumption because I am not sure there was a preexisting 
presumption before we crafted INARA.
    But you are right. You read it the right way. A president 
can act, subject to disapproval, with a guarantee that there 
will be an up or down vote in a reasonable period of time.
    The Chairman. Senator Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. I just really wanted to reinforce what 
Senator Kaine is saying.
    Let us take it back to when we considered INARA because I 
was directly involved in this, and there was real division in 
the Senate at that time as to how we were going to respond to 
the President negotiating in regards to a nuclear agreement.
    And as a result of us coming together with the INARA 
statute--and by the way, I believe it passed near unanimous. I 
mean, it was unanimous or one or two votes against it. It was 
pretty well a consensus bill in the United States Senate.
    It required the Administration to work with us, and 
although we may have differed on the final vote I voted against 
it. All of us were engaged with the Administration at every 
step of the way in getting the information.
    We had briefings on a regular basis. The agreement was 
changed as a result of congressional consultation. We got a 
stronger agreement. It was one in which there was a speed bump 
in it.
    They could not immediately implement it. They had to come 
to Congress. There was a period of time the Congress had to 
review it. There were a lot of procedures put into it as an 
accommodation to a meaningful congressional role in the 
process.
    And as Senator Kaine has pointed out, the Administration 
has already acknowledged that they are going to have to come 
back to us under INARA if, in fact, they reach an agreement 
with Iran to go back into the JCPOA.
    So, we are going to have those speed bumps again. We are 
going to have those consultations again. We are having these 
consultations now because there is a congressional role.
    I understand the frustration on which we would like to do 
treaties. I do not think this was an appropriate issue for a 
treaty under any circumstance. But I will point this out.
    It is frustrating to many of us that the standard for us 
trying to get a treaty done in the United States Senate on a 
substantive issue it is almost impossible to get the two-thirds 
vote that you need for a treaty, and I would just argue that if 
we are going to be able to exercise our treaty responsibilities 
then we are going to also have to have a way in which we can 
come together with any administration, a Republican or 
Democratic administration, to give them confidence.
    Look at the disability treaty that we could not get 
ratified, which was, I thought, not controversial at all. We've 
got to be able to give confidence to any administration that 
they can go down the treaty path and the Congress will be 
receptive to working with them to ratify a treaty.
    I am sympathetic to what Senator Johnson is trying to do. I 
do not think this was an appropriate area for a treaty in the 
first place. But I just wanted to give a little bit of history 
here. There were close working relations between this committee 
and the Obama administration.
    And you are absolutely right, Senator Kaine, President 
Obama was very much opposed to this bill from the beginning and 
several of his advisers urged him not to support it at the end 
and we still went ahead and we got the--you are right, the vote 
in the Senate, I think, convinced the President to sign the 
bill.
    I think that background is important. I thank Senator 
Johnson for his continued concerns on these issues but I am 
going to oppose your amendment.
    The Chairman. Any other Members seeking recognition on the 
amendment?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. So, let me close it. I have been consistent 
throughout the Administration's negotiations with Iran over the 
last year that any agreement that may be achieved must be 
subjected to congressional review.
    And with respect to a return to the 2015 JCPOA, we already 
have a framework for such a review, which, basically, is INARA, 
and we have the Administration's commitment on the record at 
our hearing that any agreement would be submitted under INARA.
    Now, I think it is general knowledge that such an agreement 
seems to be nowhere in the offing nor does the amendment really 
pertain to the bill before us today. I would just make two 
final points.
    One is President Trump entered into a series of agreements 
with Central American countries and Mexico, and we could have 
insisted that they be treaties but we did not.
    So, it is not a question of whether it is a Republican or 
Democratic president, at the end of the day.
    And the only other thing I would say--and my friend has 
been very consistent, persistent, as he should be on this 
issue--is that I do not think we can change the constitutional 
order and just simply declare that something - that we are 
treating something as a treaty.
    That is not the nature of how treaties are brought before 
the Senate. While in this instance it may be appealing, I do 
not know that we want to bind in the future - to create the 
dynamics in which we declare what is a treaty versus the 
executive branch sending a treaty to Congress, and then the 
advice and consent process begins.
    For all of those reasons I am going to be voting no.
    Does the Senator want a voice vote or does he want a 
recorded vote?
    Senator Johnson. A recorded vote, please.
    The Chairman. The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    Senator Markey. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
    The Chairman. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    Senator Booker. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schatz?
    Senator Schatz. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Senator Van Hollen. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    Senator Risch. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Johnson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
    Senator Romney. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    Senator Portman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Young?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cruz?
    Senator Cruz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rounds?
    Senator Rounds. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hagerty?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 9. The nays are 13.
    The Chairman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Any other Members seeking recognition?
    Senator Coons. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Senator Coons?
    Senator Coons. Could I just speak very briefly about the 
End Wildlife Trafficking Act, if that is appropriate?
    The Chairman. Yes, of course.
    Senator Coons. I just briefly wanted to thank Senator 
Portman. We have worked well together for some time on this. 
This is the reauthorization and modernization of legislation 
Senator Flake and I initially passed in 2016. There is a 
Presidential Task Force on Wildlife Trafficking, something that 
helps with combating a serious issue of global security.
    The same groups that traffic wildlife products also traffic 
people, narcotics, weapons. There continues to be robust and 
troubling demand for wildlife products in China, and it is my 
hope that this will ultimately be a part of the competitiveness 
bill currently in conference. We have made it more modern, more 
relevant, and I hope that my colleagues will support it.
    I am also grateful, Mr. Chairman, we have got a robust 
agenda that includes several resolutions and a bill that I will 
ask to be joining as a co-sponsor. I mostly wanted to thank my 
colleague, Senator Portman.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Any other Members seeking 
recognition?
    Senator Portman?
    Senator Portman. Just briefly.
    Senator Cardin said it well but just to add, we have spent 
two years on this and thanks to technical assistance from the 
State Department, from USAID and others, we also worked with 
the NGOs and have come up with a good bill that not just 
reauthorizes counsel that expired last October, but also 
improves in some ways to combat wildlife trafficking and to 
take away a source of funding for some of these transnational 
criminal groups who use the same funding for drugs and 
trafficking and other purposes.
    So, I hope we get it done, and if we do I believe it has a 
good chance of being passed into law.
    [A statement urging bipartisan support for Fentanyl Results 
Act is located at the end of this transcript.]
    Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Any other Members seeking recognition?
    Senator Cruz?
    Senator Cruz. Mr. Chairman, I want to call up Cruz First 
Degree One on the Stop Iranian Drones Act. I think this is a 
good bill and I agree with the reasoning behind it.
    But stopping Iranian drones means not only stopping the 
weapons but also stopping the people that use the weapons and 
use the drones to target and kill American citizens.
    And what my amendment does is requires a report on Iran's 
use of armed drones, the weapons that were sanctioned, if they 
are used to attack United States citizens, and it further 
provides that if the President finds that an Iranian group has 
used the drones to attack our citizens then terrorism sanctions 
must be imposed on the group.
    It focuses on the actors who are targeting American 
citizens and ensures that sanctions follow when you use armed 
drones to go after American citizens, and I would urge adoption 
of the amendment.
    The Chairman. Any other Member seeking recognition?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Would the Senator take a voice vote?
    Senator Cruz. Sure.
    The Chairman. All those in favor, say aye.
    All those opposed, say no.
    The ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to.
    Any other Member seeking recognition?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. With that, the motion has been made and 
seconded to approve all of the items on the agenda except the 
two nominations that were held over, as amended.
    All those in favor will say----
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Yes?
    Senator Risch. Before we vote, we have an understanding 
that anyone who wants to be recorded as a no can submit their 
final vote.
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Senator Risch. Is that correct?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Senator Risch. Thank you.
    The Chairman. But they should do so before the close of 
business today.
    Senator Risch. That would be fine.
    Senator Murphy. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Yes?
    Senator Murphy. Can I just ask Senator Cruz a question 
about the amendment we just adopted? That went pretty quickly 
and I just want to clarify one aspect of his amendment.
    Your amendment requires a report on individuals and 
entities that are engaged in attacks and then requires that 
those individuals and entities, if they are named, be then 
designated as foreign terrorist organizations.
    We currently have no individuals on the Foreign Terrorist 
Organization list. That makes sense, given that this is a list 
of foreign terrorist organizations. But am I correct in reading 
your amendment to say that if an individual is named in that 
report they would now be registered and designated as a foreign 
terrorist organization?
    Senator Cruz. That is a good question. Let me read it and--
give me a second to answer because it is a good question. So--
--
    Senator Murphy. I think the answer is yes and I would 
submit that we should not be in the business of naming 
individuals as FTOs. I guess I was not expecting this amendment 
to be added on voice vote. Now that it has, I think we need to 
seriously consider the precedent that we are setting.
    Senator Cruz. Let me review my notes.
    [Pause.]
    Senator Risch. Would not the effect--Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Yes?
    Senator Risch. Would not the effect, if we passed it and 
that this actually happened, that, in essence, we are adding an 
additional category to the FTO rule that now we have a foreign 
terrorist individual because an individual, I guess, you could 
argue they could be an organization but more likely they are an 
individual?
    I think we may be arguing about how many angels can dance 
on the head of a pin. The objective is to get somebody on the 
list that has done this, it seems to me.
    Senator Cruz. And Omri very helpfully pointed out that we 
actually define a person at the end of the amendment and a 
person is defined as an entity, and so----
    Senator Murphy. An Iranian person is defined as an entity?
    Senator Cruz. An Iranian person is defined explicitly at 
the end as an entity organized under the laws of Iran or 
otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of the Government of 
Iran.
    Senator Murphy. I think we might agree that you want to 
target this towards entities and so I just suggest that we make 
sure of that as we move forward.
    Senator Cruz. Yeah. So, the amendment specifically defines 
it as an entity just like a corporation legally is defined as a 
person. A corporation is considered a person, but this is 
designed to target against----
    Senator Kaine. If I could, Mr. Chair, a follow-up question.
    The Chairman. Senator Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. Just to clarify from this exchange, if I 
understand, Senator Cruz, the definition you just read, we 
would not be changing American law to only allow individuals 
from one country----
    Senator Cruz. Correct.
    Senator Kaine [continuing]. To be designated as FTOs. The 
definition of person limits it to organizations so that we are 
not changing the FTO rule to allow just individuals from one 
country to be added as individuals. Is that----
    Senator Murphy. Yeah. And as you read it, it sounds as if 
the report is supposed to list Iranian persons, but you later 
define it as entity. So, effectively, the report is asking 
for----
    Senator Cruz. Correct.
    Senator Murphy [continuing]. Organizations to be 
designated.
    Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Markey. Mr. Chairman, can I be recorded----
    The Chairman. Can I just declare the vote, please, before? 
And I am happy to consider other----
    So, the motion has been made and seconded and the--oh, we 
have not done the final--we have not had a vote on the 
amendment. I am sorry.
    Senator Markey?
    Senator Markey. Yeah. Could I be recorded no on the Cruz 
Amendment?
    The Chairman. I am sorry?
    Senator Markey. Could I be recorded no on the Cruz 
Amendment, please?
    The Chairman. Yes. Absolutely.
    All right. The majority of Members --no. Okay.
    We are back to the agenda as a whole.
    All those in favor of the agenda as amended will say aye.
    All those opposed will say no.
    The ayes have it and the agenda is agreed to en bloc.
    That completes the committee's business. I ask for 
unanimous consent that the staff be authorized to make 
technical and conforming changes.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    With the thanks of the Chair, the committee is adjourned.


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



                              ----------                              


              Additional Material Submitted for the Record


           Statement of Support for the FENTANYL Results Act

                                   Submitted by Senator Rob Portman

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



 Letter in Support of the Confirmation of Hon. Elizabeth Richard to be 
                    Coordinator for Counterterrorism

                      Submitted by Gen. Joseph L. Votel, USA (Ret.)

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]





                              ----------                              




                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                        THURSDAY, JUNE 23, 2022

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

                Summary of Action Taken by the Committee

                              LEGISLATION

  S.Res. 674, A resolution celebrating the 75th anniversary of the 
        Marshall Plan and recognizing the role of the Marshall Plan as 
        the foundation of a transatlantic community committed to the 
        preservation of peace, prosperity, and democracy, without 
        amendments--agreed to by voice vote.

  S.Res. 623, A resolution calling on the Secretary of State to 
        designate the Russian Federation as a state sponsor of 
        terrorism, with amendments--agreed to by voice vote
     Managers Preamble Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

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

  S.Res. 69, A resolution condemning the use of hunger as a weapon of 
        war and recognizing the effect of conflict on global food 
        security and famine, with amendments--agreed to by voice vote

     Preamble Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

     Substitute Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

     Paul First Degree Amendment #1--agreed to by voice vote

                              NOMINATIONS

  Dr. Francisco O. Mora, of Florida, to be Permanent Representative of 
        the United States of America to the Organization of American 
        States, with the rank of Ambassador--agreed to by roll call 
        vote (12-10)

          Yeas: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, Kaine, 
        Markey, Merkley (proxy), Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen, and Paul 
        (proxy)

          Nays: Risch, Rubio, Johnson (proxy), Romney (proxy), Portman 
        (proxy), Young (proxy), Barrasso (proxy), Cruz (proxy), Rounds 
        (proxy), Hagerty (proxy)

  The Honorable Reuben E. Brigety II, of Florida, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Republic of South Africa--agreed to by voice 
        vote (Rubio, Johnson, Barrasso, Cruz, Rounds, and Hagerty 
        recorded as no)

  The Honorable Elizabeth Frawley Bagley, of Florida, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Federative Republic of Brazil--not agreed to by 
        roll call vote (11-11)

          Yeas: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, Kaine, 
        Markey, Merkley (proxy), Booker, Schatz, and Van Hollen

          Nos: Risch, Rubio, Johnson (proxy), Romney (proxy), Portman 
        (proxy), Paul (proxy), Young (proxy), Barrasso (proxy), Cruz 
        (proxy), Rounds (proxy), and Hagerty (proxy)

  Ms. Amanda Bennett, of the District of Columbia, to be Chief 
        Executive Officer of the United States Agency for Global 
        Media--agreed to by voice vote (Rubio, Johnson, Cruz, and 
        Hagerty recorded as no)

  Mr. Timmy T. Davis, of Virginia, a Career member of the Senior 
        Foreign Service, Class of Counselor, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the State of Qatar--agreed to by voice vote

  Mr. Michael Alan Ratney, of Massachusetts, a Career member of the 
        Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be 
        Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United 
        States of America to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia--agreed to by 
        voice vote (Rubio, Johnson, Barrasso, Cruz, and Hagerty 
        recorded as no)

                          FOREIGN SERVICE LIST

  Alyce Camille Richardson, et al., dated April 7, 2022 (PN1949)--
        agreed to by voice vote

                           Meeting Transcript

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:12 a.m., in 
Room S-116, The Capitol, Hon. Robert Menendez presiding.
    Present: Senators Menendez [presiding], Cardin, Shaheen, 
Coons, Murphy, Kaine, Markey, Booker, Risch, and Rubio.

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

    The Chairman. This business meeting of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee will come to order. I thank you all for 
attending.
    Today, we are considering six nominations, three 
resolutions, and one FSO list. And while I am pleased that we 
are able to convene this meeting, I must note that today's 
agenda includes only a few resolutions and no business, despite 
the fact that there are dozens of bipartisan bills and 
resolutions pending before the committee and which I have 
sought to mark up.
    From Senators Markey and Rubio and their Cambodia Democracy 
and Human Rights Act to Senators Shaheen and Portman and their 
work on the Transatlantic Telecommunications Security Act and 
others, these pieces of legislation reflect good bipartisan 
work by many Senators on and off the committee on critical 
issues. There is a demand to legislate, and these efforts 
should not languish.
    To that end, it is my sincere hope that I can work with the 
Ranking Member to get an agreement to a markup when we return 
in July that reflects this solid bipartisan work, and that 
means moving bills, not just resolutions.
    Turning to today's agenda, first to nominations, I am 
pleased that we are considering are six nominees. Regrettably, 
Dr. Geeta Gupta is not a part of the agenda, despite the fact 
that she has answered all questions asked by Members of this 
committee on both sides. Her nomination has been pending for 
more than 7 months, and it is simply unacceptable to delay her 
confirmation further.
    Turning to the nominees, I am pleased we are considering 
Amanda Bennett to be the Chief Executive Officer of the U.S. 
Agency for Global Media. As we are facing increasing challenges 
related to misinformation and authoritarian crackdowns in the 
media, it is critical that we have a confirmed nominee to 
address these issues. I am confident that Ms. Bennett's 
leadership and over two decades of experience in journalism, 
including as the Director of Voice of America, uniquely 
positions her to join USAGM's powerful mission.
    Today, we are also considering Ambassador Reuben Brigety to 
serve as Ambassador to South Africa. Ambassador Brigety has a 
long and distinguished record in public service and in 
education. In 2013, he was confirmed by voice vote as 
Ambassador to the African Union. He is eminently qualified to 
serve as our Ambassador to South Africa.
    In the interest of time, I will not speak about each 
nominee but will reiterate what we already know. It is in the 
interest of our national security to have a full team in place 
in country to advance our national security and foreign policy 
goals.
    On this note, I have provided a list of 20 nominees to the 
Ranking Member and urge him to clear them for hearings in the 
first few weeks of the next work period. We need to get 
nominees confirmed, and our efforts need to reflect the urgency 
of the situation, an urgency that the Secretary of State raised 
with both of us when we were addressing the chiefs of mission 
yesterday.
    And I think Senator Risch has indicated so himself that if 
we can do some [inaudible] both sides to facilitate working 
with us that maybe we can finally call these nominees up.
    Finally, we also have one of three resolutions celebrating 
the 75th anniversary of the Marshall Plan, S.Res. 674. I am 
pleased to have introduced that with Senator Risch.
    S.Res. 623, calling on the Secretary of State to designate 
the Russian Federation as a state sponsor of terrorism, 
legislation sponsored by Senator Graham and Senator Blumenthal.
    And S.Res. 669, condemning the use of hunger as a weapon of 
war, thanks to Senator Merkley and Young for their efforts on 
this resolution.
    With that, let me turn to the Ranking Member for his 
opening remarks.

