[Senate Prints 118-26]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
118th Congress} { S.PRT.
2nd Session } COMMITTEE PRINT { 118-26
===================================================================
BUSINESS MEETINGS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
DURING THE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
First Session
January 3, 2023 to January 3, 2024
Second Session
January 3, 2024 to January 3, 2025
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
Available via the World Wide Web:
http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
56-851 WASHINGTON : 2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
february 1, 2023
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey, Chairman
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire MARCO RUBIO, Florida
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware MITT ROMNEY, Utah
CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut PETE RICKETTS, Nebraska
TIM KAINE, Virginia 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 BILL HAGERTY, Tennessee
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois TIM SCOTT, South Carolina
Damian Murphy, Staff Director
Christopher M. Socha, Republican Staff Director
John Dutton, Chief Clerk
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
september 27, 2023
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland, Chairman
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire MARCO RUBIO, Florida
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware MITT ROMNEY, Utah
CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut PETE RICKETTS, Nebraska
TIM KAINE, Virginia 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 BILL HAGERTY, Tennessee
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois TIM SCOTT, South Carolina
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
118th CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION
Thursday, February 9 and Tuesday, February 21, 2023
Committee Polls................................................ 1
Wednesday, March 8, 2023
Summary of Action Taken by the Committee....................... 3
Meeting Transcript............................................. 4
Thursday, April 28, 2023
Summary of Action Taken by the Committee....................... 29
Meeting Transcript............................................. 30
Wednesday, May 3, 2023
Summary of Action Taken by the Committee....................... 35
Meeting Transcript............................................. 37
Thursday, June 1, 2023
Summary of Action Taken by the Committee....................... 49
Meeting Transcript............................................. 51
Thursday, June 8, 2023
Summary of Action Taken by the Committee....................... 75
Meeting Transcript............................................. 76
Thursday, July 13, 2023
Summary of Action Taken by the Committee....................... 83
Meeting Transcript............................................. 86
Wednesday, September 20, 2023
Summary of Action Taken by the Committee....................... 147
Meeting Transcript............................................. 147
Wednesday, October 25, 2023
Summary of Action Taken by the Committee....................... 153
Meeting Transcript............................................. 153
(iii)
118th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
Wednesday, January 24, 2024
Summary of Action Taken by the Committee....................... 165
Meeting Transcript............................................. 166
Wednesday, March 20, 2024
Summary of Action Taken by the Committee....................... 307
Meeting Transcript............................................. 307
Tuesday, April 16, 2024
Summary of Action Taken by the Committee....................... 321
Meeting Transcript............................................. 324
Wednesday, September 25, 2024
Summary of Action Taken by the Committee....................... 357
Meeting Transcript............................................. 359
=======================================================================
BUSINESS MEETINGS OF THE U.S. SENATE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
DURING THE 118th CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
=======================================================================
COMMITTEE POLLS
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9 AND FEBRUARY 21, 2023
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
Members Participating: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons,
Murphy, Kain, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen, Duckworth,
Risch, Rubio, Romney, Ricketts, Paul, Young, Barrasso, Cruz,
Hagerty, and Scott
Summary of Action Taken by the Committee
COMMITTEE POLLS
The following is a summary of the outcome of two Senate Foreign
Relations Committee polls taken on 2/9/2023 and 2/21/2023:
The Committee Rules for the 118th Congress--agreed to unanimously
by poll
The SFRC Subcommittee Asignments for the 118th Congress--agreed
to unanimously by poll
LEGISLATION
S.Res. ------, Authorizing expenditures by the Committee on Foreign
Relations for the 118th Congress--agreed to by poll (Ricketts
recorded as no)
BUSINESS MEETING
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 8, 2023
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
Summary of Action Taken by the Committee
LEGISLATION
S. 316, A bill to repeal the authorizations for use of military force
against Iraq--agreed to by roll call vote (13-8)
Ayes: Menendez, Cardin (proxy), Shaheen, Coons, Murphy,
Kaine, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen (proxy), Duckworth
(proxy), Paul, Young
Nays: Risch, Rubio (proxy), Romney (proxy), Ricketts,
Barrasso (proxy), Cruz, Hagerty, Scott (proxy)
Cruz 1st Degree 1--not agreed to by roll call vote (8-13)
Ayes: Risch, Rubio (proxy), Romney (proxy), Ricketts,
Barrasso, Cruz, Hagerty, Scott
Nays: Menendez, Cardin (proxy), Shaheen, Coons, Murphy,
Kaine, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen (proxy), Duckworth
(proxy), Paul, Young
Paul 1st Degree 1--not agreed to by roll call vote (1-20)
Ayes: Paul
Nays: Menendez, Risch, Cardin (proxy), Shaheen, Coons,
Murphy, Kaine, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen (proxy),
Duckworth (proxy), Rubio (proxy), Romney (proxy), Ricketts,
Young, Barrasso (proxy), Cruz, Hagerty, Scott (proxy)
Risch 1st Degree 1--not agreed to by roll call vote (9-12)
Ayes: Risch, Rubio (proxy), Romney (proxy), Ricketts, Young,
Barrasso (proxy), Cruz, Hagerty, Scott
Nays: Menendez, Cardin (proxy), Shaheen, Coons, Murphy,
Kaine, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen (proxy), Duckworth
(proxy), Paul
S. 509, A bill to provide resources for United States nationals
unlawfully or wrongfully detained abroad, and for other
purposes--agreed to by voice vote
S. 430, A bill to provide authority to enter into a cooperative
agreement to protect civilians in Iraq and the Arabian
Peninsula from weaponized unmanned aerial systems--held over
NOMINATIONS
The Honorable Richard R. Verma, of Maryland, to be Deputy Secretary
of State for Management and Resources--agreed to by voice vote
(Rubio, Barrasso recorded as no)
The Honorable Stephanie Sanders Sullivan, of Maryland, a Career
Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Career Minister,
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
(Rubio, Barrasso recorded as no)
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, Barrasso, Hagerty, Scott recorded as no)
Dr. Geeta Rao Gupta, of Virginia, to be Ambassador-at-Large for
Global Women's Issues--agreed to by roll call vote (11-10)
Ayes: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen (proxy), Coons, Murphy,
Kaine, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen (proxy), Duckworth
Nays: Risch, Rubio (proxy), Romney (proxy), Ricketts, Paul
(proxy), Young, Barrasso (proxy), Cruz, Hagerty, Scott (proxy)
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 by roll call vote
(13-8)
Ayes: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen (proxy), Coons, Murphy,
Kaine, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen (proxy), Duckworth,
Young, Hagerty
Nays: Risch, Rubio (proxy), Romney (proxy), Ricketts, Paul,
Barrasso (proxy), Cruz, Scott (proxy)
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 (Rubio, Barrasso recorded as no)
Mr. Richard L.A. Weiner, of the District of Columbia, to be United
States Director of the European Bank for Reconstruction and
Development--agreed to by voice vote (Rubio, Barrasso 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--agreed to by roll call vote (11-10)
Ayes: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen (proxy), Coons, Murphy,
Kaine, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen (proxy), Duckworth
Nays: Risch, Rubio (proxy), Romney (proxy), Ricketts, Paul
(proxy), Young, Barrasso (proxy), Cruz, Hagerty, Scott (proxy)
Meeting Trancript
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m., in
room S-116, the President's Room, Hon. Robert Menendez
presiding.
Present: Senators Menendez [presiding], Cardin, Shaheen,
Coons, Murphy, Kaine, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Duckworth,
Risch, Paul, Young, Barrasso, Cruz, Hagerty, Ricketts, and
Scott.
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 we begin our work in the 118th Congress, I would like to
welcome back all of our committee members, especially our new
members, Senators Duckworth, Ricketts, and Scott. Again,
welcome to the committee.
During the last Congress, this committee made several major
contributions to our foreign policy and the operation of the
State Department. We had two bipartisan State authorization
bills enacted into law. We reported out critical Taiwan
legislation that was enacted into law. We confirmed nearly 200
nominees, and we provided advice and consent through
ratification of momentous treaties. None of this could have
happened without the partnership of the ranking member and the
contributions of all the members of the committee, so you have
my thanks.
In the year ahead, I look forward to working with everyone
in the same productive, bipartisan manner, including on
strengthening our tools to confront China. As you know, Senator
Risch and I are working on a comprehensive bill to help us
compete with China, and we would like the thoughts of members,
advancing another State authorization bill to modernize the
Department, reform security assistance to ensure the State
Department and the Pentagon leads in this area, promoting and
advancing versions of foreign policy, working to ensure that
Russia offers a strategic defeat in Ukraine, and promoting
democracy, human rights, and the rule of law around the world.
I want to take the beginning of this opening session to
reiterate two important housekeeping measures from last
Congress. First, I will enforce amendment deadlines when we
mark up legislation. This way everyone has time to consider
amendments before we debate and vote on them. To be fair and
consistent, there will be no exceptions, so please submit them
on time.
Second, there was some abuse of holdovers last Congress.
These are intended to give members more time to consider a
particular item or a nominee, not as a blanket approach to hold
up entire business meetings. I'll continue to honor holdovers
consistent with the committee practice, but I will not honor
blanket holdovers.
We have a number of qualified nominees on the agenda slated
for important posts. I will not speak about them individually,
but I hope we can work together to get these nominees confirmed
expeditiously. Let me speak briefly about--there are three
bills on the agenda. I have received a letter asking that S.
430 be held over to the next business meeting, and I will honor
that request.
S. 509, a bill to provide resources for United States
nationals unlawfully or wrongfully detained abroad. Today we
will be considering supporting Americans wrongfully or
unlawfully detained abroad after 2023, a bill I introduced with
Ranking Member Risch, Senator Shaheen, and Senator Hagerty.
Currently, families of Americans held hostage by non-State
actors of ISIL or al-Qaeda have access to firms that travel to
Washington so they can advocate for release of their loved
ones. In contrast, families of Americans wrongfully detained by
foreign governments, be it Iran, China, Russia, Venezuela, or
others, receive nothing. This bill will rectify that inequity
and make sure that all families with loved ones held hostage
abroad are treated equally. It is a simple matter of fairness,
and I hope all of my colleagues will work to get it quickly
enacted.
Next, we will be considering S. 316, a bill repealing the
1991 and 2002 authorizations for the use of military force
against Iraq, and we commend Senators Kaine and Young for their
commitment and leadership on this issue. I am proud to be a co-
sponsor of this important bill.
AUMFs are the most solemn responsibility of this committee,
and our duty is not just to pass them and move on. We must be
vigilant as to how they are used and whether it would be wise
to continue to keep them on the books. I believe it would be a
serious mistake not to repeal the 1991 and 2002 AUMFs. We feel
it would have no negative impact on our national security, but,
critically, it will mean future administrations cannot abuse
these authorizations and using military force, using it in ways
Congress never intended, much less imagined.
The Administration is of the view it has the authority
under Article II of the Constitution or the 2001 AUMF to do
everything it needs to do in the counterterrorism space and to
protect our troops deployed around the Middle East, and they
have committed to coming back to Congress to ask for additional
authority if a new exigency arises for which authorities are
needed. That is the way it should be. And I appreciate our
colleague in the House, Congressman [inaudible] for being
present today with us.
As I said, S. 430 I will hold over and honor that, and with
that, let me turn to the ranking member for his comments.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. RISCH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO
Senator Risch. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Like you, I want to welcome our new members, Senators Ricketts,
Scott, and Duckworth, and I welcome everyone back. I also want
to associate myself with your remarks about the good bipartisan
legislation passed in the last Congress. I really think that it
is important that this committee act in a nonpartisan,
bipartisan manner as much as possible. We really do that to a
large degree. Of course, there are matters that are partisan,
and from time to time we deal with those, when we get them, as
best we can.
I want to talk briefly about some of the nominees we have
in front of us, starting with Ambassador Verma on the agenda to
be the next Deputy Secretary of State for Management and
Resources. A former ambassador, Ambassador Verma understands
the departmental resources needed for the embassies to do their
job. I hope we can bring common sense to a number of
challenging issues. I am impressed with his qualifications.