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

    Senator Risch. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    On the Gupta nomination, I have some follow-up questions 
for the record for the nominee. I have serious questions 
regarding her stances on abortion in terms of the U.S. law for 
any U.S. use of foreign assistance dollars for the performance 
or promotion of abortion.
    These are important issues. I understand that we want to 
get the markup on them, and I promise I will continue to work 
diligently to get to that point, but I cannot right now.
    On the other pieces that we have, we have tried to work in 
good faith--and I think we have, and I think you are seeing 
that also--to get to the place that we are. Two weeks ago, we 
took up a sizable agenda with a broad bipartisan agenda, and 
these matters are complex. They are not simple matters, but we 
continue to work with it.
    For example, there is active negotiations going on right 
now on Senator Coons' democracy bill, Senator Shaheen's 
transatlantic communications bill. Senator Markey is going to 
hold me to join that. And we continue to engage on your 
priorities, which we are now about to introduce your Peace 
Corps reauthorization bill and continue to work on a really 
serious matter, and that is the Taiwan legislation that I know 
the you are actively engaged with and my staff.
    But all of these are, I think, good faith engagements. They 
are not things that just come in quickly anymore. So, in any 
event, I want to start by saying that I am glad that we were 
able to include the resolution you and I offered on S.Res. 674 
celebrating the 75th anniversary of the Marshall Plan.
    That, more than any other multilateral action, the Marshall 
Plan helped build the liberal world order we enjoy today. It 
served as the foundation for the transatlantic community 
committed to the preservation of peace, prosperity, and 
democracy in Europe following World War II.
    In the last 100-plus days, we have seen the world order 
again threatened by a dictator obsessed with his territorial 
legacy, this time by Putin in the Ukraine. And so we engage 
with our European allies and partners in working to help the 
citizens of Ukraine feed their families and rebuild their land.
    Along those lines, I am also glad to see Senate Res. 669 on 
the docket, condemning the use of hunger as a weapon of war. We 
have known for a long time that conflict is a major driver of 
food insecurity, but it was not until 2008 when we acknowledged 
and condemned the use of it as a weapon of war.
    For years in the past, warring factions in Ethiopia, South 
Sudan, Syria, and Yemen have nonetheless continued to engage in 
global destruction of agricultural goods infrastructure and 
have manipulated markets and imposed security and bureaucratic 
barriers upon humanitarians, culminating in the deliberate 
starvation of civilians.
    Today, Russia is taking food hostage and waging a campaign 
of starvation that is affecting the globe. This resolution 
condemns the deliberate use of hunger as a weapon of war and 
calls upon the U.S. Government and our partners to respond to 
the needs in real time and hold perpetrators accountable.
    Lastly, I think it is wholly appropriate we consider Senate 
Res. 623, calling on the Secretary of State to designate the 
Russian Federation as a state sponsor of terrorism.
    From the second Chechen war to Syria to the Donbas region, 
the Russian Government has and continues to fund violent 
separatist movements and private military networks of 
mercenaries like the Wagner Group to promote acts of 
international terrorism against [inaudible]. It is time the 
United States Government called Russia what it is, a sponsor of 
terrorism, with all the legal ramifications that entails. I 
urge my colleagues to join me in supporting each of these 
timely and important decisions.
    On nominations, I will keep this brief, but I did want to 
highlight my concerns regarding Elizabeth Bagley, the nominee 
for the ambassadorship for Brazil. Brazil is an extremely 
important ally to the United States and in South America and 
the Western Hemisphere, and we share common values and ideals 
especially with regard to respect to religious freedoms and 
democratic ideals.
    Unfortunately, Ms. Bagley has made statements in interviews 
insinuating that Jewish and Cuban Americans' motivations and 
voting practices are based on major money and radical 
opposition in certain instances. For this reason, I plan to 
vote no on her and ask for a roll call vote on her nomination, 
please.
    For the other nominations, Mr. Chairman, also that the 
Members of the committee be permitted to submit to the clerk 
any requests to be recorded no on any item on today's docket. 
If Members would like to submit a request to be recorded as no 
to the Clerk, I ask that they submit them in writing in the 
form of assign letters so that there is a record of the 
requests.
    So, thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Risch.
    So let me first, though, without objection, we will now 
consider en bloc the entire agenda that was noticed for this 
business meeting--all the resolutions, nominations, and the FSO 
list.
    And so----
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman, with one exception. Could we 
have a roll call on----
    The Chairman. Yes. Yes. Yeah, I am sorry. We will have a 
roll call----
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. And so I am going to recognize Senators now 
to comment before we move and then second that en bloc.
    So I think Senator Cardin asked for recognition first. 
Senator Rubio and Senator Shaheen, and then Senator Coons and 
Senator Murphy and Senator Kaine. We got--we have a hell of a 
lineup.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. Everybody wants to speak.
    Okay. Senator Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, in regards to Elizabeth 
Bagley, the comments that Senator Risch referred to were 
inaccurate and offensive and gave oxygen to antisemitism and 
similar types of hate.
    I had a chance to talk with her about this and asked her 
questions for the record. She has apologized for those 
statements. They did not represent her views then or now.
    I know Ambassador Bagley. I know of her public record. I 
know of her values, and I know about her commitments to public 
service.
    She has indicated very clearly that she believes in full 
inclusion in American politics by all individuals and 
communities. Because of this knowledge and because of her 
public statements distancing and of regret and making it clear 
it is not her views, I intend to support her nomination.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Rubio?
    Senator Rubio. I wanted to--there was just two of the 
nominations I want to comment on, and I actually would ask, Mr. 
Chairman, if we could also have a roll call vote on Mr. Mora, 
if that is possible, and I will tell you why.
    First of all, he was a very strong advocate and his long 
goal, borderline, you know, obsessive advocate with the Obama 
policy on Cuba, which I think now, by most accounts, is 
recognized as a failure. Even President Biden returned to it.
    And then the other that was really concerning is we asked 
him and gave him multiple opportunities to state an opinion on 
whether Juan Guaido is the legitimate interim president of 
Venezuela, which is the official position of the 
Administration, and he refused to say that in writing or on the 
record at any point.
    We gave him multiple opportunities to do it, and this is 
concerning not only the hemisphere, but we have Cuba, 
Nicaragua, and Venezuela that are obviously, you know, far 
leftist Latin American regimes. Then Argentina, unfortunately, 
joined the ranks, which is a troubling indication after the 
elections in Honduras [inaudible] fell back into that column.
    I would say that the president of Mexico was less than 
cooperative in comments on many of the key issues. We watch 
with concern now after the elections in Colombia. We pray and 
hope for the best, but we were concerned about some of the 
comments made there and our partnership with Colombia, which 
is, in my view, the most successful that we have in the Western 
Hemisphere.
    And we watch carefully to see what happens in Brazil, and 
added to all that, we are going to send someone that will not 
even state that Juan Guaido is the legitimate interim president 
of Venezuela, which was the official position of this 
Administration. I find that deeply concerning.
    And then, on the South Africa nomination, which I am fine 
with voting en bloc, this has probably already been stated in 
other comments that we were all outraged and upset by the rally 
in Charlottesville. This is an individual who painted President 
Trump at the time as being the Nazi-in-chief and suggested that 
those that did not resign were complicit in those policies.
    But what is more current is now that he had a lot of 
prestigious institutes, and there is a lot of people 
[inaudible] where he really was. But he spoke very positively 
about the potential U.S.-Chinese cooperation in Africa, and 
then in response to QFRs, a lot of people admitted, okay, we 
got China wrong back whenever we thought that they were become 
rich once they got [inaudible] to become more democratic. But 
he has doubled down on statements that we should be working 
with China in parts of Africa in the context of all sorts of 
issues that [inaudible] didn't want.
    Even when he committed to raising concerns about Chinese 
influence with the South African Government, he only said that 
Huawei was concerning because of their hiring practices. He 
would not even acknowledge or note that they are a well-known 
national security and data privacy problem for us.
    I do not know why it is so hard to say that. I think South 
Africa is a key place. So I am going to oppose his nomination, 
but I do want a roll call on Mr. Mora, if possible.
    The Chairman. The Senator has asked for a roll call. It is 
his privilege to do so. We will put Mr. Mora to a roll call as 
well.
    Next in line is Senator Shaheen.
    Senator Shaheen. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak to the 
two issues that you raised in your opening comments. But as I--
we have been working on a number of bipartisan bills for 
months. We have been asking for feedback for months, and we 
have not been getting any response until just right before this 
business meeting was noticed.
    And I think it really undermines the credibility of this 
committee and the really excellent work that has been done over 
so many years when all we produce is resolutions and it takes 
us months to get ambassadorial nominees out the door.
    I mean, if you want to vote against them, I understand 
that. I think, as Marco said, I understand his rationale on the 
South African Ambassador. I do not necessarily agree with it, 
but we are at least voting on him.
    And the fact that we are still messing around after 8 
months without having an Ambassador to the Office of Global 
Women's Issues, I think it is just unacceptable. And I am 
sorry, guys, but if you look at the people who are being held 
up, they are overwhelmingly women, and that is a problem.
    I do not know. I do not know what is going on. But I think 
it just diminishes the credibility of this committee in a way 
that we should all be ashamed of.
    The Chairman. Senator Coons?
    Senator Coons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I am glad we are proceeding with a number of important 
resolutions. I appreciate Senator Murphy's work on the 
resolution about condemning the use of hunger as a weapon of 
war. Many of us are engaged in trying to make sure that the $5 
billion that was in the Ukraine supplemental is, in fact, 
properly and appropriately spent, at least by the USAID and in 
partnership with nonprofits around the world.
    I will just briefly agree strongly with Senator Shaheen's 
concerns. We are just today getting out of this committee a 
nominee for a country as significant as Brazil, as significant 
as South Africa.
    I understand that I have colleagues who have concerns or 
disagreements about specific things the nominees have both said 
or done. I know them both. I think they are both qualified. I 
think they will serve us well.
    But frankly, at a time when the world is on fire, for us to 
lack an Ambassador, I will say, to India, to Brazil, to South 
Africa, a number of us, a bipartisan group of us, met with 
Ambassador Emanuel this morning. The impact he is making--I 
think Senator Cardin was the host of that breakfast. The impact 
he is making in Japan is striking.
    Is he a Democrat? Yes. Is he a progressive, partisan 
Democrat? Yes. Is he going to be a remarkably impactful 
Ambassador? Yes. And at the Chief of Mission conference, I was 
struck at how many of the career Foreign Service Officers are 
making a dramatic and positive impact around the world.
    We should be confirming nominees to be Ambassadors and to 
serve in senior positions, whether it is at AID or in State. 
Without them, we are crippling our Government and our ability 
to be well represented in the world.
    I will specifically speak about the nominee for South 
Africa, Reuben Brigety, who I have known for years and I think 
has thoroughly explained the reasons for his one truly striking 
comment. Not to the satisfaction of all my colleagues, but I 
would urge my colleagues to get to know him and to support him.
    The Chairman. Senator Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I would just associate myself with Senator Coons' and 
Senator Shaheen's remarks. I just wanted to make one quick 
point on S.Res. 623, the resolution calling on the Secretary of 
State to designate the Russian Federation as a state sponsor of 
terrorism.
    I support this resolution. There is no doubt in my mind 
that Russia is using terrorism as a means to try to drive 
Zelensky to the negotiating table in order to stop the 
destruction of civilian areas and civilians themselves.
    I would just note that Russia is not the only country that 
deliberately targets civilians and are doing it at an 
extraordinary rate, unparalleled in recent history. But I would 
hope that we would never be inconsistent about our application 
of this designation to choose that if sovereign nations, 
whether they are our adversary or our ally, deliberately target 
civilians that we apply this designation.
    I think we also had some disagreements on this committee as 
to how to properly delineate designations of state sponsors of 
terrorism versus foreign terror organizations. I think that 
that also demands a little bit more clarity and consistency 
from all our work, and I look forward to continuing to explore 
how we bring that precedent and consistency to the way that we 
apply these designations.
    But I fully support this resolution and look forward to a 
broader discussion of the report.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. I just want to say a word about Elizabeth 
Bagley.
    Senator Risch pointed out comments of hers that are 
offensive, and I was, frankly, very surprised. These were 
comments that were made in an interview in 1998 when, for an 
oral history project with the former Ambassador, she was 
interviewed, and the interview was to be about her experience 
as an Ambassador. Instead, the interviewer wanted her to opine 
on all kinds of things about presidential politics and interest 
groups, and they were offensive comments.
    And, frankly, I was really surprised. I have known 
Elizabeth probably since 2008 or 2009, and when I saw those 
comments, I thought that does not sound like Elizabeth Bagley 
to me.
    I did go back and look at the interview, and the comments 
cannot be excused. But what I noticed is if you look at the 
transcript, she had an interviewer with an agenda that was 
pushing her, and she sometimes would accept the premise of the 
interviewer's question. And there are a couple of instances in 
that excerpt where she pushed back and did not really accept 
it.
    If the interview had happened in 2020 or 2021, I would 
probably have some real concerns about this. But I think she 
did a pretty good job before the committee of really eating 
humble pie and trying to be apologetic, and based on my 
knowledge of her service as Ambassador to Portugal, it 
certainly gives her some diplomatic heft.
    But [inaudible] would be helpful, and so I am going to vote 
for her and urge everyone to do the same.
    The Chairman. Senator Markey?
    Senator Markey. Thank you.
    Just following on Senator Kaine and Senator Cardin, 
Ambassador Bagley is remorseful for her comments. I have known 
her for 30 years. She is a genuinely compassionate and good 
person, and I do not really believe those comments reflect who 
she is.
    But they are on the record. But I think, at the same time, 
she is remorseful for what she said, and my hope is that we 
will give her support. She was our Ambassador in Portugal. She 
did an excellent job and gained measurement, and she can bring 
that experience into Brazil right now.
    Kind of like at a key time, we need someone with that 
experience. So I hope we should be able to support her.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Any other Members seeking recognition?
    I am sorry?
    Senator Risch. Yes. Yes. I am seeking----
    [Crosstalk.]
    Senator Risch [continuing]. Look, I do not want to drag 
this out, but you know, before we break our wrists beating our 
breasts in righteous indignation, we have some real 
reservations. When somebody makes remarks like those that were 
made, I understand they were a long time ago. If this was 
reversed, you guys would be doing the exact same thing if it 
was a Republican that had made remarks from a long time ago.
    So, look, I appreciate how you feel about this. But we do 
have a legitimate right to exercise our judgment as United 
States Senators to vote no on this. And so I feel strongly 
about that.
    Senator Shaheen, we are working--we are working diligently 
on these. You know, you had a complicated fentanyl bill, you 
will recall. We worked with you on them, and we marked up 
just--what was it, 2 weeks ago we marked up the fentanyl bill. 
And we are going to continue to work on this.
    But we all have workloads. We have all--and these are 
complicated matters on the legislation. I agree we should crank 
out as much as we can, but it needs to be right and not just 
kick it out for the sake of being kicked out.
    So let us continue to get along here, and we will work in 
good faith on this. But, again, before we--let us not beat each 
other up simply because somebody is voting no on this.
    Look, I have asked--Meg Whitman is a wonderful woman. Now, 
she is a Republican, all right? She was recruited to be the 
Ambassador to Kenya, and I had to crank and crank and crank to 
get her out of here. I got her on the floor now, and I am not 
holding her up. But somebody sitting at this table is holding 
it up, and it is not a Republican.
    So the door swings both ways. Let us try to get along. We 
will continue to work in good faith. We will do the best we 
can.
    Senator Shaheen. Well, I just wanted to say I certainly 
agree with you, Senator Risch. As you already well know, I do 
not have a problem with that, and I do not have a problem with 
saying you do not agree with legislation.
    But I have a problem with slow walking; that is keeping 
people from either getting voted in or voted out, and I think 
that does a disservice to our country. And I think that is what 
has been going on in a lot of these cases, and I am--like you, 
I think we ought to all be able to get along. The bills that I 
have that are on hold are all bipartisan. But at some point we 
have to say to people it is in the interest of the country to 
do this and just get people to at least vote on some of them.
    Senator Risch. And I agree with you. And again, I come back 
that what is wrong with Meg Whitman? Why is she being slow 
walked?
    Senator Shaheen. I do not know, and I am happy to help you 
try and to get that whole [inaudible]. But I agree. I think she 
will be a great Ambassador.
    Senator Risch. Well, Senator----
    [Crosstalk.]
    The Chairman. Let me--we are going to have to vote. So I 
would ask for a table on this issue. But, Senator Coons, you 
wanted to speak, so please do so.
    [Crosstalk.]
    The Chairman. Senator Booker?
    Senator Booker. I am going to say what I wanted before, but 
go ahead [inaudible].
    Senator Coons. Just to finish that point, we have got a 
potential nominee. I was Chair of the Africa subcommittee. My 
predecessor, Senator Feingold, had an incredibly talented staff 
director in Sarah Margon. She was nominated more than a year 
ago for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, DRL at State and, 
to the best of my knowledge, has never had a vote in front of 
this committee.
    I have a bipartisan bill with Lindsey Graham about 
modernizing our democracy assistance for the 21st century. If 
there is a subject area that I would expect us to be able to 
rule on in a bipartisan way, it is democracy. And those are two 
of many examples.
    I know we are struggling to move. I just hope that we will 
move bills and nominees like those.
    The Chairman. Let me wrap up here because I see our 
colleagues are pressed to leave, and we need them to be able to 
continue a quorum.
    Look, I would simply say, number one, no one has a problem 
with a Member exercising their rights. That is fine. I do not 
think anybody is questioning that. Secondly, there was a 
changing case for the nomination.
    Secondly, you know, if you wait 7 months and then you have 
follow-up questions, it really--it really makes you wonder did 
you have follow-up questions that suddenly came to light, or is 
it that you are wanting to prolong the time of keeping that 
nominee off the schedule?
    The other thing is when we do not get feedback on 
legislation, then we cannot get to a common ground that 
hopefully can lead to a pathway. And sometimes it takes an 
inordinate amount of time to get feedback on legislation.
    On Mr. Mora, I will just say I have asked the record to be 
checked. This will be important to me, and the record reflects 
that in response to questions, he said, ``I will continue to 
fully support U.S. policy, which recognizes Guaido.'' He was 
asked if he would continue the U.S. policy that recognizes 
Guaido as interim president. He said yes. So that is the record 
with regard to that.
    Now, let me finally [inaudible] and then we will vote.
    You know, the reality is, is that the Ranking Member has 
held up a series of people, some of them for a year, that have 
not even had a chance to have a vote in the committee. And so 
we all know the preferences here. And so sometimes in order to 
get other nominees to have their day--just simply for a vote, 
up or down--that others are held, and that is the reality that 
we face.
    Now, I do not think anybody takes any pleasure--I do not--
in holding up a nominee. But when it is the only leverage in 
order to get to the point where we can have other nominees be 
considered for a yes or no vote, well, that is the nature of 
the process.
    So we do not--if you do not hold up people, we will not 
either. It is as simple as that. I think that is a very fair 
exchange. Give everybody a vote.
    With that, I will entertain a motion, except for the two 
roll call votes, that the rest of the agenda except for Mora 
and Bagley be approved in bloc. Is there a motion for that?
    Senator Cardin. So moved.
    Senator Shaheen. Seconded.
    The Chairman. All of those in favor will say yes.
    Oh, I am sorry. S.Res. 623, the manager's amendment; S.Res. 
669, the preamble resolving clause amendment.
    With that, en block, those--including those amendments, all 
those in favor will say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All those opposed will say no.
    [A chorus of noes.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it and that en bloc group is 
agreed to.
    The last two things, a roll call vote on Francisco Mora. 
The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    Senator Markey. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
    The Chairman. Aye, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    Senator Booker. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schatz?
    Senator Schatz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Senator Van Hollen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    Senator Risch. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Rubio. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Risch. No, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
    Senator Risch. No, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    Senator Risch. No, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Risch. Aye, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Young?
    Senator Risch. No, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Risch. No, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cruz?
    Senator Risch. No, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rounds?
    Senator Risch. No, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hagerty?
    Senator Risch. No, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 12; the nays are 10.
    The Chairman. The nomination is favorably reported to the 
Senate.
    Now the clerk will call the roll on Elizabeth Frawley 
Bagley.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    Senator Markey. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
    The Chairman. Aye, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    Senator Booker. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schatz?
    Senator Schatz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Senator Van Hollen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    Senator Risch. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Rubio. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Risch. No, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
    Senator Risch. No, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    Senator Risch. No, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Risch. No, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Young?
    Senator Risch. No, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Risch. No, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cruz?
    Senator Risch. No, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rounds?
    Senator Risch. No, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hagerty?
    Senator Risch. No, by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 11; the nays are 11.
    The Chairman. The motion is tied, and according to Senate 
Resolution 27, I will transmit a notice of a tie vote to the 
Secretary of the Senate, thereby giving either the majority or 
the minority the authority to make a motion to discharge the 
nomination.
    This completes today's business. I ask unanimous consent 
that staff be authorized to make technical and conforming 
changes.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I thank the Members. This meeting is adjourned.


    [Whereupon, at 11:44 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]



                              ----------                              




                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                         TUESDAY, JULY 19, 2022

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

                Summary of Action Taken by the Committee

                              LEGISLATION

  S. 4428, Taiwan Policy Act of 2022, with an amendment in the nature 
        of a substitute--held over

  S. 4466, Peace Corps Reauthorization Act of 2022--agreed to by voice 
        vote

     Manager's Substitute Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

  S. 3502, Cambodia Democracy and Human Rights Act of 2021, with an 
        amendment in the nature of a substitute--agreed to by voice 
        vote

     Manager's Substitute Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

  S. 3317, Democracy in the 21st Century Act, with an amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute--agreed to by voice vote

     Manager's Substitute Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

  S. 552, Global Learning Loss Assessment Act of 2021, with an 
        amendment in the nature of a substitute--agreed to by voice 
        vote

     Substitute Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

  S. 4320, Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 
        2022, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute--agreed 
        to by voice vote

     Manager's Substitute Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

  S. 4216, North Korea Human Rights Reauthorization Act of 2022--agreed 
        to by voice vote

     Manager's Substitute Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

  H.R. 4693, Global Malnutrition Prevention and Treatment Act of 2021--
        agreed to by voice vote

  H.R. 1036, Bassam Barabandi Rewards for Justice Act--agreed to by 
        voice vote

     Substitute Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

  H.R. 6899, Russia and Belarus SDR Exchange Prohibition Act of 2022--
        agreed to by voice vote

  S. 3589, Western Hemisphere Security Strategy Act of 2022

     Manager's Substitute Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

     Cruz 1st Degree Amendment #1--not agreed to by roll call vote 
            (10-12)

          Yeas: Risch, Rubio (proxy), Johnson, Romney (proxy), Portman 
        (proxy), Young (proxy), Barrasso (proxy), Cruz, Rounds, Hagerty 
        (proxy)

          Nays: Menendez, Cardin (proxy), Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, 
        Kaine, Markey, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen, and Paul 
        (proxy)

                                TREATIES

  Protocols to the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 on the Accession of 
        the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden (Treaty Doc. 
        117-3)--agreed to by voice vote (Senator Paul recorded as 
        present)

     Resolution of Advice and Consent to Ratification

       Paul 1st Degree Amendment #2 as modified by Paul--
            strike the word ``hostilities'' and insert the word 
            ``war''--not agreed to by roll call vote (3-15)

          Yeas: Johnson (proxy), Paul, and Cruz

          Nays: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, Kaine, 
        Markey, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen, Risch, Romney, 
        Portman, and Rounds

                              NOMINATIONS

  The Honorable David Pressman, of New York, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to Hungary--agreed to by voice vote (Rubio, Barrasso, 
        and Cruz recorded as no)

  The Honorable Geoffrey R. Pyatt, of California, a Career member of 
        the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Career Minister, to be an 
        Assistant Secretary of State (Energy Resources)--agreed to by 
        voice vote

  The Honorable Robert A. Wood, of New York, 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

  Dr. Geeta Rao Gupta, of Virginia, to be Ambassador at Large for 
        Global Women's Issues--not agreed to by roll call vote (11-11)

          Yeas: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, Kaine, 
        Markey, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen

          Nays: Risch, Rubio (proxy), Johnson (proxy), Romney, Portman 
        (proxy), Paul (proxy), Young (proxy), Barrasso (proxy), Cruz, 
        Rounds, Hagerty (proxy)

  Ms. Elizabeth Shortino, of the District of Columbia, to be United 
        States Executive Director of the International Monetary Fund 
        for a term of two years--agreed to by voice vote (Barrasso 
        recorded as no)

  Mr. Dean R. Thompson, 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 Nepal--agreed to by voice vote

  The Honorable Robert F. Godec, of Virginia, a Career member of the 
        Senior Foreign Service, Class of Career Minister, to be 
        Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United 
        States of America to the Kingdom of Thailand--held over

  Mr. Richard Lee Buangan, of California, a Career member of the Senior 
        Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to Mongolia--agreed to by voice vote

  Ms. Marie C. Damour, 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 Fiji, and to serve concurrently and 
        without additional compensation as Ambassador Extraordinary and 
        Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic 
        of Kiribati, the Republic of Nauru, the Kingdom of Tonga, and 
        Tuvalu--agreed to by voice vote

                               FSO LISTS

  Sara C. Schuman, received April 7, 2022 (PN 1948)--agreed to by voice 
        vote

  Alyce Camille Richardson, et al., received April 7, 2022 (PN 1949)--
        agreed to by voice vote

                           Meeting Transcript

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:33 p.m., in S-
116, The Capitol, Hon. Robert Menendez, Chairman of the 
committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Menendez [presiding], Cardin, Shaheen, 
Coons, Murphy, Kaine, Markey, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van 
Hollen, Risch, Johnson, Romney, Portman, Paul, Cruz, and 
Rounds.

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

    The Chairman. This business meeting of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee will come to order.
    Today, we are considering the NATO Accession Protocol to 
Finland and Sweden, 10 bills, eight nominations, and two FSO 
lists.
    Vladimir Putin's unprovoked assault in Ukraine has not only 
failed in his efforts to control the Ukrainian people. It has 
also strengthened the resolve and importance of Transatlantic 
Alliance, which is rooted in our shared values of democracy, 
the rule of law, and collective defense against aggressive 
autocrats. As we continue supporting Ukraine against ongoing 
Russian aggression, we must strictly welcome both Finland and 
Sweden into NATO. This is one of the most consequential 
responsibilities of our committee.
    Finland and Sweden are steadfast NATO and U.S. allies with 
strong militaries and durable democratic institutions. They are 
ideal candidates for NATO membership, and they will strengthen 
the alliance in countless ways. The moment we find ourselves in 
reminds us of the importance of these transatlantic alliances, 
of responding forcefully to threats to freedom and stability, 
and of the power of collective defense and security. In 
advancing these protocols, we are demonstrating to the world 
that the answer to aggression is not isolation, but deeper 
engagement with likeminded democracies. I urge all of our 
colleagues to strongly support these treaties.
    On legislation, I will note that there is a holdover 
request for the Chairman's Taiwan Policy Act of 2022. I don't 
take it personally, but as a result, we will take up that bill 
at the next legislative markup on Wednesday, August 3rd. I also 
plan to mark up the State authorization bill at the August 3rd 
business meeting.
    Today, we will be considering the Peace Corps 
Reauthorization Act of 2022. In addition to Senator Risch's 
partnership on this legislation, I appreciate the support of 
bipartisan co-sponsors, including Senators Cardin, Portman, 
Shaheen, and Young. Congress has not reauthorized the Peace 
Corps in more than 20 years. It is essential that we pass this 
bill to implement needed reforms, including enhancing 
healthcare, safety, and security of Peace Corps volunteers.
    We will also be considering Ranking Member Risch's Secure 
Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act, which 
acknowledges that security requirements for embassy compounds 
have, at times, had the unintended effect of inhibiting the 
ability of our diplomats to effectively interact with their 
surrounding communities. I applaud Senator Risch for leading 
this issue. In light of his leadership on the committee in 
moving forward this embassy security reform bill, I hope we are 
marking an end to an era when the security and safety of our 
diplomats abroad, one of the most critical responsibilities of 
the State Department, is used as a political tool. Consistent 
with other billswe have considered recently which fit squarely 
within the scope of State authorization, I expect this bill to 
be included and advanced as part of the State authorization 
bill we will mark up on August 3rd.
    I am pleased to join Senator Rubio in introducing the 
Western Hemisphere Security Strategy Act. As security 
challenges in the region will have a direct and immediate 
impact on the United States and our communities, they continue 
to abound, and it is imperative that we apprise ourselves with 
the tools at our disposal.
    Finally, we are considering several other bills today that 
reflect the superb work of Members of this committee, including 
Senators Cardin, Coons, Markey, Kaine, and Rubio. While there 
are still many bills awaiting markup, this legislative agenda 
reflects the seriousness and purpose of the committee's role in 
foreign policy, and I appreciate the work of Ranking Member and 
staff in making it happen.
    Let me close by turning to nominations. I am pleased that 
we are considering eight nominees, but I will speak only of one 
of them, Dr. Geeta Gupta, to be ambassador-at-large for global 
women's issues. We have received a holdover request for Robert 
Godec to be ambassador to Thailand. The Chair will honor that 
request.
    At a time when women and girls are facing daunting 
challenges around the world and being denied education and the 
ability to work in Afghanistan, to fleeing brutal violent and a 
risk of traffic in Ukraine, we need a Senate-confirmed 
ambassador. Dr. Gupta brings decades of experience in helping 
to empower women, improving women's economic security and 
political participation, and working to end violence against 
women and girls, and I urge all my colleagues to support her 
nomination.
    Finally, I must mention that we have a backlog of nearly 40 
nominees that are pending before this committee. I am pleased 
that after much hard work, it looks like we will be holding 
hearings on at least 20 of those 40 before the end of the work 
period. I appreciate the work by the Ranking Member and many 
Members of this committee who have agreed to serve as Chair and 
Ranking Members to make sure that we are fulfilling our duty to 
confirm nominees to critical posts. The Ranking Member has 
often said to me he would prefer to see many of these done in 
subcommittees. I agree, but we need Ranking Members for that, 
and I want to acknowledge Senator Rounds, Hagerty, and Romney, 
who have either already played that role or have agreed to play 
that role, and I would urge other colleagues to consider being 
a ranking on one of these nominations hearings so that we can 
move at least through the hearing process to wind them up for a 
business meeting.
    With that, let me turn to Ranking Member Risch for his 
remarks.