Regarding the Gupta nomination to be Ambassador-at-Large
for Global Women's Issues, I was opposed to her nomination for
this role in the last Congress. I remain opposed.
Fundamentally, I think she is going to try to expand the
mission of the office, particularly with regard to the use of
foreign assistance--U.S. foreign assistance in performing
abortions abroad. We had a discussion about this and the
background on this issue. I remain unconvinced. Again, I am
going to vote no on her nomination.
My views also remain unchanged on the Martinez nomination
to be U.S. Executive Director of the Inter-American Development
Bank. His hyper partisan remarks on social media were offensive
to me and other members of this committee and go beyond even
the more extreme statements of other confirmed nominees. He has
not shown that he can serve in this role in a bipartisan way. I
will still be voting no.
On the Garcetti nomination, information on the question of
his knowledge of harassment by a former senior aide is less
than precise. The new information raised enough questions
regarding his judgment. I will be voting no.
On the legislation before us today, while I support the
bill on the AUMF, which is a huge issue for us. It is an
incredibly important issue for Congress, for America. I have
sat--for many years I have been here, I sat on both this
committee and the Intel Committee, and I have sat through
dozens and dozens of hours of debate on this, of lawyers
arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin,
and it is--it is a difficult, difficult issue.
The 2002 Authorization for the Use of Force has long been
used to address threats emanating from Iraq. Specifically,
multiple administrations rely on this ability to address the
threat from Iran-backed Shia militias. Should the statutory
authority fall away, we are only left with the President's
policy to protect Americans. Instead of reasserting
congressional authority, we would be ceding it solely to the
executive branch. Worse, I remain unconvinced that the
administration has conducted any legal consultations with Iraq,
Israel, or other partners to deal with how to repeal this
authority. This would [inaudible] deterrence against the
Iranian regime.
Iran and its proxies have attacked American troops and
diplomats over 100 times since the Biden administration took
office with almost no response. Clearly, there are doubts of
American resolve. I am concerned about the message this repeal
would send to the region as much as anything else. Most
importantly, I am really concerned that the repeal of this will
have less than clarity on future administrations when the
President determines that action needs to happen. I do not
disagree that it needs reform. If it is going to be repealed, I
have no problem with that and put something in its place. We do
not have that.
Finally, on Senate Bill 509, I agree with the Chairman's
statements regarding the ability to [inaudible] of those
declared wrongfully or unlawfully detained and authoritarian
States' increased use of hostage diplomacy. We must do
everything we can to prevent further hostage taking of
Americans for families who are suffering. I urge my colleagues
to support this legislation as well.
The last thing, Mr. Chairman, the pending nominees, I ask
that members be able to record a no vote. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. OK. With that, we have a series of
nominations before the committee. Before I make a motion for
their consideration, is there any member who wishes to speak on
the nominations? Senator Shaheen?
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to
respond to Senator Risch's comments about Dr. Gupta, and that
is supported by these issues because, in fact, as I have said
on multiple occasions, the Office of Global Women's Issues does
not deal with healthcare for women or reproductive healthcare
for women. And so I think it is really important to recognize
what the role of the Office of Global Women's Issues is. We put
a gender lens on our foreign policy, which we know when women
are empowered in countries, it contributes to the stability of
those countries, to the stability of families, and the
stability of communities. So, again, I think it is a real
mischaracterization to suggest that Dr. Gupta is interested in
expanding abortion rights for women. That is not the role of
the Office of Global Women's Issues.
Senator Risch. May I respond briefly?
The Chairman. Senator Risch?
Senator Risch. First of all, I have tremendous respect for
Senator Shaheen's views on this and other related issues, and I
certainly agree with her a lot of the time. I just cannot get
there with Dr. Gupta. I think she is going to expand the
office. Her answers were not satisfactory to me after doing
that, and it hit--if she is not doing it--if this has nothing
to do with women's healthcare and she is not going to expand
the office, it is incredible to me that Planned Parenthood
aggressively supports her for this position. Planned Parenthood
should not have anything to do with the position or the office.
So in any event, I am going to vote no, and I appreciate you.
Senator Shaheen. And----
Senator Risch. And I appreciate--I do honestly appreciate
you.
Senator Shaheen [continuing]. I respect your ability to
vote no. You disagree with her, but we should not
mischaracterize what the Office of Global Women's Issues does,
and that is what I am objecting to.
Senator Cruz. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Anyone else willing--wish to be recognized?
Senator Cruz?
Senator Cruz. I want to inquire. Are you proposing to take
all the nominations en bloc, or are we going to have separate
votes?
The Chairman. We are going to have a group of nominees,
that I understand there is not objection, en bloc, and then we
will have individual votes.
Senator Cruz. OK. So we will have a separate vote on Nucete
and Garcetti?
The Chairman. We will have a separate vote; the ranking
member has reminded me, of Garcetti, Gupta, and Martinez.
Senator Cruz. OK. I would also ask for a separate vote on
Nucete.
Voice. Is that not Martinez?
Voice. Yes, Martinez.
Senator Cruz. Oh, I am sorry. OK.
[Cross talking.]
The Chairman. Anyone else who wishes to speak to the
nominees?
[No response.]
The Chairman. If not, I would ask that we approve the
following nominations en bloc: the Honorable Richard Verma of
Maryland to be Deputy Secretary of State for Management and
Resources, the Honorable Stephanie Sanders Sullivan to be
Ambassador to the African Union, Michael Ratney to be
Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, and Mr. Felice Gorordo to be U.S.
Alternate Executive Director to the International Bank of
Reconstruction and Development, and Richard Weiner to be U.S.
Director of the European Bank for Reconstruction and
Development.
Is there a motion?
Voice. So moved.
Senator Kaine. 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 these nominations are
favorably reported to the Senate.
Senator Cruz. Mr. Chairman, I would ask, with Senator
Risch, that I be recorded as a no on Gupta.
[Cross talking.]
The Chairman. We have not--we have not had--we have not
had----
Senator Cruz. Oh, so never mind.
The Chairman [continuing]. We have not had that vote.
Senator Cruz. Never mind.
Senator Shaheen. The Senator was here today.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Senator Hagerty will be voting no on the
Ratney nomination.
Senator Scott. I am a no on----
The Chairman. Senator Scott will be recorded no on the
Ratney nomination. All right. With that, the nominees are
approved and sent to the Senate.
Let us turn to legislation at this point. First, S. 509, a
bill to provide resources----
Senator Kaine. Mr. Chair----
Voice. Mr. Chairman?
Senator Kaine. Are we going to----
The Chairman. I am going to hold in abeyance the ones that
have to have a recorded vote.
Senator Kaine. OK.
The Chairman. A Bill to Provide Resources for U.S.
Nationals Unlawfully or Wrongfully Detained Abroad, and for
Other Purposes. We talked about this earlier in the
introduction, both myself and the ranking member. Is there
anyone who wishes to be heard on S. 509?
[No response.]
The Chairman. If not, I will entertain a motion that----
Voice. So moved.
The Chairman. So made. A motion has been made. Is there a
second?
Senator Kaine. Second.
The Chairman. Made and seconded. The question is on the
motion to approve.
All those in favor will say aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
The Chairman. All those opposed will say no.
[No response.]
The Clerk. The ayes have it.
The Chairman. A majority of members having voted
affirmatively, the ayes have it, and the amendment--I mean, the
legislation--is approved and sent to the Senate for its full
consideration.
Now we will go to S. 316, a bill to repeal the
authorizations of the use of military force against Iraq. Would
any members seek to comment on this bill? Senator Kaine, the
sponsor?
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to colleagues.
I am going to distribute an article that appeared in Reuters 2
days ago, and it was an article about the visit of General
Austin, our Secretary of Defense, to Iraq. He went in an
unannounced visit, and he said the following after meeting with
Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed al-Sudani: ``U.S. forces are
ready to remain in Iraq at the invitation--at the invitation--
of the government of Iraq. The United States will continue to
strengthen and broaden our partnership in support of Iraqi
security, stability, and sovereignty.'' Prime Minister al-
Sudani additionally commented about the value of the U.S.
partnership in defeating the continuous threat of terrorism,
especially ISIS, and the value of the U.S. partnership in
trying to curb Iranian aggression in the region.
This is a strong security partnership that has value. We
had an Armed Services hearing yesterday, and Pentagon officials
testified to that important value. The challenge, though, is
that we have two war authorizations against Iraq. One was
passed in 1991 to commence the Gulf War, and one was passed in
October 2002 to commence the Iraq War. The mission in the Gulf
War was to push Iraq forces out of Kuwait. That was done in a
short period of time. The mission has essentially been
completed for more than 30 years, and yet the war authorization
against the government of Iraq is still on the books. The
mission of toppling the Iraqi government that led to the Iraq
war resolution in 2002 was complete in 2003, 20 years ago. The
20th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq is a week from Sunday,
and yet the war authorization against this Nation that is now a
security partner of the United States remains on the books.
The very simple bill that we put forward--Senator Young and
I as co-sponsors--would repeal both the 1991 and the 2002
authorizations for four reasons. One, it is a reflection of the
current reality. Iraq is no longer an enemy. We no longer seek
to topple the government of Iraq. Iraq is a security partner in
at least two important American security priorities to defeat
non-State terrorist organizations and a check on Iranian
aggression.
Second, it is important for Congress, as the Chairman
mentioned in his opening comments, to exercise vigorously the
powers accorded to Congress in Article I, the protection over
our decisionmaking regarding war, peace, and diplomacy. These
were wars that were started with congressional votes, and given
that the mission that occasioned those votes is now long in the
rearview mirror, it is time for Congress to exercise the
muscle, the Article I power of repealing them.
Third, repealing authorizations has a way of removing the
possibility for mischief because a live authorization years
after its mission was completed becomes sort of a zombie
authorization, and it can be used in circumstances if a
President wants to go around Congress and say I can do this
because Congress voted for it, you can pull up a zombie
authorization and stretch it to cover activities that were
never intended by the Congress as they voted for the
authorization.
Finally, a last reason, I think it is not a bad thing to
send a message that the United States has a way of turning
adversaries into partners. We have done it with nations like
Japan. We have done it with nations like Germany. We have done
it throughout our history, and that is a tribute to American
magnanimity and our desire that just because we are engaged in
hostilities with you today, we hold out the hope we can beat a
sword into a plowshare at some point in the future to have a
partnership, and that is what we have done with Iraq, and it
ought to be recognized.
I think the Iraqi Government recognizes it. In
conversations with Iraqi officials they appreciate it, and I
think it would be positive in the U.S.-Iraq relationship, but
also sending the message to nations we are in adversarial
tensions with around the world right now that the U.S. has no
permanent adversaries. We may be an adversary today, but we
would hold out the hope that we could turn it into an olive
branch at sometime in the future.
The Biden administration has weighed in and said these two
authorizations cover no current military activities. Their
repeal would not jeopardize in any way the authority of the
President to keep the U.S. safe. The President retains very
broad power to fight non-State terrorist groups, including some
that many in this committee are worried about. Obviously, under
the 2001 authorization that remains on the books, the President
retains very broad power under Article II to defend the United
States against an attack or against the imminent threat of an
attack, and that term has some subjectivity to it. But I think
we all agree that the tie goes to the President on that one. If
a President believes there is an imminent threat of attack, the
President needs to take action without coming to us.
So for the four reasons that I have outlined, I think after
20 years, it is time to set the Iraq War aside, show that
Congress takes Article I power seriously, and repeal these
authorizations. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Anyone else seeking to be heard?
Senator Young. Yes. Mr. Chairman, thank you for adding this
to the agenda. I, of course, want to thank the ranking member
for your cooperation as we worked to add it to the agenda.
Senator Kaine, thank you for your longstanding leadership on
this issue. I think we are poised for a strong vote today and
on the floor.
As the folks around this table know, we are approaching the
20th anniversary of the war against the regime of Saddam
Hussein. I, like everyone around the table, am proud of the
service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform. We lost
4,400 Americans in that conflict, 31,000 wounded. I am proud of
the Iraqi people as well. Under the most adverse of
circumstances, they have finally, after working for, roughly,
the last year, been able to assemble a government under Prime
Minister al-Sudani. They live in a dangerous neighborhood.