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

    Senator Risch. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be 
brief. I know many of the Members have other committees they 
have to attend, and I am glad we can consider such a robust 
agenda today, especially my Secure Embassy Construction and 
Counterterrorism Act, which will provide the Department with 
much-needed updates and flexibility in how and where it designs 
and builds new facilities, particularly in low-threat 
environments, and I appreciate the Chairman's kind remarks 
regarding the bill. These updates will make it easier for our 
diplomats to get out from behind the desk and their embassy 
roles to better engage with communities around the world while 
saving the U.S. taxpayer millions, if not billions, of dollars.
    However, the chief item on this agenda today concerns one 
of the most serious responsibilities we as a committee have: 
approval of the accession of two new nations into the North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization. We do a lot of things around 
here, and they are very difficult. It is really good to do 
something that feels very natural. When you look at the map and 
everything about this, this is a natural thing to do. In the 
face of Russian belligerents, Sweden and Finland have come to 
the conclusion we, and many other NATO nations, came to over 73 
years ago: when the United States and European allies and 
partners join forces, we can defeat any foe.
    Sweden and Finland did not ask for this fight, but now that 
it is at their back door, they have made the brave choice to 
not back down, but rather to stand with us against Putin and 
his cronies. I am 100 percent convinced that Finland and Sweden 
will be excellent allies, will strengthen NATO politically and 
militarily, and offer the alliance new capabilities, more 
specifically the Arctic.
    Finland already spends more than 2 percent of its GDP on 
defense, and Sweden is on track to do so by 2028. Sweden brings 
a strong defense industry to the alliance, while Finland's huge 
military reserves and fighting spirit are an example we 
encourage other NATO members to follow. There is a list, very 
long, as to why we should do this. Certainly, Finland brings 
their naval capabilities which are very significant, to NATO, 
and their naval facilities are outstanding. Sweden brings a 
strong, strong defense manufacturing industry with them. Both 
are solid financially. They will make great additions to NATO.
    Both nations have long participated in NATO missions in the 
Balkans, the Middle East, and Afghanistan. In fact, in NATO 
missions, they came to the fight with less restrictions than 
other NATO allies. The U.S. military considers them highly 
effective and highly interoperable with NATO and the United 
States. They have been guarding NATO's backyard in the high 
North for decades, and it is time they have a full seat at the 
table. Also, notably, when you put the two of them together 
with their air power, it is going to add very significantly to 
the air power that we have, particularly on the Eastern and 
Northern lands.
    I appreciate the Administration's quick processing of these 
accession documents. I urge my colleagues to move this 
resolution without delay. I understand there is a possibility 
of a couple of amendments to this. Regardless of those 
amendments, we cannot change the Constitution. The Constitution 
has very clear provisions as to what we have to do if, indeed, 
we are attacked or if we are going to commit military 
resources. I would urge anyone who is going to take anything 
away from any of these amendments not to think that this is any 
way undermining the NATO treaty. There is nothing here that 
undermines our NATO treaty.
    On nominations, I will just briefly say that I will be 
voting ``no'' on the Gupta nomination. In publication and 
public statements, she has ardently advocated for access to 
abortion as a reproductive right, including abroad. I am 
concerned this could lead to an expansion of the mission of the 
Office of Global Women's Issues on abortion advocacy in 
violation of U.S. law. I know this is a controversial 
appointment. On the other hand, I think each of us have our own 
moral compass on the abortion issue.
    Mr. Chairman, I also ask that Members of the committee be 
permitted to submit to the Clerk any request to be recorded as 
a ``no'' on any item on today's agenda. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    The Chairman. Thank you. I know there are going to be 
Members who want to speak to nominations and other things, but 
because of the importance of this, I would just ask Members' 
forbearance so that we could just move on the NATO accession 
first and then go to the rest of the agenda.
    Without objection, we will consider the Resolution of 
Advice and Consent for the NATO Accession Protocols for Sweden 
and Finland. Does any Member wish to be heard on the resolution 
or offer any amendments? Senator Paul.
    Senator Paul. I have been consistently opposed to the 
expansion of NATO for two main reasons: one, the 
disproportionate amount of cost that we bear, both the 
financial costs as well as the cost in terms of lives. The 
second reason I oppose the expansion of NATO has been the 
argument that the provocation of expanding NATO up to the 
rivers of Russia is provocative and could lead to war.
    The second argument, I think, has less value since we have 
seen that Putin can clearly be provoked, even short of 
admitting Ukraine or Georgia into NATO. I still think it is a 
bad idea to admit Ukraine or Georgia into NATO and is 
incredibly provocative. I do believe that there is a 
possibility that war could have been prevented a year ago. 
There is no justification for Putin's invasion, and yet I still 
think that there is a possibility, had there not been 
significant agitation of pulling Ukraine into NATO, that war 
could have been avoided.
    I do think that actions have reactions by our adversaries. 
The deposing of the Russian leader in Ukraine in 2014--and I 
will argue that was not a bad idea to get rid of the guy--when 
he was gotten rid of, the Russians did react. So we have to see 
the world in a realistic way and understand that for our 
actions, there will be reactions. When he was deposed, the 
Russians decided to take Crimea. When the Biden administration, 
I think, provocatively and in an agitated way, continued to put 
its thumb in the eye of the Russians and say Ukraine will be a 
member of NATO, as recently as last fall--I think it is hard 
not to argue that that was part of precipitating reasons for 
the war.
    Interestingly, as we look at the war, one of the possible 
outcomes, I think, it is very unlikely that there will be a, 
you know, complete victory by either side. We are looking at a 
long stalemate. Even Zelensky has admitted and said, well, 
perhaps one possibility and a result of this as a way to seek 
peace would be that Ukraine would be a neutral country. It is 
easier to look backwards, but I think it would have been a 
better discussion, you know, a year ago or two years ago.
    We have been saying for 14 years now that they will be--
because we are involved, we are mighty, and we can do whatever 
we want--that Ukraine will be part of NATO. We have been saying 
it for 14 years, and yet they did not become part of NATO, and 
perhaps we should have had that discussion. Perhaps we should 
have thought twice about whether it was a good idea. Does any 
of this justify the invasion? No, and the invasion has changed 
my perception of this. So my perception has gone and conclusion 
has gone from adamantly against expansion to I will vote 
``present'' today.
    I do not presently think it is a good idea. I think there 
still are some advantages to Finland and Sweden being neutral. 
One of the advantages is when there is a final peace agreement 
through this agreement that I think it could be leveraged 
towards a peace agreement. What are things that the West could 
offer in exchange for some sort of peace agreement? One of the 
things the West could offer was, well, we have considered this, 
and Finland and Sweden have decided to remain neutral as 
opposed to becoming part of NATO.
    Now, time will tell. I mean, if there is no war, people 
will say, well, this is great, NATO prevents war. But there are 
also things that Ebben said, and I think we are foolish not to 
at least listen to what our adversaries say. Russia has said, 
yeah, they will probably accept it. They do not have a whole 
lot of choice. They are going to accept them being part of 
NATO, but they have also warned that placing missile systems in 
Finland will be a red line.
    I do not think it is an overstatement to remember that the 
U.S. putting missiles into Turkey and into Italy during the 
1960s was precipitation of Russia putting missiles in Cuba. For 
every action, there is a reaction. I do not think we should be 
blind to the dangers or risks of moving forward, particularly 
if moving forward means putting missile systems into Finland.
    With that in mind, I would like to offer an amendment to 
make absolutely clear that our Constitution supersedes all 
treaties, and all treaties are subject to our Constitution. I 
think that it is loosely argued by many that Article V says 
when we go to war, you know. We now have--we have 30-some odd 
countries in Europe. Is there a possibility that Montenegro 
gets attacked by Luxembourg, you know? I mean, does that mean 
we are automatically at war? No, in our country, we vote on 
this. The Constitution is very clear that that is how we go to 
war. But I think so many people have argued so strenuously that 
Article V is sort of part of our Constitution, they do not 
understand there is another step.
    So I think it is important to add to this treaty that it 
will require no action on the part of any other country, and it 
simply reads that Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty does 
not supersede the constitutional requirement of Congress to 
declare before the United States engages in a hostility. This 
simply restates the Constitution, but I think it is important 
because I think people have been good with the argument that 
Article V guarantees war, and I think this will be a useful 
addition to let the world know that at least the United States 
will still obey the Constitution.
    I request a recorded vote.
    The Chairman. The Senator has requested a recorded vote.
    Let me respond. First of all, I will not go at length. I 
have a different view of history than the Senator has about 
Ukraine and us insisting that it become a part of NATO. Things 
are different between insisting it become part of NATO and 
saying it has the possibility of becoming part of NATO if it 
met all the requirements. I understand Senator Paul's interest 
in ensuring that approving these protocols would not afford new 
constitutional authorities. However, this amendment is 
unnecessary and would set a damaging precedent for other 
countries.
    There is no question that the North Atlantic Treaty and 
these protocols cannot supersede the Constitution. No treaty 
can. This is well established and well understood. Not only is 
this amendment unnecessary, but it would also be harmful. 
Unlike declarations and conditions, which this committee has 
included in every NATO protocol reservation to date, the 
reservations which Senator Paul has proposed here would change 
the dynamics of this treaty. And so the United States has never 
ratified NATO protocols with a reservation, and doing so now 
would be an invitation to other NATO members, like Turkey, to 
do exactly the same, limiting the scope of their obligations 
under NATO. For those reasons and others, I will be voting 
``no'' and urge my Members to do so.
    Is there anyone else who wishes to be heard on the 
amendment? Senator Cruz.
    Senator Cruz. Mr. Chairman, I find myself somewhere in 
between the Chairman and Senator Paul. I agree with Senator 
Paul that it would be a mistake for Ukraine to be a member of 
NATO. I think the risks and obligations of military conflict 
exceed the benefits to the United States for doing so. I am 
going to vote ``yes'' on the accession motion today because I 
think the benefits to the United States of Sweden and Finland 
joining NATO are far greater than the risk and exposure.
    I want to support Senator Paul's amendment. I agree with 
the spirit of it. I think Congress has been far too reluctant 
to assert our authority under the Constitution to declare war 
and far too willing to cede war making to the executive. 
However, as I read it, I do not think the text of this 
amendment accurately states the constitutional provision. And 
in particular, it says, ``Nothing in Article V''--``Article V 
does not supersede the constitutional requirement that Congress 
declare war before the United States engages in hostilities.'' 
``Hostilities'' is a broad term. I do not think it is accurate 
to say the Constitution requires a declaration of war for any 
hostilities.
    For example, the United States took out General Soleimani. 
I think that was the right decision. I introduced a resolution 
of the Senate, that a supermajority of Senators from both 
parties voted for, commending the President for taking out 
General Soleimani. I do not believe that necessitated a 
declaration of war. What I would suggest to Senator Paul, and I 
do not know if he would be amenable to this or not, but I would 
offer as potentially a friendly amendment changing the word 
``hostilities'' to the word ``war.'' And if we change that to 
``war,'' I would vote for this amendment because then I think 
it is accurate that we must have a declaration of war before we 
engage in war.
    Senator Paul. That would be fine with me.
    Senator Cruz. Okay. With that amendment, I will vote 
``yes.''
    The Chairman. The motion has been made to amend the 
amendment, and with that--okay. Do you make that amendment as 
your own?
    Senator Paul. Yes.
    The Chairman. Okay. So your amendment is now amended in 
accordance with Senator Cruz's recommendation.
    Senator Kaine. Mr. Chair?
    The Chairman. Senator Kaine.
    Senator Kaine. Mr. Chair, I have a question for you. I want 
to follow up on your logic in opposing the amendment. My 
understanding is you do not oppose the principle as stated, but 
you are objecting because we have never included such language 
in a treaty. So you said it was sort of unnecessary because it 
is--I mean, it is a statement with this edit that I think is an 
unobjectionable statement. It is just in terms of what the 
constitutional principle is. But I understood your objection is 
when we have done earlier such treaties, this is not like a 
resolution. This is treaty language, and when we have done such 
treaties, we have not included such language. Do I understand 
that correctly?
    The Chairman. We have not included reservations.
    Senator Kaine. Yeah.
    The Chairman. And Senator Paul's amendment is a reservation 
to the treaty.
    Senator Kaine. Mm-hmm.
    The Chairman. As such, it would change the dynamics, and it 
would be conveyed to every nation in NATO, and it would 
permit--open the door for them to change their----
    Senator Kaine. For a renegotiation of something.
    The Chairman [continuing]. Reservations.
    Senator Kaine. If the language were to not say something 
about reservation or understanding and just say, you know, that 
nothing supersedes the--does not use the word ``reservation,'' 
``understanding,'' ``limitation,'' whatever, nothing supersedes 
the constitutional provision as described, does that make it 
less objectionable to merely state the unnecessary principle 
but not do a reservation or an understanding?
    The Chairman. Well, my understanding is that when we amend 
the process of a treaty, we ultimately are changing the nature 
of it and I do not know how you amend without it ultimately 
being a reservation and----
    Senator Kaine. Mm-hmm, opening it up for other nations to 
maybe do the same.
    The Chairman. Yeah.
    Senator Kaine. Yeah.
    The Chairman. So----
    Senator Paul. Can I respond?
    The Chairman. Can I finish?
    Senator Paul. Sure.
    The Chairman. Thank you. So that is part of the challenge.
    Senator Kaine. Mm-hmm.
    The Chairman. Now, you know, and as I said in my comments, 
there is nothing that can supersede the Constitution.
    Senator Kaine. Right. Right.
    The Chairman. Not Article V, not the NATO treaty, nothing 
else. And so it just complicates something that is so important 
to decide, and in a timely fashion, that otherwise has no 
significance because nothing can supersede the Constitution.
    Senator Kaine. Right. Right. Okay. Thanks.
    The Chairman. So does that satisfy other Senators? As I 
understand, the Senator would be satisfied in moving forward 
with----
    Senator Kaine. Yes. I mean, I think it is a statement of 
the law, but your point is there is nothing that supersedes the 
Constitution whether we say or not, so it is unnecessary. 
Right.
    The Chairman. Senator Paul.
    Senator Paul. By adopting this, we do not change anything 
that other countries can or will do. They are welcome to put 
reservations on at any point in time, so this does not change 
anything. It may not have been, but it does not change anything 
that other countries that are allowed to do or might do. The 
reservation does not have to be approved by any other 
countries. It does not materially change the treaty. The 
reservation, if nobody objects to it, becomes part of the body 
of knowledge surrounding the treaty after a year's time.
    There are different categories. There is a declaration you 
can add that does not have to be ever acknowledged by the other 
side. A reservation can be acknowledged, and other countries do 
nothing. I find it hard to believe that other countries are 
going to object to us following our Constitution. You would 
think, well, gosh, yeah, this is duplicative. Why do we have to 
say we are going to obey our Constitution? Well, because in our 
country, we often have not. I mean, we have gone to war many, 
many times without a declaration of war. We are involved in 
wars around the planet without declarations.
    So this is an alternative way of discussing a larger issue 
of whether or not we should declare war when go into 
hostilities, but it also is important that people are very 
clear. We read often that Article V means we are going to war, 
and we are not going to war. We will, frankly, have to have a 
vote. Is it the likelihood that Congress will support war? 
Probably so, if NATO is attacked.
    But I think knowing that this power resides in Congress and 
acknowledging that, and voting against it really calls into 
question--I mean, those who vote against this, it is like, 
really? Are you worried that we would follow the Constitution? 
I do not think it is a strong argument to say it is 
duplicative.
    The Chairman. Let me just say I totally reject that 
proposition. Because the Senator proffers it does not mean that 
voting against it is a rejection of the Constitution because I 
take a higher calling. The Constitution is supreme. You 
actually create a more limiting function where you have state 
that in order to do something. The Constitution is supreme. And 
secondly, there is a consequence. If we make reservations, 
other countries can say, according to our constitution, we 
reserve according to our Constitution, and that may very well 
have a limiting obligation in their Article V obligations.
    So either we are committed to Article V, and, yes, we would 
have to declare war to do that, or not. And when we start to 
diminish Article V, the essence of NATO is dramatically 
diminished. Senator Johnson.
    Senator Johnson. I am also sympathetic with what Senator 
Paul would like to do here, and I would just suggest if you 
would like to get a result, it sounds like if you insist on 
this being a reservation, it will fail. But if we maybe change 
it to ``declaration'' with the change already made in terms of 
``war'' versus ``hostilities,'' I will certainly support it. 
Maybe others would as well. Is that something you would be 
willing to do?
    Senator Paul. Well, that is the question, and we have both. 
We have both of those amendments filed, and the question is 
whether or not, on the other side, Senator Kaine and others are 
willing to vote for a declaration as opposed to a resolution.
    The Chairman. Senator Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. I am convinced by the Chair's argument that 
we need not make this statement because of the Constitution----
    Senator Paul. Under either ``reservation'' or 
``declaration.''
    Senator Kaine. I do not think we need to. I mean, I am with 
you on the principle.
    The Chairman. Senator Romney.
    Senator Romney. I am just concerned that at a time when 
Russia invaded Ukraine, and the world is watching, Ukrainians 
and our allies are watching, to do or say, anything that sounds 
like we are going a little wobbly on Article V is a very 
dangerous thing to do. There may be a time and a place for us 
to talk about the War Powers and the need to bring conflict 
before the Senate, but doing so with the accession of Sweden 
and Finland, and during a time when Russia is at war with 
Ukraine and obliterating their people, I think this is the 
wrong time for that kind of message.
    The Chairman. Senator Cruz?
    Senator Cruz. So I think the question of reservations--we 
enter treaties all the time. Other countries enter treaties all 
the time. When they make reservations, that is part of the 
treaty-making power. You are right that on the face of this, 
this reservation does not alter the underlying terrain. In many 
ways, it is an implicit reservation of every treaty we sign 
that it is pursuant to the Constitution. At the same time, I 
would say it is an implicit reservation of every country that 
makes a treaty with us that they are going to act pursuant to 
the Constitution.
    So I have no interest in undermining Article V. I am a co-
sponsor with Senator Kaine of his legislation to reassert 
NATO's role and centrality. I believe in that. I think Article 
V is significant, but I also think this is relevant here 
because the American people are hesitant to send our sons and 
daughters into harm's way. As they read about the expansion of 
NATO, the concern some understandably have is, are we 
undertaking an obligation to engage in active combat with our 
enemies?
    Now look, on the question of Ukraine and Russia, we have 
gone round and round on this committee on Nord Stream 2, and 
you know my passions on that issue. I wish we had avoided this 
conflict, and I think we could have. We did not. I think, as I 
understand voting on Senator Paul's amendment, there are many 
Members of this committee that have expressed a desire for 
Congress to more vigorously assert its authority over 
declaration of war. There are at least as many other Democratic 
side of the aisle as there are on the Republican side of the 
aisle. I think in the context, when the American people are 
concerned about us undertaking treaty obligations that 
potentially obligates us to engage in war, acknowledging that 
there is an ongoing limitation does not alter the treaty 
obligation, but I think is a reasonable assertion of Congress' 
constitutional authority.
    The Chairman. With that, I think----
    Senator Shaheen. Well, I just want to echo what Senator 
Romney has said. You know, Senator Coons and I were with a 
bipartisan delegation to the NATO Summit in Madrid, and one of 
the things that we heard from our allies who are NATO members 
and from those NATO-aspirant states, was the importance of what 
the U.S. did with respect to not just Ukraine, but on the 
treaty ratification.
    And I think at a time when we are looking at two critical 
allies to NATO who are not security consumers--they are 
security providers--they add to our ability in NATO to defend 
the NATO alliance and our security. And for us to do anything, 
as Senator Romney says, that calls into question whether we are 
100 percent behind this ratification, I think is it not helpful 
to United States security and NATO security at this time. I 
think the message we want to send out of this Senate is our 
overwhelming support for NATO and Sweden and Finland joining 
NATO, and the message that sends, not just NATO, but to Russia 
and Putin for his future ambitions, is really important.
    So I would hope that we would put as much support behind 
this ratification as possible and not do anything that calls 
into question the message that that sends to all of our allies 
and to our adversaries.
    The Chairman. The Senator has asked for a recorded----
    Senator Paul. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Senator Portman. I am allowing those who have 
not had an opportunity to speak.
    Senator Portman. Right. Not everybody has spoken, no. Look, 
I am going to vote ``no,'' and the reason is very simple. Maybe 
I am too caught up in the Ukraine situation, but I think NATO 
is the most successful military alliance in the history of the 
world, and I think we need them more than ever. I disagree, I 
think, with the notion that they need us when we need them. I 
mean, we need allies right now. Russia and China, in 
particular, but other countries as well--North Korea--are 
constantly trying to develop alliances to counter our interests 
all over the world. NATO is it, and the fact that Sweden and 
Finland have for decades with neutrality, in one case, forever, 
have decided to come forward and join our alliance, I mean, we 
should embrace it with open arms.
    So I do not disagree with what Senator Paul says about the 
Constitution, nor what you said, Mr. Chairman. I think that is 
clear. But I would not want to send any signal right now to our 
NATO allies that we are anything other than overwhelmingly, 
enthusiastically supportive of two countries coming in who have 
enormous military assets, and financial resources, and a 
commitment to exceed the 2 percent. This is all good, and for 
us to send any note of ratification discouragement in even 
having to notify our allies of this reservation, to me, sends 
the wrong message. So that why I am going to vote----
    Senator Paul. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Senator Risch.
    Senator Risch. I am going to vote ``no'' on this. Look, we 
are arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a 
pin here. We cannot change the Constitution with this. The 
treaty could not change the Constitution with this. The 
President of the United States and the United States Congress 
know that you cannot go to war without a declaration. We do not 
want to be messaging in any way, shape, or form that tells our 
29 allies in NATO that, oh, hang a reservation on--about your 
Constitution. Look, guys, we need to get this done. I think it 
needs to be clean. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Senator Paul. Very quickly.
    The Chairman. Last word, yes.
    Senator Paul. Very quickly. It has been mentioned that we 
should not go wobbly on Article V. I think if you were to ask a 
Gold Star family whether, you know, being wobbly on Article V 
is more important than being wobbly on the Constitution, I 
think most parents would say the Constitution is what their 
sons and daughters are defending.
    The Chairman. The Senator has asked for a recorded vote.
    The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    Senator Markey. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    Senator Booker. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schatz?
    Senator Schatz. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Senator Van Hollen. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    Senator Risch. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy--or excuse me. I have no proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Risch. I changed it.
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
    Senator Romney. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    Senator Portman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Young?
    Senator Risch. I have no proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Risch. I have no proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cruz?
    Senator Cruz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rounds?
    Senator Rounds. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hagerty?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No.
    Senator Risch. How did I record Senator Johnson?
    Voice. We said no.
    Senator Risch. It should be an aye by proxy, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. The clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 3; the nays are 15.
    The Chairman. And the amendment is not agreed to.
    Is there a motion to approve the resolution of advice and 
consent?
    Senator Coons. So move.
    Voice. So move.
    The Chairman. So moved. Seconded.
    All those in favor will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All those opposed will say no.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it, and the resolution, having 
been voted in the affirmative, the ayes have it, and the 
resolution for advice and consent is agreed to.
    Senator Paul. Mr. Chairman, can I be recorded as 
``present?''
    The Chairman. Senator Paul shall be recorded as a 
``present.''
    All right. Thank you for the debate, and we are moving 
forward now. Without objection, we will consider en bloc the 
entire remaining of the agenda that was noticed for this 
business meeting, which are 10 bills, eight nominations, and 
two FSO lists.
    Is there a motion to that effect?
    Voice. So move.
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Is there a second?
    Senator Shaheen. Second.
    The Chairman. Second? Yes.
    Senator Risch. I would ask that Dr. Gupta be a separate 
roll call.
    The Chairman. Okay.
    Senator Risch. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Ms. Gupta will be withdrawn from that en 
bloc, and we will have a separate vote.
    Voice. For who?
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, are the amendments that were 
included as manager's amendments included in the motion that 
you made?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Senator Cardin. With all the manager's----
    Senator Cruz. Mr. Chairman, if we are considering them in 
en bloc, will we have an opportunity to call up amendments?
    The Chairman. Are there amendments that you--is there a 
specific piece of legislation?
    Senator Cruz. Yes. Yes.
    The Chairman. So why do we not--which piece of legislation?
    Senator Cruz. It is an amendment on the Western Hemisphere 
Security Strategy Act.
    The Chairman. Okay. So let us pull the Western Hemisphere 
Security Strategy Act and the Gupta nomination out. Everything 
will be en bloc, as amended.
    Senator Risch. And, Mr. Chairman, anyone can be recorded--
--
    The Chairman. Of course. All those in favor will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All those opposed will say no.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it, and the agenda, except for 
those two items, is approved.
    So now, let me go to the Gupta nomination to be ambassador-
at-large for Global Women's Issues. Is there anyone who wishes 
to speak to it? Senator Shaheen.
    Senator Shaheen. Mr. Chairman, I am really disappointed 
with the way this nomination has been discussed, and I want to 
go back to the Office of Global Women's Issues because that 
office was set up because of very good data that we have that 
shows the impact of looking at foreign policy through a gender 
lens. It is not through a healthcare lens. It is not through a 
reproductive lens. It is not through an abortion lens. It is 
through looking at the impact that empowering women around the 
world has on stable communities, stable families, and stable 
societies, and that is the mission of the Office of Global 
Women's Issues.
    You know, when Kelly Curry was nominated by President Trump 
to Chair--to be Ambassador for the Office of Global Women's 
Issues, I did not ask what her position was on choice, abortion 
because that was not the mission of this office. And the fact 
that we have a number of outside groups who have tried to make 
an issue of abortion and Dr. Gupta's belief that women should 
make decisions about abortion themselves, is not what this 
office is about. And the fact that people are looking at her 
nomination through that lens, I think, is just wrong because 
the allegations that have been made against her are inaccurate.
    There has been an attack that says that she worked to see 
that abortion was an essential service of the World Health 
Organization. That is not true. She never even talked about 
abortion at WHO. That was not her role there, and she did not 
even discuss it, and there have been several other allegations, 
and I am happy to go through them one by one, but I assume we 
do not need to do that. But the fact that this has become an 
issue with respect to Dr. Gupta has just undermined the whole 
role of the Office of Global Women's Issues.
    There are other agencies within the Department of State 
that deal with reproductive health, which deal with the issues 
that Dr. Gupta has been accused of supporting. She has said she 
supports the mission of that Office and will stick to that. She 
does not have another agenda, and the suggestion by number of 
outside groups that she is being placed there to undermine 
women's reproductive health is just disinformation that is 
being spread in a way that undermines the role of that Office. 
So I am really disappointed to hear our colleagues talking 
about this as being an issue on which they are going to make a 
determination.
    This is a woman who has her Ph.D., who has spent her whole 
lifetime to addressing issues that affect women that are going 
to be dealt with by the Office of Global Women's Issues. And 
the fact that that now that is being reduced to the fact that 
she has said in her personal life she supports a woman's right 
to make her own decisions about her reproductive health, and 
that people say that that is going to determine whether they 
are going to support her in this office, I mean, are we going 
to say that anything that has to do with women and girls breaks 
down to abortion or not? Geez, I hope not because I do not 
believe that is the lens through which we ought to be looking 
at any issues that affect women and girls.
    And the fact that so many people here at this table have 
said that that is the issue on which they are going to make a 
determination is just not fair to Dr. Gupta, and it is not in 
keeping with the mission of the Office of Global Women's 
Issues. So I understand that people are going to vote the way 
they are going to vote, but I would ask you all to reexamine 
your position because I think it is just wrong.
    The Chairman. Any other Members seeking recognition?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, do you want a roll call vote?
    Senator Risch. Yes, please.
    The Chairman. Senator Risch has asked for a roll call vote.
    The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    Senator Booker. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schatz?
    Senator Schatz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Senator Van Hollen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    Senator Risch. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
    Senator Romney. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Young?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cruz?
    Senator Cruz. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rounds?
    Senator Rounds. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hagerty?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Aye.
    The clerk will report.
    Senator Markey. Mr. Chairman, may I be recorded as ``aye'' 
in person?
    The Chairman. Senator Markey will be recorded ``aye'' in 
person.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 11; the nays are 11.
    The Chairman. The motion is tied. In accordance with 
Section 3 of Senate Resolution 27, I will transmit a notice of 
a tie vote to the Secretary of the Senate, thereby giving 
either majority or the minority leader the authority to make a 
motion to discharge the nomination.
    Senator Coons. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Senator Coons. Mr. Chairman, if I could just speak briefly. 
I also strongly support Dr. Gupta's nomination. And whoever is 
holding over Ambassador Godec's nomination, I have worked 
closely with him for many years and would urge them to reach 
out to me. I am thrilled that we are advancing two different 
pieces of legislation today, the Global Malnutrition Act I am 
leading with Senator Wicker, and the Madeleine Albright 
Democracy in the 21st Century Act I am leading with Senator 
Graham.
    But I briefly just wanted to thank and recognize an 
incredible member of my team, Ally Davis, who is leaving us 
after 6 years and is going from here to the House Foreign 
Affairs Committee.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Coons. A stunning lack of seniority----
    Senator Risch. I thought the rules did not allow that.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Cruz. What did Senator Coons teach his team?
    Senator Coons. I know that Chairman Meeks will benefit from 
her incredible work ethic, values. We first bonded over a 
shared experience of spending time in South Africa. This bill 
we are marking up, the Democracy in the 21st Century Act, she 
has worked on, but she also helped craft the Nita Lowey Middle 
East Partnership for Peace Act, the Global Fragility Act, and 
was the outcome determinative leader on the Sudan Claims 
Resolution Act.
    We got a chance to go to Ethiopia on a very difficult 
mission a year and a half ago, and to go to Sudan where she has 
been personally very vested and has made an enormous impact. 
She started in my office as a fellow, became a colleague, and I 
count her as a friend. She embodies the spirit of Ubuntu and is 
one of the people I have most cherished in my time in the 
Senate.
    Please join me in a quick round of applause.
    [Applause.]
    Senator Coons. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Very well--very well put.
    Senator Booker. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Yes. I have one more piece of legislation----
    Senator Booker. Please go ahead.
    The Chairman. Please, please go ahead.
    Senator Booker. I will do what my senior Senator tells me 
do. I will be very quick because I am not like Senator Coons. I 
want to register my outrage, disappointment, and betrayal of my 
staff who are behind me, Francesco, who is leaving me today.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Booker. I have abandonment fears, and he is 
fulfilling them. He came to my office, quickly made me fall in 
love with him because of his expertise, his knowledge, his 
dedication, and his above-and-beyond commitment, and then turns 
around and leaves me. He will be going to Nairobi to work in 
the State Department there, which hopefully we will see. All of 
us should be doing codels to that great country. I wish him the 
best, and he is going to be an extraordinary leader for our 
State Department. And I am just grateful for his service to us, 
but I am indeed very, very furious that he has decided to leave 
me.
    The Chairman. Good luck to you, and thank you for your 
service to the committee.
    [Applause.]
    The Chairman. We have one more vote, if we may. We will 
call up S. 3589, the Western Hemisphere Security Strategy Act. 
Are there any amendments to be offered? Senator Cruz.
    Senator Cruz. Mr. Chairman, I would like to call up Cruz 
First Degree 1 to S. 3589. My amendment would re-impose 
terrorism sanctions on the Revolutionary Forces of Colombia, on 
the FARC.
    In November, the Administration withdrew the designations 
of the FARC as a foreign terrorist organization as a specially-
designated global terrorist. They also removed the designations 
of 275 individuals. This decision, I believe, was both ill-
advised and reckless. The FARC is responsible for some of the 
most heinous terrorism in the Western Hemisphere. First and 
foremost, it was a gift to the Colombian far left. It provided 
them with momentum going into the most recent election, and it 
facilitated the ascendancy of Gustavo Petro, a development that 
I think is deeply harmful to the Western Hemisphere and the 
interest of the United States. The catastrophic effects on our 
national security and potentially on the U.S.-Colombian 
relationship may be felt for decades.
    By withdrawing the FARC's group designation, the 
Administration gave up a key tool through which the United 
States was keeping terrorists accountable for their role in a 
half-century armed conflict. The decision was made without 
consulting, let alone coordinating, with the Colombian 
Government. A few weeks after the decision was made, Columbia 
Special Jurisdiction for Peace, tasked with implementing the 
Peace Accords, issued summons for 47 FARC members for alleged 
involvement in the trafficking and forced recruitment of 
children. The list included five individuals delisted by the 
Administration.
    My amendment will begin to repair the damage of that 
decision by re-designating the FARC as an FTO and as an SDGT. 
It also designates seven individuals who have been instrumental 
in boosting the FARC and its terrorism. These are the five who 
were summoned by the Special Jurisdiction for Peace and two 
more FARC associates, and I would urge my colleagues to support 
the amendment.
    The Chairman. In November 2021, the Biden administration 
removed the umbrella designation over the entity of the FARC, 
which has renounced violence and is a legitimate political 
party, and includes rank-and-file former combatants that are 
complying with the terms of the 2016 Peace Accord, as well as 
former FARC members who are now serving as members of the 
Colombian Congress. The Administration made two new targeted 
FTO designations on the FARC dissident Segunda Marquetalia 
groups, which have denounced the peaceful transition that the 
other FARC members have created.
    These new designations ensure that our sanctions are 
targeted against the groups that have refused to lay down their 
arms and are still involved in terrorist activities in 
Colombia. Recalibrating our sanctions also ensures that 
individuals who laid down their arms and are fully complying 
with the terms of Colombia's Peace Accord are given the chance 
to be reincorporated into Colombian society.
    I firmly believe in the strategic and targeted use of U.S. 
sanctions. I have offered most of them, including our sanctions 
against terrorist organizations, but this amendment, I would 
say, is neither strategic nor targeted. The amendment would 
also seek to modify the existing FTO statute, which requires 
the executive branch to review designation every 5 years. This 
longstanding statutory framework has worked well for Democratic 
and Republican Administrations alike. Sudden modification 
should not take place in a piecemeal manner, and for all of 
these and other reasons, I will be voting ``no.''
    Is there anyone else who wishes to be heard on the 
amendment?
    Senator Kaine. Mr. Chair, briefly.
    The Chairman. Senator Kaine.
    Senator Kaine. I am going to vote against the amendment for 
the same reason. The FARC entered into a peace agreement with 
the Colombian Government in 2016. The FARC surrendered millions 
of rounds of ammunition, 8,000 weapons, thousands of landmines, 
grenades, and integrated into the political process and the 
life of the country. There are dissident elements, who, in 
2019, renounced that, but they are a tiny fraction of the FARC 
membership that signed the peace treaty, turned in their 
weapons, and have decided to operate within the bounds of civil 
society in Colombia.
    And so I think a re-imposition of the designation on the 
FARC at this point is not strategic. Instead, we should focus 
on the smaller group of dissident elements rather than have the 
broad-brush approach.
    Senator Cruz. Mr. Chairman, if I can respond. The Chairman 
has suggested that members of the FARC have renounced terrorism 
and laid down their arms. That may be true of some of them, but 
it is certainly not true of others. The individuals that are 
specified in this amendment to give some of the background, 
understand what the evidence is against them, first is Jose 
Benito Cabrera Cuevas, a/k/a Fabian Ramirez, who was the FARC's 
14th Front Commander until 2004. He has an outstanding red 
notice from Interpol. He has 32 arrest warrants, 17 detention 
orders, and two convictions in absentia. He was responsible for 
all drug-related operations of the FARC's drug trade and was a 
notorious executioner.
    The State Department offered a reward of up to $2.5 million 
for information leading to his arrest. He was presumed dead, 
but then he turned up alive. On December 11th, 2021, so not 
that long ago, the Special Jurisdiction for Peace issued a 
summons for him to appear due to credible charges of child 
trafficking. That is one of the individuals that the Biden 
administration lifted the designation on.
    Another individual, Erasmo Traslavina Benavides, a/k/a, 
Jimmy Guerrero--I am not sure why they all have names so 
different from their given names, but they do.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Cruz. He was the FARC's 33rd Front commander, one 
of the FARC's most violent battalions. There is an outstanding 
U.S. extradition order against him since 2005 for overseeing 
FARC's drug trafficking operations aimed at getting drugs into 
the U.S. He is responsible for several terrorist attacks, the 
most notable being the bombing of a radio station in 2010. In 
2012, Colombia's then defense minister and, today, their 
current ambassador to the United States announced a $2 million 
reward for information leading to his arrest. And on December 
11th, 2021, again, the Special Jurisdiction for Peace issued a 
summons for him to appear before it due to credible charges of 
child trafficking. Three others that are in a similar situation 
are Emiro Repero, Guillermo Enrique Torres Cueter, and Rodrigo 
Granda, all of whom are subject to summons from the Special 
Jurisdiction of Peace for credible charges of child 
trafficking.
    I believe our terrorism sanctions ought to have teeth. They 
should have meaning. It was a mistake for the Biden 
administration to delist people who are clearly terrorists, who 
are violent criminals, and that mistake had real consequences, 
not only of encouraging future terrorism, but, in this 
instance, of driving Colombia in a direction markedly anti-
American, markedly anti-cooperation with U.S. drug efforts. And 
I believe it would be a step of responsibility for Congress, 
ideally, in a bipartisan manner, to say we are going to stand 
against those who engage in drug trafficking, child 
trafficking, and violent terrorism.
    The Chairman. Let me just close by saying the Senator 
references six named individuals for targeted sanctions 
designations under a distinct counterterrorism sanctions and 
executive order, but his amendment does not limit it to that. 
His amendment is an overarching rescinding of the totality of 
the FARC designation, and there is no doubt--I think it is 
pretty undisputed--that there are a fair number of former FARC 
members who are complying fully with the law and the peace 
agreement, and, in fact, several of them are elected members of 
Congress.
    And so the reality is that while you may have some 
compelling names there, and I might join you in trying to 
pursue something on those names, your overall amendment is so 
overarching that it would undermine the ability to say if you 
do the right thing, if you leave arms smuggling, if you follow 
the law, and actually get elected to congress, we are going to 
sanction you anyway. And so for those reasons, I will be voting 
``no.''
    Will the Senator take a voice vote or----
    Senator Cruz. I would ask for a record vote.
    The Chairman. Recorded vote. The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    The Chairman. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    Senator Markey. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    Senator Booker. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schatz?
    Senator Schatz. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Senator Van Hollen. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    Senator Risch. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Johnson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Young?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cruz?
    Senator Cruz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rounds?
    Senator Rounds. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hagerty?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No.
    The Chairman. The clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 10; the nays are 12.
    The Chairman. And the amendment is not agreed to.
    Are there any other amendments on this legislation?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, all those in favor of passing the 
Western Hemisphere Security Strategy Act, S. 3589, will say 
aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All those opposed, say no.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it, and the legislation is 
agreed.
    This completes the committee's business.
    I ask unanimous consent that staff be authorized to make 
technical and conforming changes.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    With the thanks of the Chair, the business meeting is 
adjourned.