There is a terror State not too far from them by the name of
Iran. And I had the opportunity along with Senator Murphy to
sit down with the Iraqi foreign minister and discuss a number
of issues just days ago, and it was reassuring to me how much
he and the Iraqi government support us taking this step today.
Iran looms large for the region. It also looms large for
the country of Iraq itself. I completely agree with my
colleagues who emphasize the importance of countering Iran and
stopping their aggressive behavior, but voting against a repeal
of outdated authorities aimed at removing Saddam Hussein in
2003 is not the way to counter Iran in 2023. The region has
changed, the threat has changed, and our authorities for the
use of force need to change along with it. I once again thank
the chairman, and I encourage a yes vote for S. 316.
The Chairman. Anyone else who wishes to speak to the bill?
Senator Paul?
Senator Paul. I wholeheartedly support the public and
official ending of the Iraq War. I think the war was a mistake
from the beginning. I think it was sold under false pretenses.
I think we should remember that 100,000 soldiers were sent over
there, and 4,400 of them died. Countless--hundreds of thousands
of Iraqis died. That is what the authorization allowed, and
this was a big vote when it happened. Those who voted to
authorize that bear some responsibility for that war, and if
you vote today to keep this--that is essentially what we are
voting on today--you are basically voting on an authorization
that was used to allow 100,000 troops to go to Iraq.
So to keep this means you still support an authorization
that that was the original intention. I think nobody believes
that it really applies anymore, but that is essentially what
you are voting for. You would have no leg to stand on if a
President, Republican or Democrat, sent 100,000 troops in
because we have this authorization, he will simply say, you all
had a chance to repeal it and you kept it, so I guess you do
not care that I am sending 100,000 troops in. So while some of
this is symbolic, I think some of this actually has real import
because it originally allowed 100,000 troops and 4,400 of our
soldiers to die, and if we think it is over, by golly, let us
end it today.
The Chairman. Any other members seeking recognition?
Senator Coons?
Senator Coons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just--I want to
thank the co-sponsors, Senator Kaine and Senator Young, who
have worked so hard on this over a number of years, over
several administrations now. It is long overdue. A young man
who grew up next door to me was killed in Iraq in December
2005. I will never forget the words his widow left me with:
``Tell me why my husband died in Baghdad.'' He was proud of his
service. He was training Iraqi police. He was contributing to a
pathway toward peace.
But to the point Senator Paul just made, it is long since
time for us to repeal an authorization that no longer has any
meaningful purpose. And as Senator Kaine said, it is an
invitation to mischief if we do not assert our full
constitutional duty and remove it. I understand some have
concerns about it, but I think those are well and thoroughly
addressed, and I hope we will move expeditiously on this.
The Chairman. Any other members who wish to make--Senator
Cruz?
Senator Cruz. Mr. Chair, is it time to call up the
amendments?
The Chairman. Yes.
Senator Cruz. Mr. Chairman, I call up my amendment, Cruz
First Degree 1, and let me start by commending the authors of
this bill. I agree with what you are trying to do. Much of what
you have said here I agree with emphatically. I think it is
critical that Congress assert its authority on war making. I
think Congress, for far too long--Congresses, both Republican
and Democrat, have been far too willing to roll over and cede
war-making authority to the executive, and we have been far too
willing to abdicate our constitutional authority over declaring
war and over supervising the conduct of war.
I also believe the Iraq War was a mistake, and I have been
vocal and unequivocal on this point. The world was made more
dangerous by going in and toppling a horrific dictator but
leaving a power vacuum from which emerged more powerful and
more dangerous American enemies. However, the last time we
debated this in the prior Congress, I argued that these debates
do not occur in a vacuum, and I expressed the deep concern that
the Biden administration was preparing to exercise a hard pivot
toward Iran, and that doing so would be turning a blind eye to
the Ayatollah's malign activities, which directly endanger the
safety and security of Americans.
And I said then what I do not want to see. I did not want
to see this resolution adopted, these AUMFs repealed, and have
the administration have another pretext for inaction against
Iranian aggression, and that I fully expected, not only brought
inaction, but that the Biden administration would use any and
every pretext to justify that passivity and inaction toward
Iran.
Unfortunately and catastrophically, everything that has
happened in the past year and a half since our last debate has
confirmed the predictions made in that room that day. Attacks
against American forces and our allies in the Middle East by
Iranian-controlled forces have become frighteningly normalized
and ruinous. The IRGC has been conducting a global campaign of
assassination, including plots to murder American officials on
American soil. While these plots were happening, the
administration was in negotiations to lift the terror
designation on the IRGC. Iran continues to run proxies across
the Middle East that fund terrorism and war against our allies,
including especially the State of Israel, while the Biden
administration has allowed Iran to rebuild its oil exports
above a million barrels a day, funding this terror regime.
As Senator Young said a minute ago, Iraq is in a dangerous
neighborhood, and they have a terror State next to them in
Iran. This administration is so committed to inaction against
Iran that they have even subordinated victory in the war in
Ukraine to their practice of appeasement toward Iran. They have
denied our Ukrainian allies the missiles they needed to target
Iranian drones that have devaStated Ukrainian infrastructure
because where there are Iranian drones, there are undoubtedly
Iranian personnel, and it would have been inconvenient to have
dead Iranian terrorists littering Crimea while trying to make a
deal with Iranian terrorists.
Russia uses Iranian banks to dodge sanctions. They use the
tankers that Iran used to transport oil, the ones the Biden
administration did nothing about, to move their own oil.
Ukrainian President Zelensky has repeatedly said that Russia
pays for Iranian drones in part by providing nuclear
cooperation, cooperation enabled by President Biden's sanctions
waivers on Iran.
Against this backdrop, against this, I think, inexplicable
commitment to inaction against Iran, I do not doubt that the
Biden administration will cling any pretext for further
inaction. And in the course of debates over these repeals,
advocates have said, well, the ability to respond to Iranian
aggression, it is contained within Article II, and so we do not
need to do anything on this, and I agree with that as an
abstract matter, but we are not living in an abstract world. We
are living in a real world.
All my amendment does is memorialize that in this bill so
that if the administration comes back after the next Iranian
attack on American forces and says, well, Congress took away
our ability to respond to Iran, so we need another AUMF act, or
if Iran crosses the nuclear threshold, the Biden administration
says, well, Congress took away our ability to act to protect
ourselves, we can absolutely say no, that is false. You chose
not to act.
The Ayatollah is listening to this debate. I hope not
literally. If this amendment is adopted, I will vote yes on the
underlying bill to repeal the AUMFs, and I believe that what
this bill is trying to accomplish is a good thing. But if this
amendment is not adopted, I am going to be forced to vote no
because I am not going to sanction the President sitting idly
by while the Ayatollah continues to murder Americans and
continues to murder our allies, and actively tries to murder
former senior officials of our government.
The Chairman. Anyone else wishes to speak to the amendment?
Senator Young. Could I just very briefly speak?
The Chairman. Senator Young?
Senator Young. I appreciate what my colleague, Senator
Cruz, is attempting to accomplish with this legislation. It
seems to me he wants this body to make a public statement as it
pertains to potential actions that might occur against our
forces or our interests in Iraq by the regime of Iran or its
proxies. But in attempting to do so, it seems to me he is
potentially circumscribing the President's Article II
authorities, not envisioning all the other threats that could
conceivably emerge to our forces, to our interests. Article II
is just fine how it is. It does not need elaboration. I think
when we attempt to elaborate, when we call out specific regimes
like Iran, it is--it could narrow the authorities that we wish
the President to exercise as opposed to expand them.
But I believe this is unnecessary. All these authorities
are already implied in Article II, and to the extent that this
body could in any way undermine the President's Article II
authorities, I fear it does that.
The Chairman. Senator Paul?
Senator Paul. There are Article II powers given to the
President, but there is also Article I, Section 8, which limits
the President's powers in saying that we do not go to war
without a declaration of war by Congress. This alone would
appear to--I do not know--perhaps change the balance between
Article I, Section 8, and Article II, and would appear to
adjudicate the separation of powers. And I think it is a huge
mistake, and I think it would be such a statement that we would
have long, long constitutional debates over whether or not does
this mean Article I, Section 8, does not apply any longer. So I
think it is misguided, and I will oppose the amendment.
The Chairman. Senator Ricketts?
Senator Ricketts. I certainly appreciate the arguments with
regard to Article II and I brought up by the Senator. I just
returned from a CODEL in the Middle East as part of it, and one
of the things we consistently heard from the heads of State
there is that when America projects power, Iran is curbed, and
when America projects weakness, Iran is emboldened. And my
concern about this is, again, if we are not sending the message
that Iran is somebody that we are going to continue to push
back against, this would be another message after Afghanistan
to those countries in the Middle East that America is
withdrawing from the area. That will not only empower Iran, but
also encourage China to take our place in that power vacuum.
So I believe that this amendment, again, getting back to
the reality that the President may have the opportunity to be
able to keep us safe? I do not disagree, but I think this sends
a message, to your point, Senator, about perception is reality.
If we say that we are repealing these but we are going to
continue to keep the option open to strike Iran, that sends a
message to our allies in the Middle East that we are not
disengaging, and we are going to be there to support them, and
that they should not go into China's arms, and that they should
stay with us and that we will continue to push back against
Iran.
The Chairman. Senator Kaine?
Senator Kaine. I urge my colleagues to oppose the
amendment. I think it is not a good idea to conflate war
authorizations against one country with another country. We do
have really serious issues with Iran, and I think the issues
only got more serious in the last year for a variety of
reasons. But this was a very straightforward two authorizations
to topple the government of Iraq, and continuing to--and
starting the tradition of conflating the Iraq authorizations
with Iran is a bad idea, and I would just urge a no vote.
The Chairman. Let me close this at this time----
Senator Cruz. Go ahead. Go ahead, Mr. Chairman. You can
comment or I can respond.
The Chairman [continuing]. I'll go afterward.
Senator Cruz. Several observations. One, I respect the
sincerity of the views around this table on this issue. Senator
Young and Senator Paul suggested something in this amendment
would somehow alter Article II or weaken Article II, and as all
of us know, we do not have that ability in Congress. No
legislation we pass can alter or weaken Article II of the
Constitution or any other article of the Constitution. That
constitutional authority is the supreme law of the land and
supersedes any legislation passed by this body.
Second, you know, I--the arguments made against this
amendment have varied. On one level, some of the arguments have
been, well, it is unnecessary because Article II already does
it. Well, if it is unnecessary then it ought to be easy to vote
for it ``yes.'' If it is restating what Article II already
does, it ought to be easy to vote ``yes,'' and, if nothing
else, you will get one more vote because I will vote for the
bill if you adopt it, and I will vote against it if you do not.
So if it is unnecessary, it ought to be a very easy give.
But the real problem, and nobody has disputed what I said,
which is that if Congress repeals the AUMF, the Biden
administration will use that to say, gosh, we cannot act
against Iran. And what I said a year and a half ago, that was
prospective. It was looking forward predicting what they would
do. We now know what they would do, which is not a damn thing.
And the argument was raised, well, gosh, this suggests that
the President cannot act against other countries. If someone is
aware of another country that right now is the leading funders
of terrorism across the globe, is actively funding terrorists
who are murdering Americans, is actively funding terrorists who
are murdering our allies, and if someone knows of another
country against whom the United States State Department has to
pay $2 million a month to protect a former secretary of State
from being murdered by them, then feel free to add that
country. I am not aware of any other country that is currently
entailing that kind of security risk in trying to murder a
former secretary of State. I still remember asking Tony
Blinken, trying to murder a secretary of State is a pretty big
deal, and Secretary Blinken unsurprisingly laughed and
acknowledged, yes, it is. I do not want to give any excuse for
inaction, and so I would encourage Senators to support my
amendment.
The Chairman. The administration has not cited the 2002
AUMF in recent U.S. defensive actions against Iranian-backed
militias. It has done so without using the 2002 AUMF. And it
has made clear it has sufficient authority under Article II to
defend U.S. interests and personnel against Iranian-backed
militias. So I agree that the United States does not need the
2002 AUMF to defend U.S. interests and personnel against
Iranian-backed militias.
And as the administration committed to this committee when
we held a hearing on this topic, the administration would come
back to Congress for any sustained action against Iranian-
backed militias or Iran that goes beyond Article II authority,
and that is the way I would hope that we would want it as
Members of Congress. We want and should have a say in the scope
of future authorizations of military force. But I see no reason
to provide the executive branch with an expansive
characterization of its Article II powers. Doing so would
represent a renunciation of Congress' own war power
prerogatives. The point of this exercise is to remove two
outdated AUMFs from the books, not endorse a further tilt
toward the executive branch on using force.
And finally, as someone who has been the architect of both
of the sanctions against Iran for nearly 2 decades, and who
opposed the JCPOA and has continuously taken among the
strongest actions based on our policies against Iran, I do not
accept the proposition that, in fact, the administration will
do nothing. It is attacking Iranian militias as it seeks to do,
and it would be the use of an AUMF if it was going beyond its
Article II powers. It has Article II powers. It will use it,
and if it were to declare an all-out war against Iran, then I
would expect that ultimately it would come back to Congress for
the ask of use of authorization. With that, I urge my
colleagues to vote ``no.''
Does the Senator want a recorded vote?
Senator Cruz. Yes, please.
The Chairman. A 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. Merkley?
Senator Merkley. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
Senator Booker. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Schatz?
Senator Schatz. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen?
The Chairman. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mrs. Duckworth?
The Chairman. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
Senator Risch. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Ricketts?
Senator Ricketts. Aye.
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. Hagerty?
Senator Hagerty. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Scott?
Senator Scott. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. No. The Clerk will report.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are eight. The noes are
13.
The Chairman. And the amendment is not agreed to.
Are there any other amendments to be presented on this
legislation?
Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman----
The Chairman. Senator Risch?
Senator Risch. I call up Risch First Degree Number 1.
The Chairman. Risch First Degree Amendment Number 1. Now,
as we call that up--we got--do you want to hold the vote open
until we finish this round?
Senator Risch. I do not think----
The Chairman. Senator Risch.
Senator Risch. This first degree amendment would condition
repeal on the certification from the Attorney General and
Secretary of Defense, that tension authorities and the
litigation position of the U.S. with respect to the tension
would not be weakened. It is critically important that a proper
Justice Department [inaudible] any difference. In the years
from 2002, the AUMF has been cited as an initial authority for
detention.
[Inaudible] found that 2001 AUMF did not provide the
authority for detention. Supplemental legal authorities, like
the 2003 AUMF, were actually critical.
The amendment is simple. Before we take the significant
step of repealing 2002 AUMF, both the [inaudible] and Secretary
[inaudible] by Congress that our ability to detain terrorists
would not be weakened by such an agreement. This is one of
those issues that is incidental to this, and one the reason I
am voting against the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Anyone wish to speak to the amendment?
[No response.]
The Chairman. I appreciate the ranking member's desire to
make sure we account for every possible hypothetical
development we could imagine. The fact is that the 2002 AUMF is
not the answer to any threats we are facing today. Further, as
the acting State legal adviser testified before this committee,
the 2002 AUMF is not necessary for the detention of terrorists
abroad. It seems to me that our job is to ensure that we are
sufficiently preserving congressional prerogatives as long as
we protect [inaudible], and as such I will oppose the
amendment.
Does the Senator want a roll call vote?
Senator Risch. A roll call.
The Chairman. A roll call 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. Merkley?
Senator Merkley. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
Senator Booker. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Schatz?
Senator Schatz. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen?
The Chairman. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mrs. Duckworth?
The Chairman. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
Senator Risch. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Ricketts?
Senator Ricketts. Aye.
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. Hagerty?
Senator Hagerty. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Scott?
Senator Scott. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. No. The Clerk will report.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 9. The noes are 12.
The Chairman. And the amendment is not agreed to.
Is there anyone else wishing to offer an amendment? Senator
Paul?
Senator Paul. Some argue that the bill in front of us does
too much, and I will argue that it may be too little. Some have
argued it will change the President's ability to repel Iran, et
cetera, but I actually believe that there may be a great deal
of symbolism in revealing this, and it may do absolutely
nothing. I think that the vast majority of the congressionally
authorized power has been with the 2001 AUMF, and it has been a
long time, longer than the Iraqi AUMF. And also, I think it
should be evaluated in the sense that it has been used, I
think, and abused by presidents in both parties to effect war
in over 20 different countries. Repealing the 2002 AUMF, I
think, is a step in the right direction, but one of the reasons
I think the Biden administration does not oppose this bill is
because they do not think they really need it for anything.
The 2001 AUMF was written very narrowly. It was a big deal,
and it was passed nearly unanimously in the Senate and nearly
unanimously in the House. It authorizes force only against
those who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11th, 2001, or
harbored such organizations or persons. Now, over the decades,
it has come to mean many other things to many other people and
to authorize wars across the continent of Africa and throughout
the Middle East. That is not what was voted on in 2001, and it
is a generation ago now.
We really should not leave things on the books. If you want
to be at war in Mali, you want to be at war in Syria, and you
want to be at war throughout the Middle East, vote on it. If
you want to be at war in Iran, vote on it. We should not leave
this to another generation. These are questions that are too
important.
Over the years the definition of what the 2001 AUMF means
has broadened, but really, without congressional alteration.
Now people say it is to cover associated forces, meaning the
President can claim the authority to go to war against any
group, no matter how tenuous the relationship to be involved in
a 9/11. Today, according to one academic study, U.S. presidents
cited the 2001 AUMF to justify military operations in at least
22 countries. So repealing the 2002 AUMF will still allow the
President to be fighting wars in 22 different countries. No one
who voted on this in 2001 believed they were voting for a
decades-long war fought in over 20 countries. Our job is not
just to put a congressional imprimatur on war. The important
job of Congress is to determine where and when we send our sons
and daughters to fight.
Would anyone here vote to authorize the status quo? If we
put forward a resolution today to say do you want to give the
President power to be at war in the 22 different countries we
are at war in, would you vote for that? That is why it has been
so difficult in putting forward a new authorization because
people are not sure they want to authorize a war in 22 places,
but that is essentially what was really claimed by 2001.
Some argue that repealing this would put us at risk, but
let us have that debate. My amendment makes no mention of
whether we should continue these operations. My amendment
sunsets the 2001 AUMF after 6 months. We can use that time to
debate exactly where and how to authorize force. War is
sometimes necessary, but going to war should not be the
decision of one person. Our Constitution intended it to be a
congressional authorization. A vote for my amendment is a vote
to give the American people an opportunity to vote their
opinions on the question of ending our endless wars. So this
amendment would sunset the 2001 AUMF in 6 months, and I request
a recorded vote.
The Chairman. I thank the Senator. Senator Murphy?
Senator Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think our failure
to update the 2001 AUMF will go down as one of the greatest
abdications of congressional lawmaking authority in the history
of this country. I think the Senator is right that the American
people have no concept where American forces are today engaged
in hostilities, and they would like to have a say in those
questions.
I think we have largely avoided having this debate because
it is difficult. It is hard. The enemy we face today is harder
to define. Victory is harder to understand. And so we have
outsourced this decision about where and when we fight simply
because it is difficult for us to come up with the right
definition about who the enemy is and when the fight is
meritorious. And so I would hope that on our list of
priorities, this committee is taking a hard look at rewriting
the 2001 AUMF.
Senator Menendez led the last effort to rewrite that law.
We did it. We passed it through this committee. The Obama
administration took it pretty seriously and convened a
bipartisan group to try to get it to work, but it remains
unfinished. That being said, I do not think this is the right
place to have this debate. The underlying bill is too big a
priority, and the addition of this amendment would greatly
compromise our ability to pass the underlying bill, which,
frankly, I think is a predicate to having the conversation on
the 2001 AUMF.
Getting this bill done cleanly is the way in which we build
a bipartisan consensus that can help us take the next step,
which I would argue is having this tough conversation about how
we properly authorize armed action against the variety of
dangerous groups around the world who are still seeking to do
harm to the United States. And so I appreciate Senator Paul
continuing to push this issue. I oppose the amendment as
applied to this underlying bill. I hope that this is work ahead
for the committee.
The Chairman. Let me go to--we will come back to Senator
Paul for a--for a comment. Senator Merkley?
Senator Merkley. I agree with all the sentiments expressed
by Senator Paul. If we look at the actual language from 1991,
it is ``use all necessary and appropriate force against those
nations, organizations, persons the President determines
planned, authorized, or committed a terrorist attack that
occurred on September 11th, 2011, or harbored those
organizations.'' It has been stretched and expanded in many
ways since. I would welcome this committee having separate
debate, and I would be supportive of repealing 2001, but not in
the context of this bill in which we are on the verge of
accomplishing something significant in terms of both 1991 and
2002 that would be undermined should we add this provision into
this legislation.
So and it is important today, my colleague, Senator Murphy,
really articulated it effectively, just to be on the record, I
support the effort the Senator is pursuing, but is not
supported in the context of this bill.
The Chairman. Senator Schatz?
Senator Schatz. Thank you. Just to agree with Senators
Murphy and Merkley. I just wanted to say on the Paul Amendment,
if this was a standalone I would be a ``yes,'' but, frankly,
for the same reasons that I support Senator Cruz's amendment,
it has got to be one AUMF at a time and one country at a time
when possible. If we load this thing up, we are never going to
enact anything.
The Chairman. Senator Paul?
Senator Paul. I guess my--just my response would be are any
of you willing to actually do a separate bill and have a vote
on this? You can be on record as being actually for this. I
understand not wanting to--you know, you do not want to on this
bill. But, you know, is somebody is willing to come forward and
actually sponsor this with me and we actually have a vote on a
bill so we actually have recorded votes, then you can record
your, you know, position.
So I guess today--I have had this vote. You know, we had
this 2 years ago, had the vote. I think I was probably the only
vote, and I will probably be the only vote again, but I would
just as soon have the vote again. But if you want to be on
record, if you will come to my office or have your staff talk
with us, we would love to do a bipartisan bill on this. Even
though we will probably still lose on that, we would have the
ability to say we do not believe in unlimited war and say that
for your constituency, but I guess I would still rather have
the vote.
The Chairman. Senator Risch?
Senator Risch. I am going to vote against this, but, look,
everybody here is right. I mean, this is--this is an incredibly
important discussion we are having and been having it for as
long as I have been here. And the 2001 AUMF is the cornerstone,
legal authority that the U.S. uses as they fight to have
counterterrorism operations around the world. It needs a
suitable replacement before it is repealed, 19 and I think that
is the major issue here. We cannot repeal this and say, oh, OK,
6 months and put something else in place. It truly needs to be
replaced. So I am going to vote against this. I suspect that we
will be debating this for a long, long time to come, but this
is a [inaudible]. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. As I previously said, I welcome a
broader discussion on the 2001 AUMF, and I know there is,
obviously, a significant interest by members on debating--to
examine this further. But we have not yet had that vote on this
discussion, including with the administration, and I do not
believe it would be wise to repeal the 2001 AUMF without
engaging in that debate first. For those the reasons, I urge my
colleagues to vote ``no.''
The Senator asked for a 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. Merkley?
Senator Merkley. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
Senator Booker. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Schatz?
Senator Schatz. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen?
The Chairman. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mrs. Duckworth?
The Chairman. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
Senator Risch. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Ricketts?
Senator Ricketts. No.
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. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Hagerty?
Senator Hagerty. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Scott?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. No. The Clerk will report.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the noes--or the ayes are 1, and
the noes are 20.
The Chairman. The amendment is not agreed to.
Is there anyone else wishing to offer an amendment on this
legislation?
[No response.]
The Chairman. If not, the question is--is there a motion to
approve the bill?
Senator Coons. So moved.
The Chairman. So moved. Is there a second?
Senator Shaheen. Second.
The Chairman. Motion has been made and seconded. Senator
Risch, a recorded vote?
Senator Risch. Please.
The Chairman. The Clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
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. Merkley?
Senator Merkley. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
Senator Booker. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Schatz?
Senator Schatz. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen?
The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mrs. Duckworth?
The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
Senator Risch. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Ricketts?
Senator Ricketts. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
Senator Paul. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Young?
Senator Young. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Cruz?