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



                              ----------                              




                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                       WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 3, 2022

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

                Summary of Action Taken by the Committee

                              LEGISLATION

  S. 4428, Taiwan Policy Act of 2022, with an amendment in the nature 
        of a substitute--Postponed due to Senate debate on NATO 
        protocols

  S.4653, Department of State Authorization Act of 2022--Held over

  S.Res. ----, Celebrating the United States-Republic of Korea alliance 
        and the dedication of the Wall of Remembrance at the Korean War 
        Veterans Memorial on July 27, 2022, without amendment--agreed 
        to by voice vote (although this resolution was agreed to, it 
        was not referred to the committee in time to be reported)

                              NOMINATIONS

  The Honorable Robert F. Godec, of Virginia, a Career member of the 
        Senior Foreign Service, Class of Career Minister, to be 
        Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United 
        States of America to the Kingdom of Thailand--agreed to by 
        voice vote (Barrasso and Hagerty recorded as no)

  Dr. Jonathan Henick, 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 Uzbekistan--agreed to by voice vote

  Mr. Lesslie Viguerie, 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 Kyrgyz Republic--agreed to by voice vote

  The Honorable Daniel N. Rosenblum, of Maryland, a Career member of 
        the Senior Executive Service, to be Ambassador Extraordinary 
        and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the 
        Republic of Kazakhstan--agreed to by voice vote

  Mr. Joey R. Hood, of New Hampshire, a Career member of the Senior 
        Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Republic of Tunisia--Held over

  The Honorable Puneet Talwar, of the District of Columbia, to be 
        Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United 
        States of America to the Kingdom of Morocco--agreed to by voice 
        vote (Rubio and Hagerty recorded as no)

  Ms. Candace A. Bond, of Missouri, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and 
        Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic 
        of Trinidad and Tobago--agreed to by voice vote (Rubio recorded 
        as no)

  The Honorable Randy W. Berry, of Colorado, a Career member of the 
        Senior Foreign Service, Class of Career Minister, to be 
        Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United 
        States of America to the Republic of Namibia--agreed to by 
        voice vote (Rubio recorded as no)

  Mr. William H. Duncan, of Texas, a Career member of the Senior 
        Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Republic of El Salvador--agreed to by voice vote

  Mr. Hugo F. Rodriguez, Jr., of Pennsylvania, a Career member of the 
        Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be 
        Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United 
        States of America to the Republic of Nicaragua--agreed to by 
        voice vote

  Ms. Heide B. Fulton, of West 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 Oriental Republic of Uruguay--agreed to by voice 
        vote

  Mr. Robert J. Faucher, 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 Republic of Suriname--agreed to by voice vote 
        (Barrasso recorded as no)

  Ms. Shefali Razdan Duggal, of California, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Kingdom of the Netherlands--agreed to by voice 
        vote (Rubio and Barrasso recorded as no)

  Ms. Angela Price Aggeler, of the District of Columbia, a Career 
        member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-
        Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary 
        of the United States of America to the Republic of North 
        Macedonia--agreed to by voice vote

  Ms. Carrin F. Patman, of Texas, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and 
        Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic 
        of Iceland--agreed to by voice vote (Rubio recorded as no)

  Mr. Gautam A. Rana, of New Jersey, 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 Slovak Republic--agreed to by voice vote

  Mr. Yohannes Abraham, of Virginia, to be Representative of the United 
        States of America to the Association of Southeast Asian 
        Nations, with the Rank and Status of Ambassador Extraordinary 
        And Plenipotentiary--agreed to by voice vote (Rubio and 
        Barrasso recorded as no)

                           Meeting Transcript

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 5:30 p.m., in 
Room S-216, the President's Room, Hon. Robert Menendez 
presiding.
    Present: Senators Menendez [presiding], Cardin, Coons, 
Murphy, Kaine, Markey, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen, Risch, 
Rubio, Romney, Portman, Young, Barrasso, Rounds, and Hagerty.

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

    The Chairman. All right.
    This meeting of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will 
come to order. If I could have everybody's attention we will 
get through this quickly.
    Thanks for everybody's flexibility today. Obviously, what 
we are doing on the floor is super important and historic. So I 
know that everybody is going to be thrilled on voting on the 
protocols.
    We have a holdover request from State Auth, which we are 
honoring, and we will take that up in the Taiwan bill in 
September. So I look forward to working with the Ranking Member 
to make that happen.
    Today, we are considering 17 nominations. We received a 
holdover request for one of them, Joey Hood for Tunisia. So we 
will be voting on 16.
    These are well qualified nominees. I intend to do it en 
bloc.
    Senator Risch?

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

    Senator Risch. I intend to support them. I would only ask 
that the record be left open until the close of business 
tomorrow so the Members can register a no on individuals.
    The Chairman. There will not be any objection to that.
    So without objection, we will now consider en bloc all of 
the nominations noticed for the business meeting except for 
Joey Hood.
    Is there a motion?
    Well, first, does anybody want to comment on it?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, is there a motion to move en bloc?
    Senator Booker. So moved.
    The Chairman. So moved. Is there a second?
    Senator Kaine. Second.
    Senator Portman. Second.
    The Chairman. Second.
    All right. All those in favor will say aye.
    All those opposed will say no.
    The ayes have it and the nominations are favorably reported 
to the Senate.
    There is also a resolution that the Ranking Member and I 
have agreed to. It is a bipartisan resolution by Senator 
Sullivan and Senator Duckworth, which basically celebrates the 
U.S.-Republic of Korea alliance, the dedication of the Wall of 
Remembrance.
    This is to make the Korean Government a little happier than 
they were as a result of the commemoration. They paid $22 
million for the wall and they did not get the type of attention 
from our Government that many think they should have, and so 
this is honoring that.
    Senator Risch. I move the adoption.
    The Chairman. Move the adoption? I am sorry?
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. It has been moved. Second it?
    Voice. Second.
    The Chairman. Seconded.
    All those in favor say aye.
    Opposed, say no.
    The resolution is favorably adopted and reported to the 
Senate, and that completes the committee's business.
    Thank you all for attending. All right.


    [Whereupon, at 5:33 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]



                              ----------                              




                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                     WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2022

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

                Summary of Action Taken by the Committee

                              LEGISLATION:

  S.4428, Taiwan Policy Act of 2022, with amendments--agreed to by roll 
        call vote (17-5)

          Yeas: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons (proxy), Kaine, 
        Merkley, Booker, Risch, Rubio (proxy), Johnson (proxy), Romney 
        (proxy), Portman (proxy), Young (proxy), Barrasso (proxy), 
        Cruz, Rounds, and Hagerty

          Nays: Murphy, Markey, Schatz, Van Hollen, and Paul

     Managers Substitute Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

     Paul 1st Degree Amendment #2--not agreed to by voice vote (Paul 
            recorded as yes)

     Markey 1st Degree Amendment #5--agreed to by roll call vote (12-
            10)

          Yeas: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, Kaine, 
        Markey, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen, Paul

          Nays: Risch, Rubio (proxy), Johnson (proxy), Romney, Portman 
        (proxy), Young (proxy), Barrasso (proxy), Cruz, Rounds, 
        Haggerty (proxy)

  S.4653, Department of State Authorization Act of 2022, with 
        amendments--agreed to by voice vote (Johnson, Barrasso, Paul, 
        and Rounds recorded as no)

     Managers Substitute Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

     Shaheen 1st Degree Modified Amendment #3--agreed to by roll call 
            vote (12-10)

          Yeas: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, Kaine, 
        Markey, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen, Portman (proxy)

          Nays: Risch, Rubio (proxy), Johnson (proxy), Romney, Paul, 
        Young (proxy), Barrasso, Cruz (proxy), Rounds, Haggerty

     Paul 1st Degree Amendment #2--not agreed to by roll call vote 
            (10-12)

          Yeas: Risch, Johnson (proxy), Romney, Portman (proxy), Paul, 
        Young (proxy), Barrasso, Cruz, Rounds, Hagerty

          Nays: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, Kaine, 
        Markey, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen, Rubio (proxy)

     Kaine 1st Degree Amendment #1--agreed to by voice vote (Paul 
            recorded as no)

     Cruz 1st Degree Amendment #3--not agreed to by roll call vote 
            (10-12)

          Yeas: Risch, Rubio (proxy), Johnson (proxy), Romney, Portman 
        (proxy), Young (proxy), Barrasso, Cruz, Rounds, Hagerty

          Nays: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, Kaine, 
        Markey, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen, Paul

                              NOMINATIONS:

  Mr. Rolfe Michael Schiffer, of New York, to be an Assistant 
        Administrator of the United States Agency for International 
        Development--agreed to by voice vote

  Mr. Nathaniel Fick, of Maine, to be Ambassador at Large for 
        Cyberspace and Digital Policy--agreed to by voice vote

  The Honorable Patrick Leahy, of Vermont, to be a Representative of 
        the United States of America to the Seventy-seventh Session of 
        the General Assembly of the United Nations--agreed to by voice 
        vote

  The Honorable James E. Risch, of Idaho, to be a Representative of the 
        United States of America to the Seventy-seventh Session of the 
        General Assembly of the United Nations--agreed to by voice vote 
        (Risch recorded as present)

                               FSO LISTS:

  Donald R. Alderman, et al., received May 19, 2022 (PN 2170), as 
        modified--agreed to by voice vote

                           Meeting Transcript

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:36 p.m., in S-
116, The Capitol, Hon. Robert Menendez, Chairman of the 
committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Menendez [presiding], Cardin, Shaheen, 
Coons, Murphy, Kaine, Markey, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van 
Hollen, Risch, Romney, Paul, Barrasso, Cruz, Rounds, and 
Hagerty.

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

    The Chairman. This business meeting of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee will come to order.
    Today we are considering two significant pieces of 
legislation, four nominees, and a Foreign Service List. First, 
the Taiwan Policy Act. This bill is intended to provide 
critical tools to respond to China's escalatory actions that 
threaten Taiwan.
    As all Members of this committee are aware, Beijing is 
seeking to establish a new normal across the Strait. Without 
concerted pushback, China will continue to engage in coercive, 
diplomatic, political, military, and economic steps. This 
legislation will revamp our security assistance and strengthen 
our deterrence so that we can meet this urgent challenge. A 
challenge brought on by China's increasing bellicose rhetoric 
and its coercive actions and threats to ``smash to 
smithereens'' Taiwan, as China's defense minister put it 
earlier this year. The United States does not seek war or 
increased tensions with Beijing. Just the opposite. But if we 
hope to have a credible deterrence and maintain cross-Strait 
stability, we need to be clear-eyed about what we are facing. 
Yes, we need to be clear-eyed in our response.
    Over the past year, our committee has given concerted 
attention to these issues. We have had public hearings, 
classified briefings, and a whole host of meetings in between. 
Particularly in the last several weeks, I appreciate all of the 
rigorous engagement with Members. I want to thank Senator 
Risch, and your team for all of your engagement. I want to 
thank Senator Cardin and your staff, in particular, for your 
productive approach to finding common ground among Members. I 
think the manager's package reflects much of that work, and the 
work of many other Members of the committee on both sides of 
the aisle.
    That said, I recognize that this bill, as with every piece 
of legislation, is not perfect, and that not every member, 
myself included, is getting everything they want. And so I 
offer my word to all Members of this committee on both sides 
that I will continue to work with you on any concerns you may 
have coming out of today's markup. But the only way we can be 
effective in moving forward our Taiwan policy and deterring 
China from its aggressive trajectory is by showing a united 
front. So I hope all of you will support the bill today and 
continue working with me to ensure that those pieces of the 
bill that we all strongly support are enacted into law.
    We are also considering the State Department authorization 
bill. Last year's State authorization was the first in nearly 2 
decades, and it was a major success. With today's markup, this 
committee once again is fulfilling our critical duty to make 
sure the Department has what it needs to carry out America's 
foreign policy. This bill will help bolster and advance the 
Department's important diplomatic work around the world and 
give our personnel additional tools to successfully lead and 
compete.
    Among a few key provisions, this bill will, improve efforts 
to recruit and retain the best talent possible for 
cybersecurity, digital, and technology roles; authorize funds 
for internet freedom programs to help activists and human 
rights defenders standing up to repressive regimes, providing 
access to fact-based and unbiased news; further advance 
diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility through paid 
internships, personnel increases at the Office of Civil Rights, 
and improve data collection on diversity.
    The bill also incorporates a number of priorities from 
committee Members on both sides of the aisle, including by way 
of reference; initiatives by Senator Cardin and Hagerty to 
provide the Department with the tools and reforms needed to 
conduct diplomacy in the 21st century and training of our 
personnel; provisions by Ranking Member Risch to improve the 
Department's process for reviewing security incidents and 
embassy security and construction requirements, which I hope 
will put an end to the needless politicization that these 
issues have played in the past, and many others. So I want to 
thank each member for their contributions and suggestions to 
strengthen the Department and support its personnel.
    I am pleased that we have negotiated a manager's package 
that includes more than 25 amendments by both Democrats and 
Republicans. I would like to take a minute to, again, commend 
the Ranking Member and his staff for engaging in productive 
negotiations throughout this process. This has allowed us to 
produce a bill with solid backing behind it as we move towards 
Senate passage, but there is a cautionary note. The key to 
passing State authorization is broad policy initiatives that 
have been included in the base text or by the manager's 
package. If we start adding amendments that are country 
specific or issue specific, it will be a death knell to the 
State authorization, which is why prior to last year, it took 
us 20 years before we could pass a bill.
    However, I must also note that as we advance this bill to 
the Senate and potentially an NDAA, as you all know, the 
clearance process becomes more difficult. It is possible that 
the provisions we pass today, although we will fight them tooth 
and nail, could ultimately fall. But regardless of the path 
forward, by marking up and passing another State authorization 
bill out of the committee, we are sending a strong bipartisan 
message that Congress values and supports the dedicated 
personnel of the State Department who make sacrifices every day 
to serve our Nation.
    Finally, on nominations. I am pleased that today's agenda 
includes Michael Schiffer, who has served the committee 
extraordinarily well in a very bipartisan manner. He is our 
Asia specialist. I hate to lose him, but he will ably act as an 
assistant administrator at USAID as well as a highly-qualified 
nominee to lead the State Department's new Cyber Bureau, 
Nathaniel Fick. I support both of them. I urge all our 
colleagues to do the same. We also have the nominations of the 
Ranking Member and Senator Leahy to serve as representatives to 
the U.N. General Assembly.
    With that, let me turn to Ranking Member Risch for his 
opening remarks.