Senator Cruz. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Hagerty?
Senator Hagerty. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Scott?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Aye. The Clerk will report.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 13. The noes are 8.
The Chairman. And with that, the legislation is favorably
reported to the Senate.
This business meeting will now be put into--we have votes
pending on the floor. We will go into recess, subject to the
call of the Chair.
[Recess.]
The Chairman. This business meeting will come back to
order. Thank you all for coming back.
We now have three additional nominees included in our
agenda for which we did not have a vote on this morning. Given
that we have already spoken about these nominees, we will
proceed to vote on them. I have a request for roll call votes,
and so we will start with the roll call vote on Eric Garcetti
to be the U.S. Ambassador to India.
The Clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
Senator Cardin. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
Senator Coons. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
Senator Murphy. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
Senator Kaine. Aye.
Voice. Aye.
The Clerk. Oh, I am sorry. Mr. Kaine?
Senator Kaine. Oh, 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?
The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mrs. Duckworth?
Senator Duckworth. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
Senator Risch. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Ricketts?
Senator Ricketts. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Young?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Cruz?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Hagerty?
Senator Hagerty. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Scott?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Chair?
The Chairman. Aye. Senator Booker wishes to be recorded as
aye and present. Aye and present.
Senator Booker. Thank you very much. Aye and present.
The Chairman. Because we used your proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman----
The Chairman. Senator Young, do you want to be recorded as
present? Your vote on the----
Senator Risch. In person.
The Chairman. In person?
Senator Risch. On Garcetti. They just----
Senator Young. Aye.
The Chairman. The Clerk will report.
Voice. Cruz.
Senator Risch. Senator Cruz.
Senator Cruz. You want Garcetti? No.
The Chairman. OK. The Clerk will report.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 13. The noes are 8.
The Chairman. And the nomination is favorably reported to
the Senate.
The next vote is on Geeta Rao Gupta to be the Ambassador-
at-Large for Global Women's Issues.
The Clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
Senator Cardin. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
Senator Coons. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
Senator Murphy. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
Senator Kaine. 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?
The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mrs. Duckworth?
Senator Duckworth. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
Senator Risch. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Ricketts?
Senator Ricketts. No.
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. Hagerty?
Senator Hagerty. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Scott?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Aye. The Clerk will report.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 11. The noes are 10.
The Chairman. And the nominee is favorably reported to the
Senate.
The final nominee is Leopoldo Martinez Nucete to be U.S.
Executive Director of the Inter-American Development Bank.
The Clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
Senator Cardin. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
Voice. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
Senator Coons. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
Senator Murphy. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
Senator Kaine. 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?
The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mrs. Duckworth?
Senator Duckworth. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
Senator Risch. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Ricketts?
Senator Ricketts. No.
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. Hagerty?
Senator Hagerty. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Scott?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Aye. The Clerk will report.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 11, and the noes are
10.
The Chairman. With the majority of the members present
having voted in the affirmative on all of these nominations,
the ayes have it. The nomination is agreed to, and they are
reported favorably to the Senate.
This completes the committee's business.
I ask unanimous consent that staff be authorized to make
technical and conforming changes.
Without objection, so ordered.
We are adjourned. Thank you, everybody.
[Whereupon, at 2:10 p.m., the meeting was adjourned.]
----------
BUSINESS MEETING
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 28, 2023
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations
Washington, DC.
Summary of Action Taken by the Committee
NOMINATIONS
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, Barrasso,
Cruz, Hagerty recorded as no)
Mr. Eric W. Kneedler, 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 Rwanda--agreed to by voice vote
Ms. Kathleen A. FitzGibbon, 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 Niger--agreed to by voice
vote
Ms. Karen Sasahara, 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 State of Kuwait--agreed to by voice vote
Ms. Elizabeth Rood, 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 Turkmenistan--agreed to by voice vote (Hagerty
recorded as no)
Ms. Martina Anna Tkadlec Strong, 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 United Arab Emirates--agreed to by
voice vote
Mr. Hugo Yue-Ho Yon, 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 Maldives--agreed to by voice vote
(Rubio recorded as no)
Ms. Ann Marie Yastishock, 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 Independent State of Papua New Guinea,
and to serve concurrently and without additional compensation
as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United
States of America to the Solomon Islands and Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of
America to the Republic of Vanuatu--agreed to by voice vote
(Rubio and Barrasso recorded as no)
Ms. Robin Dunnigan, of California, a Career Member of the Senior
Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of
America to Georgia--agreed to by voice vote (Rubio recorded as
no)
Mr. David J. Kostelancik, of Illinois, a Career Member of the Senior
Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of
America to the Republic of Albania--agreed to by voice vote
(Rubio recorded as no)
Meeting Transcript
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m., in
room 116, The Capitol Building, Hon. Robert Menendez, chairman
of the committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Menendez [presiding], Cardin, Shaheen,
Coons, Murphy, Kaine, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen,
Risch, and Ricketts.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY
The Chairman. Good morning, everyone. This business meeting
of the Foreign Relations Committee will come to order. We will
be lining up for the joint session of Congress shortly, so I
would like to keep the meeting as short as possible.
I know we have our colleagues who are coming, so I figured
we would do the introductory portions to get them out of the
way. Today, we are considering ten nominations. Each nominee is
well qualified. Several of them have been pending for quite
some time, some even dating back to the last Congress.
So, I urge all my colleagues to support them today. Before
I recognize the ranking member, I have three items to touch on
briefly. First, as you know, I am committed to moving
meaningful bipartisan legislation through the committee.
We have a legislative markup scheduled for next Wednesday,
and as discussed with the ranking member, I plan to hold an
additional legislative markup toward the end of the work
period.
So, we ask all of you to share any legislative priorities
so that we can build a robust agenda. Obviously, to the extent
that we have bipartisan bills, it is very helpful, both for the
product itself, I believe, as well as for the process to be
able to get more of these on the agenda.
Second, as you all know, the ranking member and I are
working together on China legislation. It is a top priority of
the committee for this Congress, and we want and need all of
your input. I understand some of you have asked about how
stand-alone China legislation will be handled.
I can tell you that there are a lot of great ideas out
there. I have seen some of them. Some of them are already being
worked into our larger bill. I know some are already in
standalone bills, and surely others will be incorporated
through the amendment process.
I am committed to an open process and look forward to
integrating those ideas, Republican and Democratic alike, into
the bigger bill for purposes of markup so that this committee
can move a comprehensive product on China.
Consistent with that, I do not anticipate marking up
separate stand-alone China bills prior to the committee acting
on comprehensive legislation. I also understand that there have
been questions on what will happen to your contributions if the
comprehensive bill does not end up moving.
And my response to that is simple. If the bill does not
have a chance to move forward, the comprehensive bill, I would
support members pursuing their priorities from the bill as they
see fit. Which means if you want to move it individually at
that time, we certainly will consider it, and I am available to
discuss the China bill further at any time with any member.
Finally, and regretfully, I need to note that the pace of
our work on nominations has been unacceptably slow. To date, we
are at the first third of the year, the committee has reported
out only eight nominees this Congress. I repeat, eight.
That is far less than one nominee per week, and only three
SFRC nominees have been confirmed this Congress. Those numbers
are an embarrassment, particularly when we have 30 nominees
ready for hearings. These are national security positions.
Leaving them empty has serious consequences.
So, I urge us all to reach back to a time in the not so
distant past, a time when this committee routinely moved dozens
of qualified nominees per work period without delay. A time
when comity truly meant working together to get things done.
That needs to be the practice moving forward.
I appreciate that yesterday, the ranking member told me
that there are ten more nominees that will be agreed to on the
legislative markup, and we appreciate that. But I really
believe, as we saw in Sudan, the lack of an African Union
representative from the United States would be a critical
player in trying to work in that region.
If we did not have an ambassador in Sudan--I know we
wouldn't have successfully organized the departure of all of
our personnel. We need to get people in place. 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,
as you know, we are going to do ten nominees today, and the ten
nominees next week. We will continue to work in good faith. We
sometimes get bogged down in negotiations, but I will commit to
you that we will work in good faith as we go forward.
The China bill: We are going to continue to talk about this
and work in good faith. This issue is way too big to get bogged
down in politics and way too big to get bogged down in small
details.
This is a real high priority for this committee, certainly
one of the highest priorities for the United States of America,
and I think we need to treat it as such. And so, I commit to
you to continue to work in good faith to try to get the
products, hopefully one solid bipartisan product we can take to
the floor and get behind it and move.
On the noms again, like I said, we will continue to work in
good faith and try not to get those mixed up with the
legislative packages, which sometimes they do and the result is
not happy. There are a handful, as always, that we are going to
have issues with. But overall, I am with you.
We certainly need good people in place to be at these--you
mentioned Sudan. I was afraid you were going to take that as
kind of--what was happening in the committee is compared to--so
thank you for not going there. And with that, I do agree with
you, we need to get--we certainly need to get----
The Chairman. After 31 years of doing this, I have some
diplomatic skills.
[Laughter.]
Senator Risch [continuing]. I will agree with that.
The Chairman. Senator Risch, thank you for your comments,
and I appreciate the spirit in which you have spoken, and
hopefully we can make it happen in our practice. And I would
just say about any nominee for which there is an issue, my only
request is, let us bring the nominee before the committee and
raise the issues in front of them.
You know, they have submitted themselves to a process. If
there are things in their background or issues that they have
created in their background, that should be explored at a full
committee hearing when their nomination is being considered,
and they will have to answer both at the hearing, as well as in
questions for the record.
And then a decision can be made about whether they are
worthy of approval of the Senate. I just commend that to you,
to your attention as a way to move forward in some of the more,
maybe what you consider some of the more problematic
individuals, but----
Senator Risch. There are not many, but there are a handful.
The Chairman. Yes. OK. Senator Shaheen.
Senator Shaheen. I really appreciate the conversation you
and Senator Risch just had, because as we look at competition
with China, the PRC, one of the most important areas where we
can compete with China is by having our diplomats on the
ground, in-country.
I just came back from South America, as I know you did,
Senator Menendez, and unfortunately, there are still countries
in South America where China is making inroads and we do not
have diplomats in position.
So, I would hope that we could all commit to trying to move
these folks, nominees as soon as possible. The second point I
would like to make, I just met with former women members of the
Afghan Special Forces operation. So, they are Afghans who got
evacuated when we withdrew from Afghanistan, who are still
having significant challenges with their status in the United
States.
These are people who have been vetted. They still cannot go
to work freely and improve their skills. And one of the things
that they brought to my attention is that we still have a
number of Afghans in the UAE, and it is very difficult to get
information out about them. And one of the people we are
confirming today is the U.S. Ambassador to the UAE.
So, I would hope that we would all encourage that
Ambassador, when she is on the ground, to work with the Emirati
State to get the Afghans to the United States or to wherever
they are going, so that they are not in limbo for many more
years in the future.
The Chairman. Well, thank you, Senator Shaheen, for your
engagement, your leadership in this regard. And I would be
happy to echo your concerns, upon the confirmation of the
nominee. Maybe even before, especially if she knows she is
going there with that. Is there any member who wishes to speak
to any of the nominees?
[No response.]
The Chairman. If not, without objection, we will now
consider en bloc the ten nominations that have been noticed for
the business meeting.
Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Risch.
Senator Risch. I intend to vote for all of these, but I
have members that do want to enter a no, so I ask unanimous
consent that they be able to put a no in the record.
The Chairman. Without objection, they will be recorded--
just make sure we have them tell the Clerk which nominees they
want to vote no on. Without any other members wishing, is there
a second to the first of all, can I entertain a motion to
consider en bloc?
Senator Cardin. So moved.
The Chairman. So moved. Is there a second?
Senator Shaheen. Second.
Senator Coons. Second.
The Chairman. All those in favor will say aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
The Chairman. All those oppose will say no.
[No response.]
The Chairman. The ayes have it. With a majority of members
presented having voted in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
The nominations are agreed to. With that, they shall be
reported to the Senate with a positive recommendation. And with
the thanks of the Chair and the ranking member, thank you all
for being here. See you at the joint session.
Senator Shaheen. Mr. Chairman----
The Chairman. Senator.