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

    Senator Risch. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is an 
important agenda that we have today. China has been changing 
the status quo on Taiwan for years, and its message is clear: 
free, Democratic Taiwan must come under Chinese communist party 
authoritarian rule, regardless of what Taiwan wants. We all 
watched in dismay what happened in Hong Kong. We want to ensure 
Taiwan has a fighting chance. We must act now. If the status of 
Taiwan changes, it would have disastrous consequences for the 
U.S. economy, national security, and the entire Indo-Pacific.
    Economically, China's annexation of Taiwan would endanger 
trillions of dollars, U.S. trade and investment, and put China 
in control of the primary shipping routes for top U.S. trade 
and partners. Militarily, China would have a platform on the 
first island chain and dominate the Western Pacific, enabling 
it to threaten nearby U.S. territories and the U.S. homeland, 
and providing full control over the main waterway that connects 
China to the West. Moreover, the consequences of Japan's 
security and U.S. credibility are hard to overstate. Many U.S. 
allies and partners fear Taiwan is just China's first step. 
China has been taking other aggressive steps for some time, 
setting up air defense zones that overlap Korea and Japan, 
intimidating commercial shipping through the South China Sea, 
and changing regional countries' access to their own waters.
    That is why this bill is necessary. I am glad it includes 
important elements of my Taiwan Deterrence Act. First, a 
foreign military financing program for Taiwan. This accelerates 
Taiwan military reform and expands training for the Taiwanese 
military using realistic scenarios. Second, identifying ways to 
expedite Taiwan arms sales and establishing a war reserve 
stockpile for Taiwan, like the one we have with Israel. 
Finally, working with Taiwan on civilian defense and reserves.
    I want to make one thing clear: this bill does not change 
U.S. policy towards Taiwan. Our One China policy does not take 
a position on Taiwan sovereignty, but, instead, emphasizes that 
any resolution of the issues between China and Taiwan must be 
resolved peacefully and with the free will of both parties. The 
Taiwan Resolutions Act also makes clear that our assurance to 
maintain Taiwan's defense capability is at the center of our 
relationship with Taiwan.
    We must be proactive on Taiwan now, get ahead of a future 
crisis, and give Xi Jinping reasons to think twice about 
invading or coercing Taiwan. The future of U.S. economic and 
national security in the Indo-Pacific depends on it. I want to 
underscore what the Chairman said. I could not agree with him 
more than on this issue, unit is absolutely critical. It will 
be weighed and measured by the Chinese.
    On the State Department authorization, I would like to 
start by thanking the Chairman and his staff for the energy and 
effort they put into getting to ``yes'' on this bill. These 
types of authorizations are always compromises and never 
perfect, and no one gets everything they want as was shown by 
the many years that we went without such an authorization. I am 
glad to have been able to work with the Chairman on this. That 
said, I am very pleased to have the Diplomatic Support and 
Security Act, which I partnered and worked with Senator Murphy 
on, and my update to the Secure Embassy Construction and 
Counterterrorism Act, and those be included in the text. And I 
appreciate the Chairman's remarks in that regard.
    These have the potential to make a generational change at 
the State Department, recalculating the Department's risk 
balance while saving the taxpayer potentially billions of 
dollars. Moreover, this bill better hold the Department 
accountable for providing Congress with the information needed 
to provide robust oversight. I have been very vocal for the 
last several years of my displeasure with how the State 
Department has waived certain privileges and immunities for our 
diplomats in China in order to kowtow to Beijing's COVID 
madness. My provisions in this bill will go a long way in 
making sure that never again will the Department be able to 
legally, at least, hide the ball from Congress on something as 
vital to diplomacy as the diplomatic status that keeps our 
people abroad safe.
    For these reasons, I strongly support this bill, even while 
acknowledging that it isn't perfect. None of us get everything 
that we want, but we all got enough to get to ``yes,'' and 
hopefully that leads to more effective diplomacy and a more 
efficient and secure State Department.
    I ask that the Members of the committee be permitted to 
submit requests to the clerk in writing to be recorded as a 
``no'' on any item on today's agenda. Lastly, I would like to 
state for the record I am planning to vote for all the nominees 
on agenda. However, I will not be voting on my own nomination, 
not because I have questions about the qualifications----
    (Laughter.)
    Senator Risch [continuing]. But rather because ethics so 
dictates. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. All right. Well, I will vote for you.
    Senator Risch. Thank you. Somebody call Guinness World Book 
of Records.
    (Laughter.)
    The Chairman. So thank you, Senator Risch. We really 
appreciate all of your work. So let me start off to consider en 
bloc all the nominations and the FSO list noticed for this 
meeting. There is an FSO list for nominees, including our two 
colleagues.
    Is there a motion to approve these nominations en bloc?
    Senator Cardin. So move.
    The Chairman. So moved. Is there a second?
    Senator Shaheen. Second.
    The Chairman. It is moved and seconded. Does anyone wish to 
speak to any of the nominations? Senator Hagerty.
    Senator Hagerty. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to reflect 
my respect and admiration for Michael Schiffer. I had the 
benefit of working with him when I served in the executive 
branch. Very competent professional. Like you, I will miss him 
on this committee, but I wish him the very best.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Anyone else? Senator Markey.
    Senator Markey. I would like to speak on behalf of Senator 
Risch. I think he is well qualified.
    (Laughter.)
    Senator Risch. What a wonderful team.
    Senator Markey.--dedication to developing your expertise.
    Senator Risch. Thank you. I appreciate that.
    The Chairman. I do not think you will see yourself in an ad 
in Idaho, so----
    (Laughter.)
    Senator Risch. Oh, I hope not.
    The Chairman. Very nice.
    (Laughter.)
    The Chairman. Anyone else?
    (No response.)
    The Chairman. If not, the motion has been made and seconded 
to vote for the nominations en bloc.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All those opposed, say no.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it. A majority of Members 
present, having voted in the affirmative, the ayes have it. The 
nominations are agreed to.
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman, please record me as not voting 
on my own, but voting ``yes'' on the other three.
    The Chairman. And Senator Risch shall be recorded as 
abstaining on his own nomination.
    So now we will move first to the State Department 
Authorization Act of 2022. Without objection, we will consider 
S. 4653, the Department of State Authorization Act of 2022. 
First, I would like to entertain a motion to adopt the 
manager's package. Is there such a motion?
    Senator Cardin. So move.
    The Chairman. So moved. Seconded?
    Senator Shaheen. Second.
    The Chairman. Seconded. Does anyone wish to speak on the 
manager's package?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, all those in favor will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All those opposed will say no.
    [No response.]
    And the manager's package is agreed to.
    Now, if there are amendments on State Auth, just as we did 
on the USICA, which helped us get through it effectively, I 
will call on each of you in order of seniority on the 
committee, alternating between majority and minority Members. 
When we call upon you, please indicate whether you wish to call 
up one amendment, and we will do multiple rounds, if necessary. 
I am going to try to limit it to 5 minutes in order to get 
through this and to the Taiwan legislation. So with that, 
Senator Cardin, do you have any amendments?
    Senator Cardin. Well, Mr. Chairman, first, let me thank you 
for including in the manager's package four amendments that I 
had noted. I will not go through all four of these, other than 
the one with Senator Hagerty from our subcommittee that deals 
with the training. We appreciate this being included in the 
manager's package, and I have no additional amendments.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Risch?
    Senator Risch. I want to likewise say that I appreciate the 
work that we did on this. What I wanted is in the manager's 
package. Obviously, I had to give things up to get there, but I 
did, and as a result of that, I would accept the manager's 
package.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Shaheen, do you have any 
amendments?
    Senator Shaheen. I do not have any in the manager's 
package. I have one I would like to call up.
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Senator Shaheen. But is that--is now the appropriate time?
    The Chairman. Yes, this is the appropriate time.
    Senator Shaheen. Okay. Actually there are two that I would 
like to call up and speak to, and one I would withdraw. The 
first would codify the Office of Global Women's Issues at the 
Department of State. And, again, I appreciate that this has 
been a point of contention, but it really should not be because 
the Office of Global Women's Issues is designed to look at our 
foreign policy and address half of the world's population--
women--and to try and consider the economic well-being of women 
throughout the world. When the previous Administration was in 
office, this committee voted for an ambassador to the Office of 
Global Women's Issues. My recollection is that that was not 
controversial at all, and so I am hard pressed to understand 
why we have had so much trouble authorizing this office 
permanently, particularly given what we know are the challenges 
that women and children face as the result of COVID worldwide. 
Women are the most impacted by war in general, and the 
conflicts that are going on.
    And so having this office staffed, and I appreciate that 
position that our colleagues have had to the nomination of 
Geeta Gupta and have opposed that, but that is really based, I 
believe, on misinformation because this office is not about 
health issues for women. That is dealt with other places in the 
State Department. This office is about the well-being of women 
around the world. And one of the things that we know is that 
when we empower women, not only do their families do better, 
but their communities and their countries do better. They are 
more stable, and so it is good policy to do this.
    And, Mr. Chairman, again, I appreciate that this has been 
an issue that has produced some controversy in the committee, 
so I am going to withdraw the amendment, but I would certainly 
hope that in the next Congress, we are able to permanently 
authorize the Office of Global Women's Issues because I think 
it is in our country's interest to do that. So I will withdraw 
the amendment, but I hope that people will consider this issue 
in the future.
    The second amendment that I would like to call up, if I can 
find my notes here--is the Shaheen modified First Degree 
amendment number 3, which would advance the Global Respect Act. 
This amendment is based on legislation that was introduced with 
four Members of this committee. Senators Portman, Murphy, 
Markey, and Merkley are all co-sponsors of this legislation, 
and there is strong bipartisan support from other Members in 
the Senate. The amendment would do three things. It would, 
first, require the executive branch to send Congress a list of 
foreign persons complicit in inhumane treatment of LGBTI 
individuals. Second, it would deny or revoke visas to 
individuals placed on this list and require the State 
Department to designate a senior officer responsible for 
tracking this violence. And I think it is very important that 
we make clear to countries around the world that behavior that 
intimidates LGBTI individuals is unacceptable, and visa 
blocking sanctions would send a very strong message to deter 
these human rights abuses. So thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak on 
the amendment?
    Senator Paul. I just have a question. Is it a human right 
for minors to surgically or medically change the appearance of 
their sex?
    Senator Shaheen. I understand that there are philosophical 
differences about this issue. What I am suggesting is that 
everybody should be treated the same, and that for those 
countries that do not - that treat people bad that----
    Senator Paul. When I think on things like respect, respect 
your personal decisions, you would not find any disagreement. 
But that is why something like when you say something is a 
human right, it is important to know what they are. That is why 
we have some of these debates over things human rights because 
there is, you know, a great deal of difference on whether or 
not we think, you know, a 12-year-old can make these decisions, 
or a 14-year-old can make a decision to have their breasts 
removed or to have their, you know, female genitalia removed, 
so I do not know.
    I mean, if we are unsure whether it is a human right, it 
clouds the decision about, you know, voting on respecting 
adults for being whatever they want to be. I am all for that, 
but I am a little concerned that there are people now 
advocating, including the head of our HHS is advocating that 
minors should not have to ask parents for permission. If the 
parents object, the minor should be allowed to make these life-
changing decisions.
    Senator Shaheen. I do not know what position the Secretary 
at HHS has taken on this. This legislation does not address 
that. It addresses our efforts to ensure that all people are 
treated with respect by the countries in which they live.
    Senator Paul. If it were a sense of the Congress, if you 
were willing to change it to be a sense of the Congress that we 
should have respect for all people and that kind of thing, I 
would be for it. I guess if it is unknown what human rights we 
are talking about, whether or not a minor has the right to 
change the appearance of their sex surgically without their 
parents' permission, whether that is a human right, then, 
again, you know, I would have to vote ``no'' on that.
    Senator Shaheen. But this amendment is not suggesting that, 
Senator Paul.
    Senator Paul. Well, no, some people do believe you have a 
human right to make a surgical decision on the appearance of 
your sex as a minor. I mean, this is a huge debate going on in 
our country and elsewhere. If we condemn people, we have no 
condemning them. If you think, well, we are going to condemn 
people who throw people off of buildings, I am there. That is a 
terrible thing. I would say I do not want those people visiting 
our country either, but if it is a conservative Christian 
nation that says, my goodness, we do not think that minors 
should be making a decision on removing their genitalia without 
their parents or against their parents' permission, you know, 
then that is a completely different thing we are talking about.
    Senator Shaheen. Well, we are talking about 
internationally-recognized human rights. So the amendment is 
not suggesting that----
    Senator Paul. Once again----
    Voice. Let her talk.
    Senator Shaheen [continuing]. We should make those 
decisions. We are saying that--I am--I think this amendment is 
saying that we think it is important as a value for us to speak 
out for the protection of those people who are being seriously 
discriminated against and losing their lives in some countries.
    The Chairman. All right. Senator Risch?
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman, I am going to vote against 
this amendment. I know Senator Shaheen is very well-intentioned 
on this, but I think because of the un-clarity of this issue, 
as I think Senator Paul's question probably underscored, it 
draws a lot of controversy. And the biggest problem is there 
was a House companion of this on a similar nature that passed 
the House only by a very razor-thin margin. And I do not--I 
think we need to pass this thing clean as we have--the Chairman 
and I have negotiated it. So for that reason, I am going to be 
voting against this amendment.
    The Chairman. Anyone else? Senator Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. Yeah, Mr. Chairman and Members, as I am 
reading the act here, it really is focused on attacks on LGBTQI 
individuals. And it notes that ``Thousands of individuals 
around the world are targeted for harassment, attack, arrest, 
and murder on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender 
identity. Those who commit crimes against those individuals do 
so with impunity. Often they are not held accountable.'' It is 
not wandering into the categories justified by my colleague. I 
think this is really an important value for us to address. I 
strongly support it, and I thank you, Senator Shaheen.
    Senator Markey. Would the Senator yield?
    Senator Merkley. Yes.
    Senator Markey. I just want to add onto it. The text 
actually relates to torture, ill treatment, prolonged 
detention, disappearance, abduction, flagrant denial of rights.
    The Chairman. Anyone else seeking----
    Senator Markey. And I intend to vote for the amendment.
    The Chairman. Anyone else seeking to be recognized on this 
subject?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. I will just close it then. First of all, I 
want to thank my friend from New Hampshire for elevating an 
important issue. I have read the text of her amendment. I see 
nothing to suggest giving certain unique rights to under-aged 
individuals in this regard. It is absolutely not in her 
amendment. But we do know that LGBT people around the world 
continue to face discrimination, violence, and bigotry. In nine 
countries, same sex relations are punishable by death. This 
amendment would require the Administration to impose sanctions 
on designated foreign persons responsible for gross violations 
of human rights against LGBTQ individuals. I think that we 
could just stand united in making that statement, and I support 
the amendment.
    With that, does the Senator seek a voice vote or a recorded 
vote?
    Senator Shaheen. I am happy with a voice vote.
    The Chairman. Okay.
    Senator Risch. I would ask for a recorded vote, please.
    The Chairman. Senator Risch asks for a recorded vote.
    The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    Senator Markey. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    Senator Booker. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schatz?
    Senator Schatz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Senator Van Hollen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    Senator Risch. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
    Senator Romney. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Young?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cruz?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rounds?
    Senator Rounds. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hagerty?
    Senator Hagerty. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 12; the nays are 10.
    The Chairman. And the amendment is agreed to.
    The next person present, Senator Romney, do you have any 
amendments to offer?
    Senator Romney. I do not.
    The Chairman. Okay. Senator Coons, do you have any 
amendments you wish to offer?
    Senator Coons. No amendments. Thank you for your hard work 
on this with the Ranking Member. I appreciate the inclusion of 
a number of important issues in the manager's package.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Paul, you have an 
amendment you wish to offer?
    Senator Paul. This is Paul First Degree 2. This would amend 
Title VII and the following: ``a prohibition instead of funding 
certain overseas activities of the Department of State, of the 
USAID.'' Most Americans would be horrified if they knew how 
their tax dollars were being spent overseas. Examples of 
wasteful spending overseas are practically endless. With our 
national debt over $30 trillion, the American people likely 
find it insulting that the State Department spent $150,000 to 
train Kenyan artists and to identify upcoming artists and 
performers, train them in arts, entrepreneurship, and give them 
the need to be able to succeed in the industry. The State 
Department also spent $30,000 to put up or put on six 
performances of a play in Dubai addressing a social issue of 
the grantee's choice. As if those examples were not enough, it 
may shock taxpayers to or learn that the State Department paid 
$200,000 to put together at least 12 virtual book clubs, 
lasting from 1 to 3 years--that is a long book club--with a 
minimum of 15 Afghans and 15 Pakistanis they teach.
    My amendment prohibits the State Department and USAID from 
wastefully spending money on foreign classes for artists, 
performers, theatrical plays, and book clubs. There are plenty 
of other examples of waste I could point to, but my amendment 
only targets the most egregious forms of waste that the 
American people have up to now been forced to pay for. And I 
would request a recorded vote.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to be heard on 
the amendment?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, the amendment would prohibit the 
State Department and USAID from funding a slew of important 
activities, such as clean energy programs, prevention of 
hazardous waste incineration, critical democracy and public 
diplomacy programs, for future foreign leaders. I appreciate 
the Senator's continuing concerns about waste, but the fact is 
that many of these activities bring value to our foreign policy 
to the nation where the activities take place. This would cut 
student exchange programs that allow future leaders to travel 
to the United States to learn about the importance of 
democracy, civil society, and good governance. So for those 
reasons, I will be voting no on the amendment, and I urge my 
colleagues to do the same. The Senator asked for a recorded 
vote.
    Senator Paul. One brief follow-up. The amendment only lists 
three categories: holding classes for arts and performers, 
staging theatrical plays, and hosting book clubs.
    Senator Rounds. May I have a point of clarification?
    The Chairman. If you look at page 2 of your amendment, also 
does so subsidizing a green energy program, subsidizing foreign 
chambers of commerce. Is that--which amendment is that?
    Voice. It is this one.
    The Chairman. I am sorry. There was another amendment. I am 
sorry. That is the wrong version. Okay. I still oppose it. I 
believe that the engagement on these grounds are incredibly 
important in our foreign policy. Does the Senator want a 
recorded vote?
    Senator Paul. Please.
    The Chairman. The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    Senator Markey. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    Senator Booker. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schatz?
    Senator Schatz. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Senator Van Hollen. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    Senator Risch. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
    Senator Romney. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Young?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cruz?
    Senator Cruz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rounds?
    Senator Rounds. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hagerty?
    Senator Hagerty. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No.
    The clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 10, and the noes are 
12.
    The Chairman. And the amendment is not agreed to.
    Senator Murphy, do you have any amendments?
    Senator Murphy. No amendments.
    The Chairman. Okay. Thank you. Senator Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso. No.
    The Chairman. Senator Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. I do have one. First, I will withdraw Kaine 
First Degree 2, and I will call up Kaine First Degree 1. This 
is a bill that we earlier passed in this committee by a 21 to 1 
vote. It was Senate Joint Resolution 17, which was the 
bipartisan bill to prohibit a President from unilaterally 
withdrawing from NATO. I would like to add to the State 
Department authorization bill. We don't need to repeat the 
debate that we had in March on this matter.
    The Chairman. Anyone wishing to be heard on the amendment?
    Senator Rounds. This is Kaine Number 1?
    Senator Kaine. Yes, Kaine First Degree 1 concerning the 
Senate Joint Res. 17 into the State Department authorization.
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Senator Risch.
    Senator Risch. Would Senator Kaine yield to a question?
    Senator Kaine. Yes. Yes.
    Senator Risch. I did not realize this one was going to be 
on here. Does this have the language in it that clarifies that 
this language applies only to this treaty----
    Senator Kaine. Yes.
    Senator Risch [continuing]. And not to all of them?
    Senator Kaine. Part of that discussion was whether we 
should make this only about NATO withdrawal or withdrawal from 
any treaty, and it is just limited to a NATO withdrawal.
    Senator Risch. Just limited. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, 
Mr. Chair.
    The Chairman. Anyone else wishing--yes. Senator Rounds.
    Senator Rounds. Yeah, just a question for the Senator. If I 
am reading the correct one, it would require a two-thirds vote 
to withdraw, but question is, and I am assuming that you 
thought this all the way through, if this requires a two-thirds 
vote, that would mirror what is found in the Constitution to--
--
    Senator Kaine. Enter.
    Senator Rounds [continuing]. Enter into it.
    Senator Kaine. Mm-hmm.
    Senator Rounds. But the reason for the two-thirds vote is 
because it is by constitutional directive. Would it not be--
even if we put within a statute a two-thirds requirement, 
simply the term ``notwithstanding'' would be included in any 
majority vote to withdraw with a majority vote from a treaty 
that we are talking about.
    Senator Kaine. Yes. The bill--actually, it is in the 
alternative, so the version that we passed in March was the 
alternative. A President could not withdraw from NATO, which 
was ratified by two-thirds vote in the Senate, except by and 
with the advice and consent of the Senate, provided that two-
thirds of the Senators present concur, or pursuant to an act of 
Congress. So a President could not do it on his or her own, but 
if a President wanted to withdraw from NATO, it would either 
require two-thirds vote in the Senate to withdraw or two-thirds 
vote to ratify, or an act of Congress. And it is just to make 
the point that having--the fact that we got into this with a 
Senate ratification, a President could not unilaterally 
withdraw.
    The Chairman. And an act of Congress would obviously be 
60----
    Senator Rounds. Fifty, well.
    The Chairman [continuing]. Well, 51, but 60 if it was 
subject to a filibuster.
    Senator Kaine. And this was a matter, just to refresh from 
March, the Supreme Court had this case before it in Goldwater 
v. Carter. In the 1970s, President Carter withdrew from the 
from a Taiwan treaty, actually. Senators Goldwater and others 
challenged it in the court system, saying you did this 
unilaterally--do not come to Congress. And the Supreme Court 
dismissed the case saying it is a political question for the 
branches to revise among themselves. And in that case, the 
Court said the fact that Congress expressed no--in no formal 
way disagreement with the Carter policy, it was said, hey, you 
guys work it out. So the Supreme Court has said in that case 
that it is up for the executive and the legislature to work out 
the question of withdrawal from treaties.
    Senator Rounds. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Anyone else?
    Senator Paul. Mr. Chair?
    The Chairman. Yes, Senator Paul.
    Senator Paul. I will make this point just briefly because 
we have this discussion before. The Constitution gave the 
treaty-making power to the Senate. We are all trained in 
treaty-making power that was given to the Senate by asking the 
House. So we pass a bill the House will vote on, the Senate 
will vote on, all trained in treaty-making power that was given 
exclusively to the Senate. I think it is unconstitutional and 
it will fail in court.
    The Chairman. I strongly support Senator Kaine's amendment, 
passed the committee virtually unanimous. I think it makes 
eminent sense. Senator----
    Senator Kaine. A voice vote is fine.
    The Chairman [continuing]. A voice vote?
    All those in favor of the Kaine Amendment will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All those opposed will say no.
    Senator Paul. No.
    The Chairman. The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed 
to.
    Senator Paul. Can I be recorded as ``no,'' please?
    The Chairman. And Senator Paul shall be recorded as a 
``no.''
    All right. Did I call upon Senator Barrasso? Do you have 
any amendments to see if you have any amendments?
    Senator Barrasso. Yes.
    The Chairman. I did. Okay. So Senator Cruz is next.
    Senator Cruz. I want to call up Cruz 3. This committee is 
well aware of the back and forth when it has happened 
concerning the Iran nuclear deal. At the beginning of this 
year, on February 4th, the Biden administration granted a 
waiver for international work on seven civil nuclear projects 
in Iran. At the time, we were told that whatever the wisdom was 
of those individual projects, the goal was to facilitate 
reentry into the Iran deal. It was one of many concessions made 
up front by the Administration that squandered American 
leverage at the outset with the promise of yet more concessions 
on the back end.
    This Administration seems desperate to return to a deal 
which I think would substantially undermine the national 
security of the United States. Even despite a willingness to 
concede almost anything, they still have yet to be able to 
reach a deal. And if the Biden administration succeeded, these 
waivers, I think, would be affirmatively harmful. They 
legitimize Iran's nuclear program. They allow Iran to keep 
facilities open that we know they are using to build their way 
to a nuclear arsenal, all the while under an active 
investigation from the IAEA. And additionally, they serve as a 
gift to Putin and the Russian nuclear program. The country that 
uses these waivers to sell technology to Iran is Russia, and 
there are tens of billions of dollars at stake that Russia is 
making because of these waivers given by the Administration.
    It finances Putin and creates a massive hole in our Russia 
sanctions, obviously right in the middle of a critical time 
with the war in Ukraine. And nevertheless, just last month, the 
Biden administration yet again renewed these waivers. I think 
that does not make any sense. My amendment rescinds the 
waivers, and I urge my colleagues to vote yes.
    The Chairman. Senator Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. I am going to oppose Senator Cruz's 
amendment, and I thank you. We share a concern about Iran. We 
share a concern about the use of sanctions and the waivers. We 
do not know whether the Administration is going to react the 
JCPOA or not, but we do know if they do, it is going to come 
under INARA. We are going to have a chance to review and a 
statute that we created for congressional review. That is where 
this process should be taken up, and your amendment really 
modifies the law that we have in place today dealing with the 
review, prejudging a review before we even get to it. So I 
would oppose your amendment.
    The Chairman. Any other Members seeking recognition?
    [No response.]
    Senator Cruz. So I will say in brief response to Senator 
Cardin's comments that the waivers are in place. The 
Administration has put them in place. And so Senator Cardin's 
suggestion that if there is ultimately a deal, it will come 
before this body under INARA. I hope that is right, although 
the Administration has not been unequivocal on that, but I hope 
that is right. The State Department legal advisers had a theory 
to avoid INARA. I hope they do not try to go down that road.
    But INARA is not the vehicle to review the waiver of the 
civilian nuclear way because that has already happened. That 
exists right now with or without a JCPOA. The administration 
has entered those waivers and just reissued those waivers, and 
I would point out this is while the Iranian regime is actively 
and aggressively trying to murder former senior U.S. officials, 
including the former Secretary of State, including the former 
national security advisor, including the former assistant 
secretary of state.
    We all heard, in front of our committee, Secretary of State 
Blinken testified that State is spending $2 million a month in 
security to protect former senior officials. And the idea that 
we would be giving them waivers, facilitating nuclear 
technology into their country while they continue to actively 
try to murder senior officials. And I got to say the exchange 
that Secretary Blinken and I had when I asked is it true that 
your negotiators asked them would you stop trying to murder 
senior U.S. officials, and they said, no, we are going to 
continue trying to murder them and you continued negotiating, I 
think it is very difficult to justify giving them a 
multibillion-dollar discretionary waiver. And so this amendment 
revokes that waiver.
    Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Senator Risch?
    Senator Risch. Briefly. Look, I am going vote for this, and 
I got to tell you, as much as I would go further than this, to 
be honest with you. The frustration I have had in dealing with 
this Iran situation is just--it is one of the strongest 
frustrations I have had since serving on this committee. On 
this committee, we all agree to the bottom line and what should 
happen, but being able to get there, we go through this 
whiplash politically. And, frankly, I am sure glad the Iranians 
have not agreed to sign, and I hope that continues.
    This should not be under a congressional act, a review or 
anything else. This is a pure, unadulterated treaty. If this is 
not a treaty, nothing is a treaty, and it should come here, and 
it should come for a two-thirds vote. But be that as it may, it 
is just incredibly frustrating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Romney. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Senator Romney?
    Senator Romney. I would like to also speak in favor of 
Senator Cruz's amendment. I strongly agree with the points that 
he has made. I would also note that I do not think this weakens 
the President's negotiating hand. I think it strengthens his 
negotiating hand. I think it lets the negotiators understand 
that the Senate feels very strongly that we should not bend as 
we have, and that they ought to move if they want to get a deal 
done. I agree with him. I do not want to get another deal done, 
but one thing is for sure. We should not be allowing this 
subsidy going on for Russia and, for that matter, for Iran 
given the malevolent activities being carried out right now. 
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Anyone else?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, I will close this debate. I clearly 
voiced my opposition to the 2015 JCPOA, and I have voiced my 
serious concerns about re-entering what I understand to be the 
nature of this agreement. However, this amendment seems to be 
targeted towards that effort, but it goes further by tying the 
hands of any administration that might seek a more 
comprehensive and stronger arms control agreement with Iran. It 
strips the waiver authority that might make possible 
nonproliferation benefits of such an agreement, like shipping 
out Iran's high enriched uranium out of intervention. It also 
sets a precedent for amending sanctions-related laws, in this 
case removing the regional and national security waiver, after 
the fact and through other bills.
    So for all those reasons, I am going to vote no, and I 
would tell my friend that the Administration has publicly made 
the commitment that should they enter an agreement, it will be 
submitted to Congress via INARA, and I will hold them to that.
    With that, do you seek a recorded vote?
    Senator Cruz. Please.
    The Chairman. The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    Senator Markey. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    Senator Booker. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schatz?
    Senator Schatz. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Senator Van Hollen. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    Senator Risch. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
    Senator Romney. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Young?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cruz?
    Senator Cruz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rounds?
    Senator Rounds. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hagerty?
    Senator Hagerty. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No.
    The clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 10; the noes are 12.
    The Chairman. And the amendment is not agreed to.
    Senator Markey, do you have any amendments, State 
Department?
    Senator Markey. I have no amendments. Thanks to staff for 
their good work, including the language on the critical limited 
supply chain. I appreciate their work.
    The Chairman. Senator Rounds?
    Senator Rounds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the 
cooperative work being done on Rounds 1 and 2 and it being 
incorporated already. Rounds 3, I will withdraw at this time as 
per our agreement.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. I am all good, and thank you for the very 
collaborative work of your team.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Hagerty?
    Senator Hagerty. I just appreciate the good cooperation 
between our staffs, Senator Cardin, and very much look forward 
to seeing this bill pass.
    The Chairman. Senator Booker, any amendments?
    Senator Booker. I just want to say I am going to withdraw 
Booker 1, but I do want to thank Senator Cardin and Senator 
Sanders for working with me on establishing an office to 
monitor and combat islamophobia, and for its creating of a 
special envoy for monitoring islamophobia. As we all know, 
Muslims around the world are facing extraordinary persecution 
from Myanmar, from Xinjiang. We are a body, I think, in a 
bipartisan way, which is concerned about religious persecution. 
We are seeing it in significant ways, and I am hoping that we 
can work to get this position established.
    The Chairman. Senator Schatz?
    Senator Schatz. No amendments, thank you, Chairman.
    The Chairman. Senator Van Hollen?
    Senator Van Hollen. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, first of 
all, thank you and your staffs for your cooperation on a number 
of amendments that are already part of the State Department 
authorization bill in the manager's amendment. I appreciate 
that. I have an amendment. I want to talk about it. We have an 
understanding, and I will not ask for a vote on this amendment, 
but I would like, Mr. Chairman, your good faith efforts going 
forward on this issue. The amendment is the Visa Waiver Program 
country requirement. I think everybody around this table knows 
that we work to try to enter into visa waiver programs with 
countries to facilitate traffic to the United States and U.S. 
travel overseas.
    At the heart of that relationship is security but also 
reciprocity, and this amendment is pretty simple if you take a 
look at it. It just says if you become part of the United 
States Visa Waiver Program, that country cannot discriminate 
against American visitors to that country based on race, or 
ethnicity, or religion, or anything else. They cannot 
discriminate because you are African American, Hispanic 
American, or any other kind of American. That is the heart of 
this, and I think it is very important that as a country we 
make it very clear that we are all red, white, and blue.
    Now, there are a number of countries seeking participation 
right now. I will tell you this particular language arose 
because many of us have been hoping and trying and, like, want 
Israel to become a part of the Visa Waiver Program. But within 
the last month, the military administration, Israeli Military 
Administration over at the West Bank has put in force some 
rules that dramatically restrict visitors to the West Bank. Our 
Ambassador, Tom Knight, has expressed his concern about it.
    That is one issue. The issue is American visitors and 
whether an American visitor would be discriminated against 
based on their ethnicity or race. And if you look at them in 
their current state, it is pretty clear to me that if you are a 
Palestinian-American, you will have different treatment if you 
want to travel to the West Bank, than if you are another 
American who wants to go visit a settlement on the West Bank. 
That is not reciprocity. That is unequal treatment of American 
citizens based on their ethnicity.
    So I am not going to offer this for a vote, Mr. Chairman. I 
think it is an important issue. I want more countries, 
including Israel, to be part of this program, but equal 
treatment and reciprocity is at the heart of this program, and 
no American should be treated any differently than any other. I 
will not pursue the amendment.
    The Chairman. Well, I appreciate the Senator withdrawing at 
this time, and I also appreciate the sentiment expressed in 
Senator Van Hollen's amendments. American citizens should not 
be subject to discriminating entry restrictions on the basis of 
ethnicity or for any other reason in that regard. Reciprocity 
means that Americans must enjoy the same ease of entry that we 
grant any partner nation, so I support his effort to engage the 
Administration on this and work closely with you and with them 
to resolve any issues of reciprocity.
    Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Senator Merkley. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Senator Merkley.
    Senator Merkley. I would just like to applaud the Senator, 
the view he just expressed, and that Chris Van Hollen has 
expressed about discrimination against affected classes. We 
have to stand up for all Americans. We stand up against 
discrimination at home. We have to stand up against 
discrimination against American citizens abroad. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Now, I have gone around the table 
once, and I think it might be more propitious to ask, and we 
will do it by seniority, whether anyone else has an amendment 
for the State Department authorization.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, then--just to make sure we got the 
right language here.
    The question is on the motion--first, is there a motion to 
approve S. 4653, as amended?
    Senator Cardin. So move.
    The Chairman. So moved, and seconded?
    Senator Shaheen. Second.
    The Chairman. All those--is it--do we have an agreement on 
a voice vote? Okay.
    All those in favor will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All those opposed will say no.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it, and the legislation is 
approved and sent to the Senate. Those who wish to be recorded 
as a ``no''? Senator Barrasso, Senator Paul, Senator Rounds 
shall be recorded as ``noes.'' Okay. An important piece of 
legislation.
    Now let us move, and I ask Members to hang in there because 
I know we are not having any votes on the floor, so hopefully 
we can keep our quorum. I know there will vigorous debate on 
some of these things.
    Without objection, I would like to consider the substitute 
amendment for S. 4428, the Taiwan Policy Act, a bill to support 
the security of Taiwan and its right of self-determination, and 
for other purposes.
    Is there a motion to adopt the manager's package?
    Senator Shaheen. So move.
    The Chairman. So moved. Is there a second?
    Senator Shaheen. Second.
    The Chairman. Second. A motion has been made and seconded. 
Is there any debate on the manager's package?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, all those in favor will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All those opposed will say no.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it, and the manager's package 
is approved.
    Again, we will follow the same process for amendments, and 
we will begin with Senator Cardin if you have any amendments.
    Senator Cardin. Well, Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to 
thank you for your openness to work with many of us to look at 
ways that we could deal with what we thought were legitimate 
concerns expressed by the Administration and some concerns that 
individual Members of this committee had that were, we thought, 
detracted from the main purpose of this bill to strengthen our 
resolve with Taiwan against China's potential use of force in 
regards to Taiwan. And I appreciate the fact that most of the 
suggestions I made have been incorporated in the manager's 
package. I am satisfied, and I will be offering no further 
amendments.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Risch?
    Senator Risch. None, thank you.
    The Chairman. Senator Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. None. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Senator Romney?
    Senator Romney. None.
    The Chairman. Okay. Senator Coons?
    Senator Coons. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to commend you 