Senator Shaheen. I really think that before everybody
leaves, that you should lead us in happy birthday to your
colleague.
[All members singing happy birthday to Senator Booker.]
The Chairman. Happy birthday to you. Happy birthday to you.
Happy birthday, dear Cory. Happy birthday to you.
[Applause.]
Voice. That was very quick.
Senator Booker. [Technical problems]--The record, for being
very loud in this----
The Chairman. Well----
[Laughter.]
Voice. I saw you taking his picture. I thought maybe you
were trying to intimidate him to not sing. It does not work.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. I am calling Senator Risch for his birthday.
Thank you, everybody. The meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:18 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
----------
BUSINESS MEETING
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 2023
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
Summary of Action Taken by the Committee
LEGISLATION
S. 396, Haiti Criminal Collusion Transparency Act of 2023, with an
amendment in the nature of a substitute--agreed to by voice
vote
Managers substitute amendment--agreed to by voice vote
S. 682, PARTNER with ASEAN Act, with an amendment in the nature of a
substitute--agreed to by voice vote
Managers substitute amendment--agreed to by voice vote
S. 1240, A bill to modify the requirements for candidate countries
under the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, and for other
purposes, without amendments--agreed to by voice vote
S. 1325, Western Hemisphere Partnership Act, with an amendment in the
nature of a substitute--agreed to by voice vote
Managers substitute amendment--agreed to by voice vote
S. 841, Caribbean Basin Security Initiative Authorization Act, with
an amendment in the nature of a substitute--agreed to by voice
vote
Substitute amendment--agreed to by voice vote
S. 797, United States Legal Gold and Mining Partnership Act, with an
amendment in the nature of a substitute--agreed to by voice
vote
Managers substitute amendment--agreed to by voice vote
S.Res. 119, A resolution recognizing the 202d anniversary of the
independence of Greece and celebrating democracy in Greece and
the United States, without amendments--agreed to by voice vote
S.Res. 157, A resolution commemorating the 25th anniversary of the
signing of the Good Friday Agreement, and for other purposes,
without amendments--agreed to by voice vote
S.Res. 106, A resolution condemning Beijing's destruction of Hong
Kong's democracy and rule of law, with amendments--agreed to by
voice vote
Preamble managers amendment--agreed to by voice vote
Resolving clause managers amendment--agreed to by voice vote
S.Res. 99, 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
Paul 1st Degree 1--not agreed to by roll call vote (10-11)--the
committee agreed to a roll call vote for both Paul 1st
Degree 1 and Paul 1st Degree 2 combined.
Ayes: Risch, Rubio, Romney (proxy), Ricketts (proxy), Paul,
Young (proxy), Barrasso (proxy), Cruz (proxy), Hagerty (proxy),
Scott
Nays: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, Kaine,
Merkley (proxy), Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen, Duckworth
Paul 1st Degree 2--not agreed to by roll call vote (10-11)--the
committee agreed to a roll call vote for both Paul 1st
Degree 1 and Paul 1st Degree 2 combined.
Ayes: Risch, Rubio, Romney (proxy), Ricketts (proxy), Paul,
Young (proxy), Barrasso (proxy), Cruz (proxy), Hagerty (proxy),
Scott
Nays: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, Kaine,
Merkley (proxy), Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen, Duckworth
S.Con.Res. 7, A concurrent resolution condemning Russia's unjust and
arbitrary detention of Russian opposition leader Vladimir Kara-
Murza who has stood up in defense of democracy, the rule of
law, and free and fair elections in Russia, with amendments,
with amendments--agreed to by voice vote
Preamble amendment--agreed to by voice vote
Resolving clause amendment--agreed to by voice vote
S.Res. 115, 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, without amendments--agreed to by voice vote
S.Res. 23, A resolution demanding that the Government of the People's
Republic of China and the Communist Party of China immediately
release Mark Swidan, without amendments--agreed to by voice
vote
NOMINATIONS
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,
Scott recorded as no)
Ms. Elizabeth Allen, of New York, to be Under Secretary of State for
Public Diplomacy--agreed to by voice vote (Rubio recorded as
no)
Dr. Vivek Hallegere Murthy, of Florida, to be Representative of the
United States on the Executive Board of the World Health
Organization--agreed to by voice vote (Risch, Rubio, Romney,
Ricketts, Paul, Barrasso, Cruz, Hagerty, Scott recorded as no)
Ms. Pamela M. Tremont, 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 Zimbabwe--agreed to by voice vote
Ms. Nicole D. Theriot, of Louisiana, 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 Co-operative Republic of Guyana--agreed to by
voice vote (Rubio, Barrasso recorded as no)
Mr. Kenneth M. Jarin, of Pennsylvania, to be a member of the
International Broadcasting Advisory Board for a term expiring
January 1, 2027--agreed to by voice vote (Rubio, Barrasso,
Cruz, Scott recorded as no)
Mr. Kenneth M. Jarin, of Pennsylvania, to be Chair of the
International Broadcasting Advisory Board--agreed to by voice
vote (Rubio, Barrasso, Cruz, Scott recorded as no)
Mr. Jeffrey Gedmin, of the District of Columbia, to be a member of
the International Broadcasting Advisory Board for a term
expiring January 1, 2025--agreed to by voice vote
Ms. Kathleen Cunningham Matthews, of Maryland, to be a member of the
International Broadcasting Advisory Board for a term expiring
January 1, 2027--agreed to by voice vote (Rubio, Barrasso,
Scott recorded as no)
Mr. Luis Manuel Botello, of Maryland, to be a member of the
International Broadcasting Advisory Board for a term expiring
January 1, 2025--agreed to by voice vote (Barrasso, Scott
recorded as no)
Ms. Michelle Mai Selesky Giuda, of Virginia, to be a member of the
International Broadcasting Advisory Board for a term expiring
January 1, 2027--agreed to by voice vote
FSO LIST
Kara Miriam Abramson, et. al, dated March 30, 2023 (PN494)--agreed to
by voice vote
Meeting Transcript
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in S-
116, The Capitol, Hon. Robert Menendez, Chairman of the
committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Menendez [presiding], Cardin, Shaheen,
Coons, Murphy, Kaine, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen, Duckworth,
Risch, Rubio, Paul, and Scott.
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 robust agenda that includes
several nominations and legislative items, as well one Foreign
Service Office promotion list. And let me say I appreciate the
work of the ranking member and his staff and their efforts
towards organizing this meeting, and it is the type of robust
agenda I hope we will continue to promote.
Before I get to the agenda, I just have to note that we are
holding this meeting at a critical time for the Nation, just
weeks away from a potential catastrophic default. And while we
are facing the challenge of this century and the strategic
competition with China, it is critical that we maintain our
economic strength to win this competition. But there are those
who want to take us down a different and dangerous path,
proposing and insisting on a budget proposal that would
undermine national economic security, including our ability to
out-compete China. Most importantly, preserving the full faith
and credit of the United States and the American currency, as
the currency reserve is critical to our national interests and
security. This brinksmanship has consequences far beyond our
shores, and I hope we can get to the point that we get beyond
that. It is too important, and we all know better.
Let me first turn to nominations. While I will not speak
about all of them individually, I would note that we are
working to fill critical positions, including the Under
Secretary for Public Diplomacy, and I urge my colleagues to
support these nominations today and work towards their swift
confirmation. On legislation, we will vote on a number of bills
and resolutions that reflect good, bipartisan work of many
members of the committee and the Senate, including Senators
Risch, Cardin, Rubio, Shaheen, Kaine, Cruz, and Tillis, and I
will just highlight a few.
I am pleased we are considering four important bills
related to the Western Hemisphere. The Haiti Criminal Collusion
Transparency Act, which I authored working with Senators Rubio,
Kaine, Cruz, and Booker; Senator Risch's Western Hemisphere
Partnership Act; Senator Kaine's Caribbean Basin Security
Initiative Authorization Act; and Senator Rubio's Legal Gold
and Mining Partnership Act.
Hemispheric relations could not be more important as we
face challenges from China, a number of countries where we see
democratic backsliding and, of course, migration issues, so I
want to commend all the Senators and their co-sponsors for
their solid work on these bills. With regard to Haiti, I note
that S. 396 seeks to address the ongoing security crisis in
that country. Since the assassination of President Moise in
2021, the Haitians have suffered one of the worst humanitarian,
political, and security crises in decades. Horrific waves of
gang violence have forced schools to close, prevented elections
from occurring, led to a significant rise of extortion, sexual
assaults, and kidnappings, including of American citizens, and
forced thousands to flee their homeland. This tragedy has been
exacerbated by Haitian elites, who have colluded with these
criminal groups to advance their political and economic
interests. It is time these bad actors are held accountable,
and this legislation provides the tools to do that. I look
forward to working with all of our colleagues to get this and
other Western Hemisphere bills on the agenda enacted into law.
I am also pleased that we will mark up the PARTNER with
ASEAN Act. This legislation recognizes the strategic importance
of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, seeks to deepen
engagement and cooperation with such a critical partner. I want
to thank the ranking member, Senators Duckworth and Romney, for
working with me on this. Today's agenda also includes
legislation to bolster the Millennium Challenge Corporation's
global impact by reforming the metrics used to determine
candidate countries that could be considered for assistance
and, thus, broadening the reach of MCC's contracts to new,
deserving communities. I commend Senator Risch on this effort,
which I proudly join him in, and look forward to its enactment.
We are also considering a number of important resolutions,
including one on Russia's unlawful detention of Vladimir Kara-
Murza, who I am proud to support, and another on China's unjust
and arbitrary detention of Mark Swidan. Of course, these are
just two of the many individuals unjustly detained abroad, from
Paul Whelan and Evan Gershkovich to Ka Li and David Lin, among
many others, who are deserving of a relentless effort to bring
them home. Especially this week, as families of hostages and
wrongful detainees are gathered here in Washington to shine a
spotlight on the plight of their loved ones, we all need to
keep the focus on bringing Americans home and work to prevent
future hostage taking.
Turning to other parts of the agenda, I am pleased that we
are voting on the Greek Independence Day resolution and the
Good Friday Agreement resolutions. I want to thank Senator
Barrasso for his co-sponsorship on the Greece resolution. I
thank Senator Collins in particular for championing the Good
Friday resolution. Finally, I applaud Senators Risch, Cardin,
Shaheen, Cruz, and Tillis for their initiative in working on
their respective resolutions, and I am pleased to support their
passage.
With that, let me turn to Senator Risch for opening
remarks.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. RISCH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO
Senator Risch. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Certainly,
this is a robust agenda, and there are plenty of kudos to go
around on both sides of the aisle. I think it indicates the
working relationship on a bipartisan basis on foreign relations
matters, and I think everyone appreciates that.
Regarding your comments on the deficit and the budget
proposal, there is no doubt this is a serious matter, and it is
really unfortunate that every time we get to this, it seems to
devolve into a partisan bickering issue, each side trying to
get the upper hand. But as you point out, this is really
harmful to our country and to our economy, and it has got to be
resolved. It will be resolved--it always is--but it is painful
and difficult to get there, and it should not be.
I am glad to see a handful of bills on the Western
Hemisphere space on this agenda. In particular, I want to thank
the Chairman for working me on the Western Hemisphere
Partnership Act. This bill encourages the Biden administration
to promote a more competitive environment for U.S. businesses
in the Western Hemisphere, improve technical capacity and
military and police forces in the region, and strengthen the
capacity of institutions to govern dramatically--democratically
and dramatically. There is no question that there are things
happening in the Western Hemisphere that are not going in the
right direction. Hopefully we can turn that around.
I would also like to thank the Chairman for his partnership
on another important bill regarding the Millennium Challenge
Corporation, MCC. MCC's model for development is widely
considered the most transparent, efficient, and effective
globally. However, with more countries now hovering around the
income category lines that define its candidate country pool,
MCC's selection process has become less stable. This bipartisan
bill fixes that by redefining the candidate country pool group
with countries eligible for lending through the International
Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which uses subjective
criteria to measure poverty rather than a hard-dollar amount.
I am glad to see Senate Resolution 106 on Hong Kong on this
agenda with 40 cosponsors. This resolution condemns Beijing's
destruction of Hong Kong's democracy and rule of law. We must
continue to put pressure on China for its human rights abuses.
Beijing is bringing false charges against brave Hong Kongers to
tarnish their reputations ahead of their national security law
trials. This is the behavior of a country that calls itself a
great power, but it is actually paranoid and afraid.
Regarding nominations, I plan to support all the
nominations except the Murthy nomination, which I will oppose
regretfully. WHO is a deeply flawed institution in need of
serious reform, and this administration's liberal views on
abortion have no place in that reform agenda. Although I like
Dr. Murthy personally, and he certainly has the necessary
qualifications, I have deep concerns about Dr. Murthy's views
on abortion as well as gun control, and I am on the record
opposing Dr. Murthy's nomination for surgeon general for these
reasons. I am also concerned that this administration will not
commit to submitting any legally binding WHO agreement on
future pandemics to this committee and to the Senate for advice
and consent.
As always, I ask that members of the committee be permitted
to submit a request to the Clerk to be recorded as ``no'' on
any items on today's agenda. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman. Without objection.
So, with objection, we will now consider en bloc all of the
nominations listed on the agenda and one Foreign Service
officer list. Would any members like to comment on any of these
nominations before we vote?
[No response.]
The Chairman. If not, is there a motion----
Senator Cardin. So move.
The Chairman. So moved. 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, say no.
[No response.]
The Chairman. The ayes have it, and the nominees are
recommended to the full Senate for the Senate's consideration,
and whatever Senator wishes to be listed separately from that
will be so recognized.
Senator Risch. I would personally like to be recorded as
``no'' on Dr. Murthy.
The Chairman. Senator Risch will be ``no'' on Dr. Murthy.
Senator Paul. So would I.
Senator Rubio. Mr. Chairman, if we could do it in writing
to save time, but just for the record, if I could be recorded
``no'' on Allen, Murthy, Theriot, Jarin, Matthews. There are
two Jarins, so both of those.
The Chairman. Okay.
Senator Paul. If I could be a ``no'' on Murthy.
The Chairman. Okay. So Senator Paul will be a ``no'' on
Murthy. Senator Rubio, if you--if you would just submit the
list to the Clerk through your staff----
Senator Rubio. Yes.
The Chairman [continuing]. So we will make sure we got it
right.
Senator Risch. Senator Scott has a name to add----
Senator Scott. Same list as well.
The Chairman. Same list as Senator Rubio?
Senator Scott. No. Well, Shortino, Murthy, Jarin, Matthews,
Botello. Those names.
The Chairman. Okay. Thank you. All right. So, the
nominations are passed out to the Senate and affirmative votes,
so now let me move to legislation.
Without objection, I will move to consider en bloc all the
legislative items on the agenda, including any substitute and
manager's amendment.
Would any member like to comment on any item on the agenda
before we vote?
Senator Paul. Does this--does this include Resolution 99?
The Chairman. It would include all of them, yes.
Senator Paul. Yeah. I have an amendment to Resolution 99.
The Chairman. Okay. Let us call up your amendment.
Senator Paul. Resolution 99--you ready for me?
The Chairman. Go ahead, please.
Senator Paul. Resolution 99 is a resolution supporting the
goals of International Women's Day. My amendment is consistent
with the goal of the underlying resolution supporting women. To
that end, the need to preserve integrity and fairness in
women's sports is of utmost importance as biological males
increasingly seek to compete against biological females.
The World Athletic Council, the international governing
body for track and field, recently issued a ruling preventing
biological males from competing in elite events. Specifically,
World Athletics stated, ``The purpose of these regulations is
to give equal opportunities to all athletes to participate in
and excel in sports and to provide them with fair and
meaningful competition conditions so that they are motivated to
make the huge commitment and sacrifice required to excel in the
sport and so inspire new generations to join the sport and
aspire to the same excellence.''
The regulations also expressly stated that the
``Substantial sex difference in sports performance that emerge
from puberty onwards means that the only way to achieve the
objectives of exceling in a sport and inspiring future
generations is to maintain separate competition categories for
male and female athletes because of the physical advantages
conferred on male athletes.'' After issuing the regulations,
World Athletics President, Sebastian Coe, stated that his
organization believes the integrity of the female category in
athletics is paramount, and World Athletics is not the only
governing body to insist on separate categories for males and
females. Last year, the world governing body for swimming,
FINA, prohibited biological men from participating in female
swimming competitions. In 2020, World Rugby determined the
physiological differences between males and females necessitate
dedicated men's and women's contact rugby categories for safety
and performance reasons.
If the Senate is going to support women, it should support
women athletes as well. I ask you for support for my
amendments, and I think we passed around the wording, but we,
briefly, just added a couple of whereas clauses. It says,
``Whereas, the opportunity to compete fairly in sports helps
many women and girls reach their full potential, yet women and
girls around the world are often denied such opportunities.''
The second part of the clause says, ``Whereas, on March 23rd,
2023, the World Athletics Council, the governing body for
international track and field, announced that transgender
women--that is, biological males--will not be allowed to
compete in league categories for women citing the need to
prioritize fairness and integrity.
Because of our rules, it is divided into two amendments.
There is one other insertion into the--I guess into the
``resolved'' part of the resolution that says, ``The consensus
is that we support the right of women to compete fairly in
sports and affirms that the integrity of women's sports must be
protected.'' And if you need them to be done as votes or if you
agree to do it unanimously, we can do it as one vote, Mr.
Chairman.
Voice. Take it up as one vote.
The Chairman. Okay. If you say so, Senator.
[Laughter.]
[Cross talking.]
The Chairman. I think we will be fine in taking it as one
vote, right? We do not have any problem with that. Anyone who
wants to speak to the amendment?
Senator Shaheen.
Senator Shaheen. Yes. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and
Senator Risch, for including the resolution on our
International Women's Day. It is a little late, but I think
particularly given what is happening for women around the world
today, it is particularly important. We have schoolgirls in
Iran who are being attacked in classroom. Afghan women are,
across the board, being denied participation in Afghan society.
A woman in Latin America is killed because of her gender every
two hours. So, I think it is important for us--because the rest
of the world looks at what Congress does, it is important for
us to make a statement about why empowering women and
recognizing the contributions of women is so important.
And that is why I am really disappointed by Senator Paul's
amendments. I participated in intercollegiate sports when I was
in college. I am very committed to making sure that women have
a fair shot in participating in sports, but these amendments
are not really about that. I believe these amendments are about
an attempt to score points at the expense of a vulnerable
population that is already being marginalized by rhetoric--
malicious rhetoric--daily attacks against the LGBTQI community.
I do not think this amendment is about the integrity of women's
sports. I do not think it is about parental rights. I do not
think it is about protecting children. I think it is about
attacking a group of people in a way that is not inclusive of
what this country is about.
So, I hope all of my colleagues will vote against this
amendment. I do not think this resolution is a place to wage
war against the LGBTQI community.
Senator Paul. Mr. Chair?
The Chairman. Let me just see if there is anybody else
first. Anyone else?
Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Senator Cardin?
Senator Cardin. First, let me thank Senator Shaheen. This
resolution is about recognizing the advancement of human rights
defenders in regards to gender issues. It is not the place that
we should be dealing with attacking human rights on the
transgender community. I strongly oppose the amendment.
The Chairman. Senator Paul.
Senator Paul. The argument made by opponents of the
amendment--that this is not about children or not about
fairness--basically casting aspersion at my motives are, I
think, ill placed and wrongheaded and really should not be a
part of a debate, to basically accuse a person of presenting
something of wrong motives. I know several athletes who have
had to compete directly with males.
Riley Gaines went to the University of Kentucky and swam
and had to swim against a 6-foot-3 guy who was a very average
male swimmer and then ends up in the women's sports. In a
marathon recently, there was a man running in the women's
section of the marathon who ended up beating the women handily,
beating 14,000 women. And many women have come out, and these
aren't necessarily people who are Republican or who are
concerned with things from the perspective of a Republican:
Martina Navratilova, J.K. Rowling. There are many people who
are actually from the left, who are feminists, who think that
this is very, very destructive to women's sports.
There is a certain amount of irony that we as a body have
been very good on both sides of the aisle to condemn things
like genital mutilation around the world, and it is done
largely through these terrible cultural practices of sort of,
you know, saying that this is the accepted thing and this is
what you are supposed to. And believe it or not, some of the
women are not held down. They do it and submit it because of
the traditions of the tribe or the traditions of the culture.
It does not make it right, but it is because of everybody
saying it is the right thing to do.
We now have people saying that it is the right thing to do
for a 15-year-old to have her breasts removed. We have people
now arguing that they should be allowed to do this without
their parents' permission. This is happening. There are people
now who regretted their 18-year-old girls--there is a very
prominent 18-year-old girl who had her breasts removed and then
took so many cross hormones that her voice is so low and will
never be the same again. Most of the things that are done to
people, to their genitalia, are things that make them useless.
They do not work for urination, they do not work for sexual
pleasure, but we are allowing these things to happen to minors
without their parents' permission.
Then there is the whole issue of sports. There is a valid
argument here, but to cast aspersions and say, oh, I have
terrible motives, that this is some sort of game, no. I have a
young woman who works in my office--we just hired her
recently--who swam for George Mason, and she had to compete
against men as well. It is just, frankly, not fair, and never
was even thought anywhere appropriate until about a year ago.
This is sort of the world changing when five years ago, nobody
thought that this was an appropriate thing to do to children,
and now we are wanting to do them to children.
So, it is a valid debate, it is an uncomfortable debate,
but we ought to have the discussion, and I think we should. I
would ask for a recorded vote.
Senator Shaheen. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Senator Shaheen.
Senator Shaheen. I certainly agree with my colleague that
this is a discussion that we should have. I do not think that
this resolution is the place to have that discussion, and I
certainly--while I do have questions about the motives, I did
not mean to impugn my colleague's motives in this resolution. I
think there are questionable motives for why some of--this kind
of amendment has been introduced in places like the New
Hampshire legislature, but, again, I do not think this
resolution, where we are trying to recognize the challenges
that women have and the importance of women's contributions
around the world, is the place to have this debate. So, again,
I hope my colleagues will oppose the amendment.
The Chairman. Anyone else seeking recognition?
Senator Booker. If I--I am sorry.
The Chairman. Senator Booker.
Senator Booker. In our country, transgender youth, about
half of them, admit to considering suicide. About 1 in 5
transgender kids in America have attempted suicide. If you just
look at the LGBTQ population as a whole, children who are LGBTQ
in America, I mean, some of--a third of them report missing a
day in school because of fear. God, this--there is a time and a
place for this, but this is something that should unify us. It
is a non-controversial resolution about women. I agree with my
conservative colleagues often about government overreach or
bringing things in that should not be in or unintended
consequences.
This should be a celebration, not bringing us into an issue
in which, yes, there are strong passions being whipped up in
our country right now, but so many LGBTQ kids in our country
are at serious risk for violence. And so, I hope this could be
a resolution where we can leave the divisive politics of the
day out of it and just celebrate women because right now, yeah,
I am worried about kids in America. And, in particular, I am
worried about what the data shows. The most violence, the most
hate, the most hate crimes, the most suicides, and things like
this, I think, are far more contributory towards that than it
is about affirming the safety of our children. And so, again, I
am hoping this non-controversial amendment should really bring
us together to celebrate women, should not--should not be
undermined by this.
Senator Paul. Mr. Chair?
The Chairman. Let me acknowledge others who have not spoken
yet.
Senator Paul. That is fine.
The Chairman. Senator Coons?
Senator Coons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to
recognize and celebrate Senator Shaheen's long leadership on
this committee on women's issues and thank her for bringing
forward this resolution. I look forward to supporting it and
moving it forward. I know a thing or two about transgender
youth, and they are the most vulnerable of the LGBT community,
and they are, in many ways, the most often attacked and the
most often marginalized in their communities.
And I think our colleague brings forward a challenging
issue about the definition of ``male'' and ``female'' in sports
that is worthy of some discussion and debate, but I suspect it
will take a long and heated discussion and debate and one where
I would tend to stand up for transgender youth and their
rights. I think we should defeat this amendment and move
forward with recognizing International Women's Day.
Senator Scott. Mr. Chairman, sir?