for working so closely with a dozen Members to include what 
would have otherwise been amendments to adopt a manager's 
package that strengthens and clarifies that while we are 
continuing to respect the One China policy, we are 
strengthening and enhancing our engagement with the authorities 
in Taiwan. And I have no further amendments.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Paul.
    Senator Paul. Paul First Degree 2. While I don't doubt the 
sincerity of those who wish to deter China, nor do I disagree 
with the objective of deterring China, I think the fundamental 
question of whether or not this will deter China or provoke 
China is a question that we skip over. We often think that if 
we just tell them what to do and put sanctions on them, then 
that is what they will do, but often countries react as 
children, and we see the reverse psychology of a country who 
says, well, you know, this is China. We think in centuries. We 
are a 5,000-year-old country, and when you provoke us, are we 
going to say, well, yeah, you are right, and we are going to 
quit having controls around Taiwan, and we really just think 
you are right. The fact is you are right. We are just going to 
not be [inaudible]. There is a possibility they react in the 
opposite way.
    This is an amendment. None of us knows this, and so I think 
we should not quickly jump to the conclusion that what we are 
actually for, even all having the same goal, will actually be 
the outcome of what comes from this. We do know that we have 
had the Taiwan Relations Act for 40 years. It is an unusual 
sort of dance. It is an unusual diplomatic sort of arrangement 
that we talk about of strategic ambiguity. But we do know this: 
China has not attacked Taiwan in over 40 years. Hence, the 
Taiwan Relations Act.
    So the question is, is changing the Taiwan Relations Act 
towards a posture of strategic clarity bringing us further away 
or closer to the goal of preventing China from invading Taiwan? 
Will bellicose barbs and admonitions serve to cow the Chinese 
or merely act as an irritant? For four decades, the philosophy 
of strategic ambiguity has undergirded our China policy. The 
U.S. is not obligated to defend Taiwan. However, it maintains 
the capability to do so and probably will.
    According to Doug Bandow at Cato, ``Taiwan cannot take U.S. 
support as a given''--that is, again, part of the ambiguity--
``and, therefore, will not do anything reckless, and that China 
cannot be sure that America will not send in the cavalry and, 
therefore, will not take any chances.'' Strategic ambiguity, 
therefore, has a deterrent element to dissuade China from 
military action. The danger of moving to strategic clarity is 
that U.S. policy loses some element of deterrence. If the U.S. 
announces strategic clarity prior to establishing the actual 
capability to deter China, China may be encouraged to take 
action before the U.S. and Taiwan can defeat them in the 
future. In effect, moving to strategic clarity could make it 
more and more likely when war could have been averted.
    Peter van Buren, an author and former Foreign Service 
officer, wrote recently in an article in The American 
Conservative, and he argues that, ``The risk of moving to 
strategic clarity is that we will talk ourselves into a crisis. 
The blathering about inevitability goes on, mutual demonization 
increases, and the policy response moves from prevention to war 
preparation.'' Amending the Taiwan Relations Act, therefore, 
threatens to abduct the contest and strategic ambiguity of the 
past 4 decades. The bill provides Taiwan with arms conducive to 
deterring acts of aggression by the People Liberation Army 
maybe, or maybe it just pisses them off, you know? We do not 
know what the conclusion or what will the reaction be. Are they 
going to read this and be cowed by our language?
    It also directs the Secretary of Defense to review the U.S. 
strategy to defend Taiwan. It also directs the United States to 
make available weapons that enable Taiwan to implement a 
strategy to deny and deter acts of aggression. These changes to 
current policy may make war more likely, not less, and that is 
bad news for the United States. According to Niall Ferguson, a 
senior fellow at the Hoover Institute, ``In all recent Pentagon 
movements on Taiwan, the United States seems [inaudible] to 
China. China is a country with economic power, a growing 
military, and has alliances with our own adversaries.'' This is 
not a time to radically change longstanding policy that has 
preserved peace without an appreciation for the dire 
consequences it may cause. I respectfully urge my colleagues to 
vote against this legislation.
    This particular amendment would strike Section 204, which 
particularly has to do with the $6.5 million that, frankly, we 
have to borrow from China to give to Taiwan. So that what the 
vote would be is on striking Section 204, and I would request a 
recorded vote.
    The Chairman. I will call on other Members. Let me just 
make a few comments on the Paul Amendment, and I appreciate his 
view. Let me just say if we were creating strategic clarity, 
this bill would be much different. We would be definitively 
saying that we would be supporting Taiwan if it were to be 
attacked by China. We do not say that. The President of the 
United States, not once, not twice, but 3 times has said that, 
but this bill does not say that. As a matter of fact, as a rule 
of construction, specifically in the legislation it says that 
we do nothing to amend our One China policy or the Taiwan 
Relations Act in terms of its underlying purposes.
    This amendment, however, would remove the most important 
security assistance tools that this bill would provide with 
respect to Taiwan, including the Foreign Military Financing 
Authority, the reserve stockpile, and the FMF loan authorities. 
These programs are vital for deterrence, and, if necessary, the 
denial of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. Therefore, I will vote 
against the amendment. I urge my colleagues to do the same. It 
strikes at the very heart of it. I know that Senator Merkley 
has asked for recognition first. Senator Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. Thank you. This issue of strategic 
clarity, strategic ambiguity, is an important one for us to 
wrestle with. We have the context of this entire bill, and it 
is my belief that the conversations that result in the bill, 
they clearly come down on the side of strategic ambiguity, 
which is about the issue of whether we would directly engage in 
a war against China if Taiwan was attacked, but this section of 
this bill is about strengthening Taiwan's ability to respond. 
And if we go back to the early stages where we had these three 
communiques and the six assurances, the key piece of that was 
that our perspective was it was based on China's commitment to 
resolve peacefully its relationship with Taiwan.
    And it was President Reagan who put in the record a secret 
statement that is no longer secret that said we will continue 
arm sales unless China makes this commitment to peaceful 
resolution, and they have not made that commitment. They have 
done exactly the opposite. And it is my belief that if we leave 
Taiwan essentially with poor defenses, China is absolutely 
committed to using their enhanced and growing military 
capability to assault Taiwan, and that the best strategy is one 
of enabling Taiwan to defend itself, often referred to as the 
porcupine policy, makes it really the best vision of deterrence 
to avoid a non-peaceful, a military war of China against Taiwan 
in the future. And that is why I support this bill.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Risch?
    Senator Risch. Well, I think we should have it very clear 
in the record, we are not voting on the strategic ambiguity 
issue in this bill. That is not there, and, Senator Paul, I 
went over the things that you have here specifically, but there 
is nothing in this bill that talks about strategic ambiguity, 
but what it does do is strip out the dollars and cents that we 
are sending there. I support that. I am certainly not going to 
vote for the amendment, but I want the record to be absolutely 
certain that we are not voting on the issue of strategic 
ambiguity in this bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Schatz.
    Senator Schatz. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and thanks for 
your work and your staff's work in improving this bill. I told 
you unless something dramatically changes during these 
proceedings, I am likely to vote no, but this is the section I 
like. Section 204 is the part that prepares Taiwan in the event 
of a worst-case scenario and provides some measure of 
deterrence. The parts that give me heartburn are the civil 
sovereignty and the question of whether or not we are getting 
anything out of some of these more provocative statutory 
changes that, in my judgment, may irritate the Chinese and 
accelerate their preparation for military action. And those, I 
think, concerns are shared by Members of this committee, even 
those who may be voting yes, but this is the core of the bill, 
in my view. This is about preparing Taiwan and deterring China, 
and so I will definitely oppose this amendment.
    The Chairman. Senator Romney.
    Senator Romney. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the sentiments 
expressed by Senator Paul, and that is, I am very concerned 
that by having a bill named as it is, the Taiwan Policy Act, we 
put a spotlight on all this, what America is going to do. I 
mean, this could be done quietly as part of NDAA, which is the 
money that is going for Taiwan weaponry. We are doing something 
that is highly provocative and bellicose. I hope it does not 
make China say, well, gosh, Taiwan is going to get stronger. 
Maybe we ought to move now than later. It is not a porcupine 
now, but these guys are making it a big deal, and they are 
putting it front and center. They are going to make it a 
porcupine, so let's move now.
    Now, I am not going to support the amendment because I do 
not want to go down on the record saying I do not want to give 
additional weapons. I do. I am just very frustrated that we as 
a committee decided we are going to put a big spotlight: the 
Taiwan Policy Act. Gosh, this should have been in there 
quietly, you know, as opposed to putting it in. I think it is 
really unfortunate, and I hope nothing is provoked by virtue of 
it, but I think the sentiment that Senator Paul expressed is 
right. I am going to vote against the amendment because I do 
want to give them the weapons, but, boy, it is of great concern 
to me. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Any other Members on this amendment?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, let me close debate on it. First of 
all, on the question of symbols of sovereignty that have been 
referred to, I would just say to Members, except for one, 
everyone voted in support of the same symbols of sovereignty in 
the Strategic Competition Act, both in committee and on the 
floor, and that did not generate any response by China. And 
certainly there was a lot of attention in that bill to 
challenge China directly as it relates to chips and 
superconductors.
    In relationship to Senator Romney's concern, and I 
appreciate his concern, I would just say that when the 
Administration sends us a billion-dollar arm sales for Taiwan, 
which is public and its transaction as a result of the 
provisions of law under the arm sales that will be vetted 
publicly, I think that is the most overt way of suggesting what 
we are willing to do for Taiwan, and that cannot be done 
quietly, so that is out there. So I just say that in terms of 
trying to assuage some people's concerns about some of these 
elements.
    With that, a recorded vote has been asked for by Senator 
Paul.
    Senator Paul. Actually, if you want to just do it voice and 
record me as a ``no,'' that is probably quicker. I think it 
is----
    The Chairman. I am sorry? You are willing to take a voice 
vote.
    Senator Paul [continuing]. And record me as a ``no.''
    The Chairman. Okay. Absolutely.
    Voice. ``Yes.''
    The Chairman. All those in favor of the amendment. All 
those in favor of the amendment will say aye.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. All those opposed will say no.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The noes have it, and the amendment is not 
agreed to, and those who wish to be recorded as ``aye'' can be 
listed as so, Senator Paul.
    All right. Let me then repeat the question. Who else has--
we are going to keep going down the line. Senator Murphy, who 
is next.
    Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have a 
few amendments, none of which I am going call, but let me just 
state that I think that there is no disagreement on this 
committee that our Taiwan policy has to change. China's policy 
has changed. Their provocations have increased, and we would be 
fools to sit back. And I think the only disagreement our 
committee is having is to--what are the changes that are most 
beneficial to secure Taiwan and to secure the United States' 
interest in the region. So I do support deeper defense 
integration. I support deeper economic integration. I support 
vigorously pushing back on Chinese's interference and 
intimidation. And I think the conversation that we have been 
having over the last month is whether some of the changes in 
this bill, relative to the way that we talk about Taiwan, the 
way that we talk about our defense relationship with Taiwan, 
has more significant risk to our security, Taiwan's security 
versus benefit.
    My amendments were relative to the back end of this bill, 
which is the sanctions provisions. I support sanctions 
authority. I think we could have written these sanctions a 
little bit tighter, as I would with all sanctions believe in a 
sunset. In particular with China, I think it is worthwhile for 
us to be able, after 5 years or 10 years, to weigh whether or 
not we want the bulk of our permissive sanctions to be relative 
to Taiwan policy, or whether we want to adjust those sanctions 
to try to prevent other malevolent Chinese activity. We all 
know there is a host of things that we could be leveraging 
sanctions on Taiwan for.
    And so I understand that may not have the votes on the 
committee, so I will not offer the amendment, but I deeply 
appreciate the Chairman and the Ranking Member's engagement 
over the last 30 days. And I do agree that in the end it is 
important for us to be united if we are making a significant 
change in Taiwan policy. I will be voting no today, but I take 
the Chairman's offer seriously to continue these negotiations.
    I also agree with the Chairman that this is not a reversal 
of our policy towards Taiwan, but for me, it comes close enough 
that I think we have to really consider the impact that it will 
have, not just inside the United States, but outside of the 
United States, and not just on China, but also on how our 
allies perceive it. But I think we have made a lot of progress 
in addressing concerns of this committee in preparation for 
this markup up, and I look forward to continuing that 
discussion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Well, let me just respond to Senator Murphy. 
First of all, I appreciate your withdrawing at this point, and 
my offer is real in terms of continuing to work with you and 
others. I just want to make a comment about the sanctions 
title. I understand you are not offering them. We have refined 
the sanctions title, and we sought to address various aspects, 
for example modifying the sanctions trigger.
    Now, I know executive branches always express concerns 
about mandatory sanctions. I have been dealing this with 
Republican and Democratic administrations. They would prefer us 
to go away and only send a check when the time comes when they 
need to spend something. However, incredible flexibility is 
already baked into the sanctions provision in the legislation. 
It affords discretion to access whether relevant conduct is 
significant. That is pretty broad. The sanction title also 
includes some of the broadest waiver authorities possible. The 
waivers are not time limited, and the waiver authority in 
Section 806 is based on an assessment that waving sanctions is 
in the national interest, not in the national security 
interest, which is a much more difficult and higher standard.
    I think the inclusion of these broad and definite waiver 
support even more discretion. Having said that, we can always 
calibrate better, and I look forward to working with the 
Senator to try to get to that calibration that can bring us 
closer together at the end of the day.
    Is there anyone else on the Republican side who seeks to 
offer an amendment?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, I understand Senator Markey has 
amendments.
    Senator Markey. I have an amendment at the desk, Number 5, 
Mr. Chairman. We need to find ways to avoid miscalculation in 
the Taiwan Strait and call attention to small miscommunication 
to send ultimately to the brink. It is why I am offering an 
amendment based on the Taiwan ASSURE Act. The amendment would, 
one, urge the United States and the PRC to prioritize the use 
of a military crisis hotline; two, authorize $2 million 
annually to support existing Track 1.5 and Track 2 dialogues, 
which are important for increasing strategic awareness amongst 
all parties in avoidance of conflict; and three, authorize $6 
million annually, which would double U.S. support for the 
multilateral Global Cooperation and Training Framework, which 
provides a platform for Taiwan to share its expertise to global 
partners on many issues.
    Each of these important steps would help lower the risk or 
frustrate miscalculation and really, importantly, frustrate 
stability. We have to support our friend and also 
simultaneously prevent inadvertent conflict, and embracing 
stability measures is a key component in establishing that kind 
of situation. We are talking here about the most important trip 
wire in the world, and it is very important for us to be 
funding the kinds of communication necessary to avoid anything 
that would happen by us. So thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Anyone else wishing to speak to the 
amendment? Senator Risch?
    Senator Risch. I am going to oppose this. First of all, the 
$3 million that we got for the GCTF Program, which I am very 
supportive of, is sufficient to operate this program. The other 
programs that have been canceled were canceled because they 
have been dismal failures. The Chinese just would not send 
people of any rank to do anything, and they never did anything. 
So I am going to oppose the amendment.
    The Chairman. Let me then close the debate. I want to 
commend Senator Markey for offering the amendment to increase 
cross-state confidence-building measures and for funding the 
Global Cooperation and Training Framework. This amendment, I 
believe, is beneficial by signaling that the United States is 
not the aggressor here. We believe that we need to deepen 
confidence-building measures to ensure stability. As I stated 
before, the United States remains committed to the peaceful 
resolution of cross-Strait issues.
    Further, the authorization of appropriations for the GCTF 
will provide training, technical assistance to Third Country 
participants, which will support Taiwan around the world by 
demonstrating the value of its participation on the global 
stage. I think this increased authorization complements the 
provisions already included in the bill that seek to promote 
Taiwan's place on the world stage, and, therefore, I will vote 
in favor of the amendment.
    With that, does the Senator wish a voice or a recorded 
vote?
    Senator Markey. I would--I would request a voice vote, of 
course, and----
    The Chairman. Okay.
    Senator Risch. I request a----
    The Chairman. Senator Risch wants a recorded vote. The 
clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    Senator Coons. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    Senator Markey. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    Senator Booker. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schatz?
    Senator Schatz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Senator Van Hollen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    Senator Risch. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
    Senator Romney. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Young?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cruz?
    Senator Cruz. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rounds?
    Senator Rounds. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hagerty?
    Senator Risch. No by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Aye. The clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 12; the noes are 10.
    The Chairman. And the amendment is agreed to. Is there any 
other Member on either side seeking to offer amendments? Yes, 
Senator Van Hollen.
    Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, 
I appreciate the conversation around the table. This is 
obviously a big, important issue for our country and the people 
of Taiwan, and I want to join others in thanking you, Mr. 
Chairman, and your team for working through these issues. And I 
join with those who have said that we want to make sure that 
Taiwan has a greater capacity to defend itself, so I am 
strongly in favor those provisions of the bill, including the 
foreign military financing.
    I do have an amendment. I am not sure I am not going to 
offer it anymore. I am in favor of those provisions, but as I 
told you, Mr. Chairman, and I think the Administration shares 
my concern about this, while I support the authorization for 
funding, I do think it is a mistake to list the amounts of 
military assistance, specifically up to $2 billion a year. 
Taiwan, first of all, is a wealthy country. They are right now 
engaged in purchasing a whole lot of weapons. But my bigger 
fear is that when you put a number like this out, obviously the 
incentive here, the purpose is to encourage the ambition on the 
Senate Appropriations Committee. But I think all of us who are 
serving on that committee know that it is a very tight budget, 
and my concern is we do not meet one of these guidelines, then 
the message we send is, you know, we promise to do this, but 
did not deliver, and I think it backfires, frankly, on our 
overall effort. So I will come back to that in a minute and see 
whether there is any kind of agreement on that, but I think 
authorizing the amount would be the way to go rather than 
specifying specific amounts. And that relates just to the 
direct assistance, not to financing mechanisms.
    On the sanctions, I thank you for what you and your team 
have done on tightening up 802, which are tough sanctions. I am 
a big believer that we have a tough trigger and things that do 
not go off easily. There is not a whole lot of discretion, 
right? If China takes an island, boom--they will know that 
these sanctions will hit, and they will be punishing. And so I 
do not support a lot of, you know, discretion, and wiggling, 
and allowing the Executive to wiggle out of that. So I 
appreciate--because I think that is the only way you have a 
deterrent effect. I think it has been proven that sanctions 
after the fact do not change a lot of behavior, but tough 
sanctions signaled properly in advance that are hard to wiggle 
out of, are the way to go. So thank you for citing 802.
    I do not like the additional sanctions. I think those 
triggers would go off today. I think a lot of those conditions 
could be met today, and then you have a President that is going 
to be waiving them, and I do not know what message that sends 
either, so I do not like sanctions provision. I do share the 
concerns expressed about the civil society, and I know we had 
some of them in the USICA bill. Some have been added here as 
well, I think, with the Taipei office, and there was an effort, 
you know, to take those out, but those are--those are back in.
    And I do think if you are trying to measure this as to the 
objective of maintaining the One China policy, which if you 
were looking at this from the other side, perspective, you 
would definitely say this is a change in signaling, that we are 
in favor of Taiwan's unilateral independence and sovereignty. I 
know that is not the intent. We have a saving clause. In my 
view, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, it is a little bit 
like saying, you know, we are going to make all these changes, 
and then we have the saving clause, well, we did not mean it, 
because the reality is, in my view, we make some material 
changes that if--certainly if I was on the other side of this, 
I would be arguing that is a change in United States policy.
    So these are tough calls. On balance, you know, my view is 
I would like to work with you and the Ranking Member to pursue 
the parts that I think are most important to give material 
support to Taiwan, make it a porcupine, do everything we can in 
that regard, but take actions where I think there is--are 
primarily symbolic without any measurable benefit, as I say, 
all pain and no gain, pain in terms of the potential response; 
unnecessary because they do not really further Taiwan's self-
defense.
    So on balance, I look forward to working with you, Mr. 
Chairman. I raise this amendment, but if there is not an 
appetite for this amendment, there is no point in pursuing it. 
But I do think it is an important distinction between saying--
promising certain amounts of money and our ability to achieve 
this money, so that is all.
    The Chairman. Let me respond to some of the Senator's 
concerns, and I appreciate his thoughtfulness in this regard. 
First of all, just a clarification: the Taiwan Office is not 
back in. The Senate confirmation of the U.S. Representative to 
the Taiwan Office is gone. And the Taiwan Office is a sense of 
Congress, it is not a premise, so it a different reality.
    I would say that the rule of construction is not just a 
throwaway. The reason we have a specific rule of construction 
is to do exactly that, to say that the construct of the bill is 
such that we--this is the underlying opposition, and so I would 
differ with you that it is a giveaway. With reference to--I 
acknowledge that there is a numbers issue here with the foreign 
military financing appropriations funding, but I do not agree 
with deleting the dollar figures. We tirelessly negotiated it 
with the Appropriations Committee.
    When this bill was originally drafted, we started at a $2 
billion request and came down to $250 million. The 
appropriations ladder was constructed precisely to try to 
mitigate the risk of authorizing numbers that we might not be 
able to appropriate, but I would just say that we also have a 
responsibility for authorizing it. We are going to let--and I 
have great deal of respect to the Appropriations Committee, but 
if we are going to start going down the road that the 
Appropriations Committee will decide to spend without 
authorizations, then let me get off of this committee and go on 
the Appropriations Committee because this is the fundamental 
nature of what we do, authorizing, and I think we have done it 
in a very thoughtful way. With Ukraine on track to receive an 
additional $13 billion, I do not see why we would not be able 
to work with appropriators to find $250 million for a 
supplemental for Taiwan. So as always, this is a question of 
the dial and how you dial it, and I appreciate that there are 
differences in that regard.
    Senator Coons, who is the Chairman of the subcommittee.
    Senator Coons. Mr. Chairman, if I might, I just wanted to 
convey my appreciation to Senator Van Hollen for his raising 
the concern. And somewhere between such sums and a potentially 
much higher amount, I think we have struck a reasonable 
balance. I look forward to continuing to work with you. You 
would be welcome on the Appropriations Committee at any time. 
There are more----
    The Chairman. Does it come with the seniority I have or no?
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. I do not think so----
    Senator Coons. We can negotiate.
    The Chairman. Go ahead.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Coons. But, you know, Senator Van Hollen raises an 
excellent point, which was not so much whether or not this is a 
worthy expenditure, but whether within the subcommittee's 
allocation, where $2 billion would make it one of the top FMF 
accounts in the world, really second only to Israel, whether or 
not there is room. I mean, this is a subcommittee that is 
already carrying record amounts for humanitarian relief, for 
hunger, for climate resiliency, for Ukraine, for a lot of other 
things, and we are struggling to meet the commitments made. So 
I do think he makes an excellent point. Two hundred and fifty 
million is something that is feasible. Two billion will require 
years of work together to achieve that goal, and he makes an 
excellent point that should we set this authorization and then 
never deliver, we are at risk of barking louder than our bite. 
I look forward to working with you and appreciate that at the 
outset, your recognition was that many of us got much of what 
we wanted but not everything, and I think this is a delicate 
dance to make sure that the FMF, to actually strengthen 
Taiwan's capabilities, is delivered. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Senator Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for 
working with those of us who have concerns about this bill. I 
would have been a ``no'' vote had we done it in July on the 
text that was before us at the first markup. And as I have 
watched it move, I am going to be a ``yes'' vote today, but I 
was also prepared to vote for some of the amendments, even 
those that we might not have liked, and this was one of them.
    I worry a little bit about on this amendment, the 
specificity of numbers goes to the point that, frankly, Senator 
Paul and Senator Romney were making, how much we want to just 
put it out in big letters. And I think ``such sums as may be 
necessary'' would be a better way to do this than list the 
numbers. So if you are asking would you get any votes if you 
offered it, you would get mine, but I do think the bill has 
moved in a really good direction. Whether or not the amendment 
were to pass or not, my intention is to vote for it.
    The Chairman. Is there any other Member seeking--yes, 
Senator Merkley.
    Senator Merkley. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The 
discussion has been, in part, whether this is a significant 
change in our policy, and I want to frame it a little bit 
differently. In 2011, Majority Leader Reid organized a 
bipartisan trip of 10 Senators with China, and at that moment, 
under the previous general secretary, there was a lightning of 
pressure in China: more freedom of religion, more encouragement 
for individuals to express concerns about labor violations, 
more concern concerned about environmental issues, more freedom 
for reporters, more freedom in almost every frame.
    The following year, after that trip, Xi became General 
Secretary, and over the last 10 years, he has exhibited a 
dramatic change in Chinese policy towards the world. That has 
included building islands in the South China Sea. That has 
included putting on claims that did not exist before. It has 
involved an incredibly aggressive strategy of destroying the 
rights of people in Hong Kong in violation of a longstanding 
agreement with Britain that was to exist for 50 years. It has 
included an aggressive build out of military capability. And in 
terms of suppression of communication and freedom, we have seen 
dramatic, dramatic changes inside China.
    So today, I see us as restating our support that any 
decision on how Taiwan and the mainland unify under the One 
China policy must be done peacefully. That has been our 
position, and we are continuing to take that position. And we 
were very clear in the three communiques and the six assurances 
that we would continue to do that; that is, to provide the arm 
sales, that--and China has not said, hey, we now pledge 
ourselves to peaceful resolution. In fact, everything has been 
quite the opposite.
    I think if we do not kind of crank up our support for 
Taiwan, there will be a military offensive. There is a broader 
understanding that China is fully prepared for it. An 
amphibious attack is a difficult undertaking, but they can 
prepare, and if Taiwan sits by, we will see, like we saw in 
Hong Kong with the crushing of a democratic entity. And I 
support One China, but I support the peaceful framework within 
which we established that, and I think it is incredibly 
important for us to help Taiwan deter so that there will not be 
such a military confrontation in the future.
    And so I support this bill, and I really did have many 
objections to feeling like we were going out of strategic 
ambiguity, and we have adjusted those things in piece after 
piece after piece, and I really appreciate the Chairman for 
doing so. I also really want to emphasize the value of 
including the China censorship bill that we previously included 
in a previous bill. It is a bill that Senator Rubio and I put 
forward. It was backed by Senator Cornyn and Senator Warren, so 
you have a broad perspective there.
    But just earlier today, I came from an interparliamentary 
group that was looking at China strategy of transnational 
repression across democracies across the world, and heard story 
after story after story, including what they do in the United 
States, to essentially pressure companies and pressure 
individuals, including threats of action within those 
democracies and threats against families back home, and threats 
of economic retaliation against companies. And I think having 
this group monitor and compile that type of information is 
important in our understanding of change in strategy, and thank 
you for including that legislation.
    The Chairman. Thank you for your comments. I share them, 
and I think at this point, there are no other amendments--I am 
sorry. Senator Markey.
    Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I 
voted for the Taiwan Relations Act in 1979 as a young 
congressman, and that legislation, along with the three U.S.-
China joint communiques and the six assurances, are the 
backbone of the U.S. One China policy and our policy of 
strategic end game. And together, they have maintained the 
peace across the Taiwan Strait for 43 years. Of course it is 
true the Government of China has ramped up its rhetoric and 
military activities towards Taiwan, and I agree with many of my 
colleagues--PRC's behavior is extremely troubling and must be 
met with resolve to support our Taiwan partners and protecting 
the status quo. The best way to do that is by demonstrably 
strengthening Taiwan's ability to defend itself, bolstering 
deterrence, and reassuring our partners and allies in the 
region.
    Last month, I led a congressional delegation to Taiwan, 
even as China raged in the aftermath of Speaker Pelosi's trip. 
I went because, as the Chairman of East Asia Subcommittee, I 
felt it was important to show my support for Taiwan and to hear 
directly from Taiwan authorities on what they need to shore up 
their defenses. First and foremost, we have to remember that it 
is the people living on Taiwan that are facing the daily 
realities of increased Chinese aggression and will be the ones 
primarily targeted in reaction to changes in the United States' 
policies.
    Taiwan has bravely withstood the Chinese Government's 
ramped-up military threats while operating with incredible 
restraint. During our meetings in Taipei, the message to us was 
clear: maintain the status quo and strengthen Taiwan's defenses 
and economic relationships around the world. What we should not 
be doing is responding to the PRC's aggression and brinkmanship 
in kind. The world should know that the Chinese Government is 
attempting to unilaterally change the status quo, not Taiwan 
and not United States.
    I think there are many pieces of this bill that are 
extremely important to the long-term self-defense and stability 
of Taiwan, including provisions improving Taiwan's defensive 
capabilities and strengthening our cooperation. The bill 
demonstrates Congress' support for greater trade relations, 
people-to-people and regional ties, which are important to 
Taiwan's ability to maintain space in the international 
community and share its expertise with the world. I am pleased 
that the legislation includes my and Senator Rubio's Taiwan 
Fellowship Act, which will increase the bonds of friendship and 
close relationship between the United States and Taiwan. But 
there are other pieces in this bill that I fear undermine the 
United States' longstanding One China policy and upend 
strategic ambiguity, while making, in my view, unnecessary 
changes to the Taiwan Relations Act, threatening to destabilize 
the status quo with little tangible benefit for Taiwan.
    So I appreciate the Chairman's willingness to hear my 
concerns and concerns of other Members of this committee about 
the potential impact of the significant changes to U.S. policy 
in this bill, and I welcome the changes included in the 
manager's amendment that I believe are improvements, and I 
thank the Chairman for that, including some that I offered. 
However, I still have serious concerns about some of the 
language in this bill, and I fear it will heighten tensions and 
ramp up the cycle of conflict.
    There remains of the current manager's package provisions 
that I believe undermine the U.S. One China policy and 
strategic ambiguity, and it would tie the Administration's 
hands when it comes to sanctions. This will be seen as a change 
in policy by the Chinese Government. We should be focused on 
deterring China from unilaterally changing the status quo of 
Taiwan using military force. We should make sure Taiwan is in 
the strongest position possible to defend itself, and we should 
make sure that our allies and partners in the region and around 
the world know that we are committed to Taiwan self-defense and 
doing everything we can to avoid a conflict over Taiwan.
    What we should not do is take action to put Taiwan at 
increased risk with little reward. We should put Xi Jinping's 
own behavior in the spotlight, not distract from it by revising 
the U.S. One China policy or our policy of strategic ambiguity. 
The world saw the temper tantrum that Xi Jinping threw when 
Speaker Pelosi led her congressional delegation. Taiwan acted 
with incredible restraint in response. If we take the steps of 
targeted actions designed to support and strengthen Taiwan 
while keeping in line with our longstanding policies, I believe 
we will reveal the Chinese Government's true intentions, 
strengthen regional and global support for Taiwan, and allow 
Taiwan time to build its self-defense capabilities: to give 
them the time to build it.
    We have a moral responsibility to stand up to 
authoritarianism and military aggression. We also have a moral 
responsibility to do everything we can to avoid a situation 
that could draw two nuclear armed countries into a conflict. 
Diplomacy must remain central to our Taiwan policy. While I 
cannot support this legislation, Mr. Chairman, in its current 
form, I appreciate your willingness to work with us, and I want 
to continue to do so before this legislation reaches the floor 
of the United States Senate. And I thank you, again, for 
allowing me to make the recommendations for the changes that 
have already been included and for the continuing discussion. 
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Senator Booker?
    Senator Booker. Yeah, very briefly. First of all, in 1979, 
I voted for more chocolate milk and dessert.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Booker. But I just want to say to you, Mr. 
Chairman, thank you for working with my office, as well as a 
number of others, for a lot of legitimate concerns. This bill 
has moved a lot, and I will be supporting it. I want to thank 
you for including an amendment that I had about food aid, which 
is very important, I think, and very strategic as well. I want 
to also thank you for your commitment to work on issues of 
calibration as well as entertain other constructive input 
before we move this even beyond the committee.
    I agree with Senator King. There were some amendments that 
I thought were going to be offered that I was very much willing 
to support because I thought they would help to make the bill 
better. I also want to say, and I know you have already--your 
office has been doing this considerably, is working with the 
Administration. I know asserting our independence as the first 
branch of government is very important, from war powers to 
sanctions, in the past, but this is one of those cases where I 
think we can continue to try to work with them to get this to a 
place where we can a be on one accord with our Taiwan policy. 
So I will vote for this now, but I am looking forward to 
continuing to work with Members in this body and with the 
Chairman.
    The Chairman. Anyone else seeking recognition? Senator 
Hagerty.
    Senator Hagerty. Very briefly. Chairman Menendez and 
Ranking Member Risch, I want to thank you. I certainly support 
this committee's work to strengthen security assistance with 
Taiwan. I just want to highlight beyond the security 
assistance, the economic implications and what a fall of Taiwan 
would mean. The world depends on Taiwan for semiconductor 
manufacturing right now, and I want to thank everybody here for 
proactively helping Taiwan defend itself so we can preserve 
that capacity now.
    But also, I just want to remind this committee that all of 
us supported legislation that I have worked on this past year 
to dramatically improve the permitting timeline process for 
semiconductor manufacturing here in America so that we will now 
have the opportunity to increase our capacity here as well, and 
those two things combined, I think, will make us far stronger 
as a Nation over time. And I want to thank Senators King and 
Senator Portman for working with me on this legislation, and I 
want to thank all of you all for supporting it.
    The Chairman. Thank you. I appreciate everybody's comments 
and input. They are very constructive. I just want to make some 
final remarks. I, too, visited to Taiwan, and I spoke to 
President Tsai, I spoke to the foreign minister, I met and 
spoke to the defense minister, and what I heard from them is 
that they supported the bill. They did not have reservations. 
They did not express them. I certainly would have listened to 
that. So I just want to say that the entity in question who was 
the subject of all of our interest and concern actually was 
supportive.
    I appreciate that for 43 years the Taiwan Relations Act has 
been the mainstay of our policy, but then again, China has 
never acted as it has acted now in those 43 years. And while 
one might describe restraint as to what they did in response to 
Speaker Pelosi's trip, closing the ports by surrounding Taiwan 
with military ships that did not allow shipping of 
international passengers to enter Taiwan is, I think, generous 
to say that it is restraint. And the final point is that this 
is all a question of calibration, but at some point, as we wait 
to show that China is the aggressor, at what point does the 
line cross where they snuff out Taiwan's ability to exist as 
they have snuffed out Hong Kong's? I think we waited too long 
on Hong Kong.
    But I appreciate all these sentiments. I am going to 
continue to work. And, look, there is one pragmatic thing here 
for all of us. Nothing will pass to the Senate floor that does 
not actually have the support of the Administration because our 
way to do that is NDAA. And I am sure that the leaders of the 
NDA are not going to allow legislation in that doesn't agree 
with the Administration. But we have a very strong opportunity 
to set the precipice about what our policy should be, and send 
a very strong message in a bipartisan way here, and then to 
continue to work to refine it.
    With that, I think there has been a robust debate. Is there 
a motion to approve S. 4428?
    Senator Cardin. So move.
    Senator Risch. Second.
    The Chairman. So moved and seconded. The clerk will call 
the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
    Senator Cardin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
    Senator Shaheen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
    The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
    Senator Murphy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
    Senator Kaine. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
    Senator Markey. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
    Senator Merkley. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
    Senator Booker. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schatz?
    Senator Schatz. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Senator Van Hollen. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
    Senator Risch. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
    Senator Paul. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Young?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
    Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cruz?
    Senator Cruz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rounds?
    Senator Rounds. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hagerty?
    Senator Hagerty. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Aye.
    The clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 17; the noes are 5.
    The Chairman. And the legislation is agreed to.
    With that, this completes the committee business.
    I ask unanimous consent that the staff be authorized to 
make technical and conforming changes.
    Without objection.
    Let me again thank the Ranking Member and his staff for 
their work, and let me thank all the Members' inputs. A lot of 
important work done today. And with that, this meeting is 
adjourned.


    [Whereupon, at 4:17 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]



                              ----------                              




                            BUSINESS MEETING

                              ----------                              


                      WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2022

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

                Summary of Action Taken by the Committee

                              LEGISLATION

  S. 3386, End Tuberculosis Now Act of 2021, with an amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute--agreed to by voice vote

     Managers Substitute Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

  S. 4824, North Korea Policy Oversight Act of 2022--held over

  S.Res. 713, A resolution recognizing Russian actions in Ukraine as a 
        genocide, with amendments--agreed to by voice vote

     Managers Preamble Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

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

  S. 4064, International Nuclear Energy Act of 2022, with an amendment 
        in the nature of a substitute--agreed to by voice vote (Markey, 
        Johnson, and Barrasso recorded as no)

     Managers Substitute Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

  S. 4509, Black Sea Security Act of 2022, with an amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute--agreed to by voice vote (Johnson and 
        Barrasso recorded as no)

     Managers Substitute Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

  S. 4996, Syria Detainee and Displaced Persons Act, with an amendment 
        in the nature of a substitute--agreed to by voice vote (Johnson 
        and Barrasso recorded as no)

     Managers Substitute Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

  H.R. 7240, READ Act Reauthorization Act of 2022 without an 
        amendment--agreed to by voice vote

  S. 4955, Ukraine Human Rights Policy Act of 2022, with an amendment 
        in the nature of a substitute--agreed to by voice vote

     Managers Substitute Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

  S.Con.Res. 47, A concurrent resolution commending the bravery, 
        courage, and resolve of the women and men of Iran demonstrating 
        in more than 80 cities and risking their safety to speak out 
        against the Iranian regime's human rights abuses, with an 
        amendment--agreed to by voice vote

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

  S.Res. 472, A resolution reaffirming the partnership between the 
        United States and the Dominican Republic and advancing 
        opportunities to deepen diplomatic, economic, and security 
        cooperation between the two nations, with an amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute--agreed to by voice vote (Johnson and 
        Barrasso recorded as no)

     Managers Substitute Resolving Clause Amendment--agreed to by 
            voice vote

  S.Res. 730, A resolution remembering the 30th anniversary of the 
        bombing of the Embassy of Israel in Buenos Aires on March 17, 
        1992, the 28th anniversary of the bombing of the Argentine-
        Israeli Mutual Association building in Buenos Aires on July 18, 
        1994, and recommitting to efforts to uphold justice for the 
        victims of the attacks, with an amendment--agreed to by voice 
        vote

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

  S.Con.Res. 16, A concurrent resolution commemorating the 30th 
        anniversary of Operation Provide Comfort, with amendments--
        agreed to by voice vote

     Preamble Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

     Resolving Clause Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

  S.Res. 322, A resolution reaffirming the alliance between the United 
        States and Bulgaria, congratulating Bulgaria on its July 11, 
        2021 parliamentary elections, and calling for continued 
        progress in Bulgaria towards combating corruption, respecting 
        the freedom of press, and protecting minority rights, with 
        amendments--agreed to by voice vote

     Revised Preamble Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

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

     Title Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

  S.Res. 650, A resolution recognizing May 28 as ``World Hunger Day,'' 
        that the 90th anniversary of the Ukrainian Famine of 1932-1933, 
        known as the Holodomor, should serve as a reinder of repressive 
        Soviet policies against the people of Ukraine, and the Vladimir 
        Putin's illegal war against Ukraine has diminished Ukraine's 
        agricultural output and threatens to exacerbate the problems of 
        global hunger on World Hunger Day, with amendments--agreed to 
        by voice vote

     Managers Preamble Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

     Resolving Clause Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

     Title Amendment--agreed to by voice vote

                              NOMINATIONS

  Mr. Joey R. Hood, of New Hampshire, a Career member of the Senior 
        Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Republic of Tunisia--agreed to by voice vote 
        (Johnson and Barrasso recorded as no)

  The Honorable Lucy Tamlyn, of Rhode Island, a Career member of the 
        Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be 
        Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United 
        States of America to the Democratic Republic of the Congo--
        agreed to by voice vote (Johnson, Barrasso, and Rubio recorded 
        as no)

  Ms. Jessica Davis Ba, of District of Columbia, a Career member of the 
        Senior Foreign Service, Class of Counselor, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Republic of Cote d'Ivoire--agreed to by voice 
        vote (Johnson, Barrasso, and Rubio recorded as no)

  Ms. Rachna Sachdeva Korhonen, of New Jersey, 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 Mali--agreed to by voice vote 
        (Johnson, Barrasso, and Rubio recorded as no)

  Ms. Cynthia Dyer, of Virginia, to be Director of the Office to 
        Monitor and Combat Trafficking, with the rank of Ambassador at 
        Large--agreed to by voice vote

  The Honorable Julie D. Fisher, of Tennessee, 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 Cyprus--agreed to by voice 
        vote

  Mr. L. Felice Gorordo, of Florida, to be United States Alternate 
        Executive Director of the International Bank for Reconstruction 
        and Development for a term of two years--agreed to by voice 
        vote (Johnson, Barrasso, and Rubio recorded as no)

  Mr. Henry V. Jardine, 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 Mauritius, and to serve concurrently 
        and without additional compensation as Ambassador Extraordinary 
        and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the 
        Republic of Seychelles--agreed to by voice vote

  Ms. Kathleen Kavalec, of California, a Career member of the Senior 
        Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to Romania--agreed to by voice vote

  Mr. George P. Kent, of Massachusetts, a Career member of the Senior 
        Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Republic of Estonia--agreed to by voice vote 
        (Johnson and Cruz recorded as no)

  Ms. Kristina A. Kvien, of California, a Career member of the Senior 
        Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Republic of Armenia--agreed to by voice vote

  The Honorable Kenneth Merten, of Virginia, a Career member of the 
        Senior Foreign Service, Class of Career Minister, to be 
        Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United 
        States of America to the Republic of Bulgaria--agreed to by 
        voice vote

  Mr. Manuel P. Micaller, Jr., of California, a Career member of the 
        Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be 
        Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United 
        States of America to the Republic of Tajikistan--agreed to by 
        voice vote

  Mr. Christopher T. Robinson, of Maryland, a Career member of the 
        Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be 
        Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United 
        States of America to the Republic of Latvia--agreed to by voice 
        vote

  Mr. Bijan Sabet, of Massachusetts, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and 
        Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Czech 
        Republic--agreed to by voice vote (Johnson, Barrasso, and Rubio 
        recorded as no)

  The Honorable Stephanie Sanders Sullivan, of Maryland, a Career 
        member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-
        Counselor, to be Representative of the United States of America 
        to the African Union, with the rank and status of Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary--agreed to by voice vote 
        (Johnson, Barrasso, and Rubio recorded as no)

  The Honorable Lynne M. Tracy, of Ohio, a Career member of the Senior 
        Foreign Service, Class of Career Minister, to be Ambassador 
        Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
        America to the Russian Federation--agreed to by voice vote

  Mr. Richard Weiner, of the District of Columbia, to be United States 
        Director of the European Bank for Reconstruction and 
        Development--agreed to by voice vote (Johnson, Barrasso, and 
        Rubio recorded as no)

  Ms. Carol Spahn, of Maryland, to be Director of the Peace Corps--
        agreed to by voice vote

                                FSO LIST

  Gary P. Anthony, et al., dated November 15, 2022 (PN 2775)--agreed to 
        by voice vote

  Ryan Giralt Bedford, dated May 19, 2022 (PN 2169)--agreed to by voice 
        vote

                           Meeting Transcript

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in 
Room S-116, The Capitol Building, Hon. Robert Menendez, 
Chairman of the committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Menendez [presiding], Cardin, Shaheen, 
Coons, Murphy, Markey, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen, Risch, 
Romney, Portman, Young, and Barrasso.

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

    The Chairman. This business meeting of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee will come to order. I know there are many 
Members who have different demands, so I want as much as 
possible at least to move this part along. Today, we are 
considering 19 nominations, 2 FSO list, 6 bills, and 7 
resolutions.
    We have received a holdover request for S. 4824, the North 
Korea Policy Oversight Act, which the Chair will honor. Since 
this is the final legislative business meeting of the year, and 
the last for Senator Portman, whom I will speak more about in a 
moment, I want to thank everyone for their hard work over this 
session, especially the Ranking Member and his staff for their 
work on the legislative items we are taking up today, as well 
as the nominations that we are taking up, which are critically 
important.
    Our committee is at its best and most relevant when we are 
legislating on the important issues of our time, and I am proud 
to say that is exactly what we have done during this Congress, 
taking up dozens of critical bills.
    Our productivity is truly a testament to the strong 
bipartisan work of many Members of this committee. Turning to 
today's agenda, first, the nominations. I am pleased that we 
are considering 19 nominations and 2 FSO list.
    In the interest of time, I will not speak about the 
nominees individually, but simply note they are well-qualified 
and should be confirmed quickly. I urge all of my colleagues to 
support these nominations today and work towards a swift 
confirmation. We will also vote on six bills and seven 
resolutions.
    I will just highlight a few. S. 3386, the End Tuberculosis 
Now Act. TB is preventable, treatable, and yet 10 million 
people are infected with TB every year. Around 1.4 million 
people die from this disease. Most are in developing countries. 
Many of them are children.
    The End TB Act, which I introduced with Senator Young, will 
make preventing, diagnosing, and treating TB around the world a 
priority for U.S. foreign assistance, and it will ensure that 
this assistance is carried out with the best possible practice, 
with innovative technologies, and a strong Congressional 
oversight.
    S.Con.Res. 47, the commending Iranian protesters' bravery, 
is a resolution commending the bravery of the women and men who 
have been protesting in Iran for the last few months following 
the death of Mahsa Amini. We have all watched the brutal 
tactics of the Iranian regime and its security forces.
    We all know the long, sordid record of Iran's human rights 
violations and the pointedly misogynist practices that form a 
pillar of the revolution--[technical problems]--ideology. We 
have also seen the courage of the women and men of Iran in the 
face of these violent crackdowns, internet shutdowns, 
widespread detentions, and death sentences issued against 
protesters.
    Their persistence to continue their collective acts of 
civil disobedience, their bravery on display every day for the 
last 90 days is nothing short of inspirational. This 
resolution, which I introduced with Senator Blackburn and a 
number of Members of this committee, and which was marked up in 
the House yesterday, is a humble attempt to acknowledge the 
courage of the Iranian protesters.
    We are going to do everything we can to support them, and I 
urge all of our colleagues to support it. Finally, there are 
several Ukraine related items on the agenda. These include a 
resolution condemning Russia's heinous acts against the 
Ukrainian people as genocide, calling for accountability for 
war crimes, a bill to give Congress more information on human 
rights abuses in Ukraine, and a resolution acknowledging the 
brutal famine in 1932 in Ukraine as a genocide.
    As Russian bombs continue to fall, as Putin is directing 
his aim not just at civilians but Ukrainians' electricity and 
water supply, this committee remains steadfast, resolved, and 
in solidarity with Ukrainians as they confront a winter without 
heat, separated from loved ones and fighting for their lives.
    I commend Senators Risch, Young, Kaine, and their co-
sponsors for these important items. With that, let me turn to 
the distinguished Ranking Member for his remarks.

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

    Senator Risch. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I likewise 
will be very--first of all, this is a robust calendar, and 
thank you, Chairman, for working so closely to get this done. 
And I think we usually fail to recognize the contributions of 
staff, and these things do not happen without the work of 
staff.
    So I want to congratulate staff on both sides and recognize 
their efforts in this regard. Let me talk briefly about S.Res. 
713. This is my own resolution recognizing Russian actions in 
Ukraine as a genocide.
    I would like to thank in particular Senator Cardin, who 
joined me as a co-sponsor on this, as well as Senator Shaheen 
and Portman, and others not on our committee for working with 
me on this important resolution. We should not acted in haste 
to quickly label something as genocide. But the scope and scale 
of Russia's atrocities is so systemic, any other description is 
lacking.
    Putin has made it incredibly clear in his actions and his 
words that his goal is to erase the Ukrainian people's 
identity. I have seen firsthand his brutality in Irpin and the 
Kyiv region. The key to determining genocide is the intent to 
destroy in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or 
religious group. That is a quote from 18 U.S.C. 1091. And this 
is precisely what Putin is attempting to do in Ukraine.
    I urge my colleagues to support S.Res. 713 so we can 
continue to support the Ukrainian people in their fight for 
survival. Also on the agenda today is S. 4064, the 
International Nuclear Energy Act.
    My bill with Senator Manchin is designed to promote 
engagement with ally and partner nations to develop a civil 
nuclear export strategy and offset China and Russia's growing 
influence on international nuclear energy development. We are 
at a critical point in the fight for energy security.
    Whether the goal is to reduce energy dependance on Russia 
or support clean energy innovation, more and more countries are 
looking towards nuclear energy for their future energy 
security.
    Exporting new and advanced technologies like small modular 
and micro reactors, which are developed in my State, in Idaho 
at the Idaho National Lab, helps our partners meet their energy 
needs and is a strategic imperative in great power competition 
with Russia and China, both of whom aim to export nuclear 
technology to meet their own political ends.
    When nuclear technology is exported, the relationship is 
not temporary, but one spanning decades. This is the 
opportunity to make sure long standing relationship is with us 
instead of our adversaries. This bill promotes U.S. interagency 
coordination and prioritization of civil nuclear exports, 
provides new tools for U.S. agencies to improve and fund civil 
nuclear projects in partner countries.
    I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I am also 
glad we are able to move forward on a number of career nominees 
who have been waiting to get these important posts. In 
particular, I am glad we are able to move our nominee to be 
Ambassador to Russia.
    As we all know, this will be an extremely challenging post, 
from ensuring the process and the care of Americans illegally 
detained in Russia, to the daily challenges of maintaining 
effective embassy operations under strenuous conditions.
    I appreciated the transparency and open dialog that the 
former Ambassador Sullivan had with this committee, and we have 
high hopes for the same from Ms. Tracy, if confirmed. I plan to 
support her and all the nominees that are before us today. I 
would be remiss if I did not recognize Senator Portman on his 
last business meeting here.
    Rob, you have been a great friend, a supporter, and I 
cannot tell you how much I have enjoyed collaborating with you. 
You always bring calmness to the situation regardless. Thanks 
for your solid work, and I know that whatever path you take, 
and your wife, I know that both of you will enjoy it and do a 
really good job at it.
    So, thank you. Thank you for your service here. Thank you 
on behalf of the committee. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I would 
ask that the Members be--have the ability to register a no vote 
if in block. Thank you.
    The Chairman. I and others will have several things to say 
about Senator Portman. And so, and we look forward to that 
opportunity.
    Without objection, we will now consider in block, several 
nominations and three FSO list. They were all listed in the 
committee's notice. Is there a motion to approve these 
nominations in block?
    Senator Shaheen. So moved.
    The Chairman. So moved.
    Senator Risch. Second.
    The Chairman. Now seconded. Anyone who wishes to speak to 
any of these nominations? If not, all those in favor, will say 
aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All those opposed will say no.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it and all of the nominations 
are approved and sent to the Senate for its consideration.
    Senator Barrasso. Mr. Chair, I would like to submit a list 
of those for which I would like to incorporate as a ``no''.
    The Chairman. And that will be done. If you would do it 
before the end of the day, I would appreciate it. But we will 
honor that.
    Next, without objection, we will now consider in block six 
bills and seven resolutions as noted for this business meeting, 
including substitute and manager's amendments minus the 
legislation that was held over.
    All of the legislation in the agenda was listed in the 
notice, and so I would entertain a motion that these items be 
considered in block. Is there a motion to that effect?
    Senator Cardin. So moved.
    The Chairman. So moved. Is there a second?
    Senator Risch. Second.
    The Chairman. Moved and seconded. Is there anyone who 
wishes to speak to any of these pieces of legislation? If not--
yes, I am sorry. Senator Markey.
    Senator Markey. Thank you very much. Yes, I would like to 
speak to the legislation that is focused on export of nuclear 
power plants from the United States as a specific target of 
this legislation.
    The stated goal of the International Nuclear Energy Act is 
to help allies and partner nations counter China and Russia's 
growing influence on international nuclear energy development.
    It is important to help our allies around the world, but to 
single out an individual technology that is not greenhouse gas 
emitting and not to have a plan to help those countries with 
all non-greenhouse gas emitting technologies I think is a 
mistake. I will give you the numbers.
    Last year, in the world, 95 percent of all new electricity 
generation capacity that came online last year was renewable. 
Can I say that again? Last year on the planet, 95 percent of 
all new electrical generation capacity was renewable.
    And according to the International Energy Agency, it is 
going to be 95 percent every year, '23, '24, '25, 2026, across 
the whole planet. I will give you another number. Last year, 
across the planet, 235,000 new megawatts of renewable energy 
capacity was installed last year.
    And the International Energy Agency says it will go over 
300,000 new megawatts every year for the next three years. Now, 
let's contrast that with total new nuclear power last year, 
7,000. So, in other words, 235,000 new megawatts of wind, 
solar, geothermal across the planet, and only 7,000 in nuclear.
    Just in terms of the focus of this legislation, in terms of 
what we should be promoting--and by the way, the largest 
exporter is China in terms of the renewable technologies. If we 
are going to focus upon what it is that these countries are 
purchasing, we should be focused upon the technologies that 
have already won in the marketplace of the planet.
    So just last year, 43 times more wind and solar were 
deployed on the planet than nuclear. And if you just come here 
to the United States, it has been a failure in the marketplace, 
notwithstanding $12 billion, Federal loan guarantee, Federal 
taxpayers money, $12 billion.
    The Vogel nuclear power plants in Georgia, which only 
promised to deploy 2,400 megawatts of nuclear, have so far been 
in construction for 13 years, and the total cost is $30 billion 
to produce 2,400 megawatts. So, from my perspective, and as we 
look at this legislation, it should be broad. It should focus 
on the kinds of technologies that are winning in the 
marketplace.
    Obviously, those are the kinds of technologies that people 
are looking for, and we have to get in this race. So to the 
extent to which we are focusing upon non-greenhouse gas 
emitting technologies, we are focusing upon technologies that 
China is marketing around the world, this bill should in fact 
make it clear that it is all non-greenhouse gas emitting 
technologies.
    And there are also nonproliferation questions. And I thank 
you, Mr. Chairman, I thank your staff because they you were 
good in including new language.
    And I thanked you over the last day, which is a requirement 
to countries receiving advanced nuclear reactors, have an 
additional protocol with the IAEA in the process of 
negotiating, which I think is very important in dealing with 
the issues of nonproliferation.
    Because we know nuclear--civilian nuclear power was the 
route that Iraq was taking to a nuclear bomb, that Pakistan and 
India took to a nuclear bomb, that North Korea took to a 
nuclear bomb, that Iran took to a nuclear bomb.
    So a strong protocol is obviously very important if we are 
going to be moving in this direction. So my bottom line on 
this----
    The Chairman. If the Senator wishes to summarize, I would 
appreciate it before we lose quorum----
    Senator Markey [continuing]. No--yes--my bottom line on 
this is that we should be advancing all non-greenhouse gas 
emitting technologies. To single out one, I think, does not 
deal with the reality of how the global marketplace has now 
completely moved to renewables in pretty much every country, 
and that that would have been a better focus for the bill. But 
I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Is there any other Member who 
wants to comment on this legislation? I would be happy to stay 
as long as anybody wants for the record. If not, Senator----
    Senator Coons. I think we will lose the quorum if you do 
that.
    The Chairman. Yes. Can we hold a vote on the pending 
legislation? And then I will entertain whatever remarks any 
Member wishes to have. Is that acceptable just so that we can 
move--I know that you want to raise an issue----
    Senator Coons. I can be extremely brief.
    The Chairman. Okay.
    Senator Coons. My comment is in regard to what is not on 
this list today, and that is the Mekong Delta bill that Senator 
Sullivan and I put forward. Five ASEAN countries are very 
concerned about China's impact on the Mekong Delta. I had a 
chance to speak with the Chair and the Ranking Member 
yesterday.
    And so, thank you very much to both of you. I am 
disappointed it is not here, but I will just make sure I have 
an understanding with the Ranking Member that our teams will 
work together to look at this and try to resolve any concerns 
and put this back forward at the start of next year.
    The Chairman. Well, I strongly support the Senator's 
legislation. I have asked for it to be on the agenda. 
Unfortunately, we have not gotten concurrence, and I hope that 
we can find a way to work forward to achieve the goal of having 
your legislation up for a vote.
    Senator Shaheen. Mr. Chairman, can I get a clarification? I 
did not understand, Senator Markey, are you offering an 
amendment to the S. 4064----
    Senator Markey. I am not. I think the votes are not there. 
So, I am going to vote no on final passage. I realize the votes 
are not there, but I just wanted to raise the concerns, which 
we should all have.
    Senator Van Hollen. Mr. Chairman, just 15 seconds max on 
this issue. First of all, I want to thank you and your team for 
incorporating the nonproliferation amendment that is in there. 
May want to work with you on an ongoing basis to address what 
is called the gold standard.
    As you know, the UAE agreement met gold standard criteria. 
And criteria that are in the amendment are a big step forward 
but do not get us completely there. This is a good debate to be 
had.
    And so, I am going to support the amendment, and I want to 
thank you for your support of the other amendments.
    The Chairman. I would ask for a motion to approve the 
legislation or resolutions in block. Is there such a motion?
    Senator Risch. So moved.
    The Chairman. Is there a second?
    Senator Shaheen. Second.
    The Chairman. Moved and seconded. All those in favor, will 
say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. All those opposed, will say no.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it. And a majority of Members 
present having voted in the affirmative, the items are agreed 
to, is sent to the Senate for its full consideration. Senator 
Markey.
    Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would like 
to be recorded ``no'' on the International Nuclear Energy Act.
    The Chairman. Senator Markey will be recorded as ``no''. 
Thank you, Senator Coons, for hanging in there.
    Senator Barrasso. Mr. Chairman, I have a list that I will 
submit as well for the record.
    The Chairman. Senator Barrasso's list will be accepted as 
well. This completes the committee's business. Before we end, 
first of all, I ask unanimous consent that staff be authorized 
to make technical and conforming changes. And without 
objection, that is so ordered.
    Two more things--well I cannot say both of them are joyful. 
One is joyful, one is, in my perspective, not so joyful. Today 
is our clerk's birthday, John Dutton's birthday. So John, thank 
you so much for all the great work you do. Congratulations. 
Happy birthday.
    [Applause.]
    The Chairman. And I would like to close, and I know others 
will have some words they would like to choose as well, with a 
word about Senator Portman, who has served this committee since 
2017.
    From his fervent defense of Ukrainians, I know of no one 
who has been more fervent in his defense of Ukrainians in the 
face of Putin's aggression and brutality, to his unwavering 
support for the state of Israel and our relationship with 
Israel, to his commitment to combating the North Korean regime, 
Senator Portman is the embodiment of an American public servant 
whose values and ideals have shone through at every turn.
    Rob, it has been an honor and a privilege to serve with 
you, alongside with you each and every day, to most recently 
travel with you and Jane, where we got to know each other even 
better.
    And certainly we wish you all the best in the future. We 
have a resolution by the entire Senate Foreign Relations 
committee expressing our admiration and appreciation of you and 
your work. Your absence is going to be felt here, at hearings, 
at business meeting, on the Senate floor.
    I hope you are going to miss working with us as much as we 
are going to miss not having you with us. And we certainly want 
to extend our most sincere, best wishes to you, to Jane, who is 
here with us today, for a great future ahead. Thank you.
    [Applause.]
    The Chairman. Senator Cardin has asked to be recognized.
    Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, this is a bittersweet moment. 
Senator Portman, Congressman Portman and I have been together 
on many issues for many, many years.
    Rob is a very serious legislator and wants to get things 
done. He takes on some of the most challenging issues. He got 
me engaged in working the nuts and bolts of the IRS. Who else 
would be interested in that type of an issue?
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Cardin. But it was with such passion that he got 
engaged in that issue because he recognized that we have to 
make sure our agencies work. I have been with Rob on tax 
issues, pension issues, on health care issues.
    Today, we are talking about foreign policy. I was with Rob 
in Kyiv and saw the passion he had for the people of Ukraine. 
We observed an election together. I have been with him in the 
Middle East, have been with him in the South America.
    He is an incredible legislator who wants to do what is 
right for our country and has reached across party lines in 
order to get things done.
    But the real hero in this story is Jane for putting up with 
all of this. So, Jane, congratulations on everything that you 
were able to sacrifice so that we could have----
    [Applause.]
    Senator Cardin. You know, Rob cannot hold a job for very 
long anyway. He has gone from one job to the other, so he might 
be returning in a different capacity. You never know. But 
anyway, Rob, we wish you the best and thank you so much for 
your service to our country.
    The Chairman. Any other Members wish to--Senator Risch has 
already expressed his admiration. Senator Shaheen.
    Senator Shaheen. Well, I have to, as the only woman on this 
committee, I have to weigh in here because I think both Ben and 
the Chairman have talked about your interest in policy and your 
trips to Ukraine and other parts of the world.
    And I have appreciated that, appreciated your commitment to 
the Ukrainian people and to supporting this war effort. But you 
have also been there on human rights issues that I think have 
made the difference in a number of hearings, and for women and 
girls.
    And so I very much appreciate that and thank you, and join, 
I know all of my colleagues, in saying how much we will miss 
you.
    Senator Romney. I cannot resist. Can I say something?
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. But only if it is nice.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Romney. I just have to note that with all these 
glowing things, that he is a real pain in the rear.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Romney. He--in my debate prep in 2012, he 
represented the opposition, which was President Obama. He 
prepared every night. We came and he beat me up in every one of 
these debates.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Romney. I could not stand the man, but I did decide 
that if I became President, he was going to be my Chief of 
Staff. So you guys--you guys really missed out by not having 
him in that role.
    He is a great friend and has been a tireless advocate for 
one thing after the other. When we were dealing with the 
infrastructure bill, and Rufus began to negotiate that, there 
were, I do not know, ten different subcommittees that were 
established. And he was wise enough to say we had to have one 
person that oversees all of them and gets involved in every 
single one.
    And he took that role. I thought it was impossible for any 
one person to do. He took that role, was personally involved in 
every one of these subcommittees to make sure the process 
proceeded to a final conclusion.
    He is a remarkably dedicated and devoted person to the 
country and the things he believes in. Jane, you can do with 
him as you want. I am happy that you are here to see this 
recognition, but a great friend and a great legislator and a 
great American.
    Senator Van Hollen. Mr. Chairman, if I could just very 
briefly. I first got to know Rob well on what is now called the 
not so super committee. But Rob is an important part of what 
made that a special effort, and it was the one super thing 
about it, was getting to work more with you, Rob, back then and 
continue to work on other issues. So thank you for all your 
efforts to try to move our country forward.
    The Chairman. Senator Portman.
    Senator Portman. Mr. Chairman, let me just say briefly, 
thank you for not introducing this resolution while the rest of 
my colleagues are here so that they could object to it.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Portman. And it has been great. You know, the 
history of my involvement with this committee is that I did not 
want to be on it. I actually asked our leadership to put me on 
the Armed Services committee and I was already on the Finance. 
And they said, you know, you are already on a super eight 
committee. No way. But we could use somebody on Foreign 
Relations.
    I said, okay, I guess I will do it. Corker in particular 
was twisting my arm. This turned out to be my favorite 
committee. And I guess in part because of the topics and 
America's role in the world is something that we all are 
passionate about.
    But partly it is the leadership. I served under Chairman 
Corker, Chairman Risch, and now you, Chairman Menendez. And all 
three of you have given me responsibility, empowered people. 
You have listened and been respectful.
    And that makes it a pretty special committee. So today, I 
mean can you believe we just by unanimous consent ended up 
approving a couple of dozen ambassadors and a lot of important 
resolutions, including one from Senator Risch that I worked 
with him on, on the Ukraine genocide.
    As discussed, that is passion of all of ours, and know that 
I will miss having this platform to be able to discuss my 
involvement. So to you, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for 
the way you have handled this committee. Chairman--former 
Chairman Risch, Ranking Members, thank you.
    And to both of you, thank you for your friendship. I am 
particularly pleased that Jane Portman got to hear some of 
these fictitious comments.
    And to admit the truth is that playing the role of 
President Obama was easy because I had all my notes in front of 
me, and I was able to, you know, go right to some of these 
tough issues. But as some of you say in that first debate, he 
was more equipped to the task.
    So anyway, it has been great serving with all of you. I 
will miss this committee a lot. And I thank you for giving me 
the honor of serving with you.
    [Applause.]
    The Chairman. On behalf of Senator Risch and I, and the 
whole committee, we have a resolution. And I am not going to 
read it all, but I do--we do want to present it to you.
    There are few signatures, just because Members just did not 
arrive today in time, that we will get. I am sure it will be 
unanimous. I would note that the whole Democratic side is 
filled out already.
    [Laughter.]
    [Pause.]
    The Chairman. With that recognition, the work of the 
committee is finished, and this business meeting is adjourned.


    [Whereupon, at 10:33 a.m., the meeting was adjourned.]



                              ----------                              


                                [all]