The Chairman. Yes?
Senator Scott. I will vote for the amendment. I have to
depart before the discussion ends, it sounds like. I was a
college athlete. Cory was a college athlete. Marco, he was a
college athlete.
Senator Shaheen. Shaheen was a college athlete, just to be
clear.
Senator Scott. I appreciate your passion. You were a
college athlete. The question I have is the question that we
should bifurcate the discussion between the violence that
vulnerable people are experiencing and the competitive
environment that we are trying to protect for women. That is
what this is about for me. Thank you.
The Chairman. All right, Senator Scott.
Senator Paul?
Senator Paul. Very briefly on the statistics on suicide. I
think they are important, and we need to try to look at them as
dispassionately as possible. When you look at the statistics on
suicide and psychiatric illness, there is definitely a
coexistence or a comorbidity of psychiatric disease and this
gender dysphoria, and that has been known for a long time. It
is much more common in women and in young girls than it is in
boys. Cutting is part of the syndrome as well. Suicide is part
of the syndrome as well. But you also find that after people
have done the surgery, there is still a significant and
elevated rate of suicide among these people.
You could say that that is a reaction of society to them,
but actually society's reaction is actually the opposite now.
Society has become much more encouraging of this type of
surgery and of this type of position, and so what we have is
actually a nurturing and a society that is actually encouraging
people at very young ages to consider this--3, 4, 7, 8--are
going to these clinics. And when you get to a gender dysphoria
clinic, there is no way the clinic disagrees with them having
surgery. Everybody in the clinic is someone who is in favor of
this very much. It is appreciated and applauded, and we have a
huge upsurge in this.
And you could make arguments. You can say, well, we have
always had 10 percent of the public be transgender, or you
could argue that we are encouraging or rewarding people who are
confused. The American College of Pediatrics has looked at
this, and left alone without doing surgery to minors, 90-some-
odd percent, 95, 98 percent of people go ahead and choose to
live in their own skin and do not do these types of surgeries.
So, there are these arguments, and obviously nobody wants
people to commit suicide. Nobody wants anybody to be abused,
but there is a question of whether or not it is part of an
illness and that people are very confused about it. They
embrace this surgery because now the whole community and
society is saying you are great person, embrace this and do
this, and then there is a significant number--there is a whole
cohort of people now who are very unhappy with what happened.
And it is gruesome, but people should read what happens with
the surgery.
None of this stuff works. What you were created with works
pretty well. None of this stuff works very well, it just does
not, and these people have lifelong problems. They have dozens
and dozens of surgeries to have their urinary tract working
functionally. None of the sexual parts workas they once did.
None of it really works. What a man can and what the surgeons
do is not very good, but should we be encouraging this, or
should there be a valid discussion back and forth on this, and
there is the sports part of it.
But nobody wants people to commit suicide. Nobody wants
these people to suffer. But there is a question of whether or
not it is part of the syndrome or caused by society, or it is
actually something that is part of the syndrome.
Senator Schatz. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Senator Schatz, and then after Senator
Schatz, I will close this out. We have had a significant debate
on it.
Senator Schatz. I appreciate what Senator Scott said. I
believe we need to separate these questions. I think the
question in competitive sports is a real one, but the NCAA, or
a local sports league, or an international sports league, or
the NBA, or whoever, they can sort that out. This is not the
purview of the United States Senate Foreign Relations
Committee. And to me, Senator Paul just made Senator Shaheen's
point, which is, Senator Paul just went on a two-minute rant
about trans issues. I do not agree with hardly anything he
said, and then he said at the end, ``And then the sports
thing.''
And so, to the extent that Senator Shaheen appeared to be
impugning your motives, I do not want to impugn your personal
motives, but I do want to point out that trans people in sports
is an entre into, hey, what is happening with these people over
here. And so, what I object to is we are trying take this
normal, bipartisan, and important resolution to just give
ourselves a platform to have opinions about trans issues. To
the extent that there are legitimate competitive questions
regarding kids or adults in sports, they can be sorted out by
people who do sports policy and league policy and
competitiveness policy. This has absolutely nothing to do with
the underlying resolution, and I think it should be
decisively----
The Chairman. So, let me just say it is a shame that we are
in the midst of taking advantage of a longstanding day of
recognition for women fighting for basic freedoms around the
world and turning it into an opportunity to push an anti-trans
agenda. Trans people are increasingly becoming victims of hate
crimes. We continue to see trans children suffering from high
rates, as has been said, of bullying, depression, anxiety, and,
yes, suicide. These are vulnerable children.
I have heard a lot of my colleagues talk about children and
protecting children. Children, to me, are children. They are
children whether they are black or white, Hispanic or Asian.
They are children whether they are straight or gay or trans.
They are children, and we as a society should be working to
protect them and not to change the course of events of
international recognition of the rights of women to engage.
Finally, many sports governing bodies, including the
NJSIAA, NCAA, and the International Olympic Committee, allow
trans athletes to compete consistent with their gender
identity.
The Senator has asked for a roll call 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. 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. Mrs. Duckworth?
The Chairman. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
Senator Risch. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
Senator Rubio. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Ricketts?
Senator Risch. Aye 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 Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Hagerty?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Scott?
Senator Scott. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. No. The Clerk will report.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 10, and the noes are
11.
The Chairman. Senator Duckworth was previously recorded by
proxy. She will be recorded as a ``no'' in person, and the
amendment is not agreed to.
Are there any other amendments and/or remarks about any of
the remaining agenda? Senator Rubio?
Senator Rubio. And I am not--it is not an amendment. I know
I was late on this, but I do want to raise for us to start
thinking about, and that is there are a number of countries,
not just in Western Hemisphere but around the world, that are
increasingly asking for help, often privately, in standing up
an investment screening procedure comparable to our CFIUS. And
this is particularly true in Latin America and the Western
Hemisphere where you have, you know, Huawei comes in or what
have you, and they simply do not have a method by which they
can screen, the way we do, the risks--systemic risk--that might
be associated with that investment.
So, I came late to the game in this in terms of offering
amendments, so it is not part of this. But I do hope we will
consider it, whether it is in the future on this vehicle or
some other vehicle, that we can work together here to figure
out what can we do to be of assistance to countries,
particularly as it relates to the Western Hemisphere, who are
asking for guidance and help standing up to their own
investment strategy.
The Chairman. Very happy to work with you, Senator, on
that, and I agree with you.
If there are no further--we have to tell people, though,
right? Okay. If there are no further comments, I will entertain
a motion that the legislative agenda be approved as has been
listed in the notice.
Senator Cardin. So move.
The Chairman. So moved. Seconded?
Senator Shaheen. Second.
The Chairman. 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 legislation is
favorably reported to the Senate.
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 committee, the Chair, and the
ranking member, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:37 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
----------
BUSINESS MEETING
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 1, 2023
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
Summary of Action Taken by the Committee
TREATIES
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 exchanges 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 Doc. 112-8)
Treaty Doc. 112-8--Resolution of Advice and Consent to
Ratification--agreed to favorably by roll call Vote (20-1)
Ayes: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, Kaine,
Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen, Duckworth, Risch, Rubio
(proxy), Romney, Ricketts, Young, Barrasso (proxy), Cruz
(proxy), Hagerty (proxy), Scott (proxy)
Nays: Paul
Paul 1st Degree 1--not agreed to by roll call vote (2-19)
Ayes: Paul, Cruz (proxy)
Nays: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, Kaine,
Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen, Duckworth, Risch, Rubio
(proxy), Romney, Ricketts, Young, Barrasso (proxy), Hagerty
(proxy), Scott (proxy)
NOMINATIONS
Ms. Stephanie Syptak-Ramnath, 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 Peru--agreed to favorably by roll
call vote (20-1)
Ayes: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy (proxy),
Kaine, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen, Duckworth, Risch,
Rubio (proxy), Romney (proxy), Ricketts, Paul (proxy), Young,
Cruz (proxy), Hagerty (proxy), Scott (proxy)
Nays: Barrasso (proxy)
Ms. Yael Lempert, 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 Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan--agreed to favorably
by roll call vote (16-5)
Ayes: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy (proxy),
Kaine, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen, Duckworth, Risch,
Romney (proxy), Ricketts, Young, Scott (proxy)
Nays: Rubio (proxy), Paul (proxy), Barrasso (proxy), Cruz
(proxy), Hagerty (proxy)
Mr. Arthur W. Brown, 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 Ecuador--agreed to favorably by roll
call vote (21-0)
Ayes: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, Kaine,
Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen, Duckworth, Risch, Rubio
(proxy), Romney, Ricketts, Paul (proxy), Young, Barrasso
(proxy), Cruz (proxy), Hagerty (proxy), Scott (proxy)
Nays: None
Mr. Roger F. Nyhus, of Washington, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and
Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to Barbados,
and to serve concurrently and without additional compensation
as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United
States of America to the Federation of Saint Kitts and Nevis,
Saint Lucia, Antigua and Barbuda, the Commonwealth of Dominica,
Grenada, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines--agreed to
favorably by roll call vote (17-4)
Ayes: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy (proxy),
Kaine, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen, Duckworth, Risch,
Romney (proxy), Ricketts, Paul (proxy), Young, Hagerty (proxy)
Nays: Rubio (proxy), Barrasso (proxy), Cruz (proxy), Scott
(proxy)
The Honorable William W. Popp, of Missouri, a Career Member of the
Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United
States of America to the Republic of Uganda--agreed to
favorably by roll call vote (20-1)
Ayes: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy (proxy),
Kaine, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen, Duckworth, Risch,
Romney (proxy), Ricketts, Paul (proxy), Young, Barrasso
(proxy), Cruz (proxy), Hagerty (proxy), Scott (proxy)
Nays: Rubio (proxy)
Ms. Julie Turner, of Maryland, to be Special Envoy on North Korean
Human Rights Issues, with the rank of Ambassador--agreed to
favorably by roll call vote (21-0)
Ayes: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy (proxy),
Kaine, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen, Duckworth, Risch,
Rubio (proxy), Romney (proxy), Ricketts, Paul (proxy), Young,
Barrasso (proxy), Cruz (proxy), Hagerty (proxy), Scott (proxy)
Nays: None
Mr. Ervin Jose Massinga, of Washington, a Career Member of the Senior
Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of
America to the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia--agreed
to favorably by roll call vote (20-1)
Ayes: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy (proxy),
Kaine, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen, Duckworth, Risch,
Rubio (proxy), Romney (proxy), Ricketts, Paul (proxy), Young,
Cruz (proxy), Hagerty (proxy), Scott (proxy)
Nays: Barrasso (proxy)
Ms. Ana A. Escrogima, of New York, a Career Member of the Senior
Foreign Service, Class of Counselor, to be Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of
America to the Sultanate of Oman--agreed to favorably by roll
call vote (20-1)
Ayes: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, Kaine,
Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen, Duckworth, Risch, Rubio
(proxy), Romney (proxy), Ricketts, Paul (proxy), Young, Cruz
(proxy), Hagerty (proxy), Scott (proxy)
Nays: Barrasso (proxy)
The Honorable Lisa A. Johnson, 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 Lebanese Republic--agreed to favorably
by roll call vote (17-4)
Ayes: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy (proxy),
Kaine, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen, Duckworth, Risch,
Romney (proxy), Ricketts, Paul (proxy), Young, Scott (proxy)
Nays: Rubio (proxy), Barrasso (proxy), Cruz (proxy), Hagerty
(proxy)
Meeting Transcript
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:35 a.m., in
Room 116, The Capitol Building, Hon. Robert Menendez, Chairman
of the committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Menendez [presiding], Cardin, Shaheen,
Coons, Murphy, Kaine, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen,
Duckworth, Risch, Romney, Ricketts, Paul, and Young.
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--today, we are considering
of nominations, and one treaty, the United States, Chile Tax
Treaty.
Before going further, I want to note for the record that I
received a request for a holdover of the entire agenda, all
nominations, and the Chile Tax Treaty.
While I have always respected holdover requests, I have
also repeatedly shared with the committee my view that blanket
holdovers are an abusive and obstructive practice, out of line
with committee norms and precedent. In fact, early in this
Congress, at a markup on March 8th of this year, I informed
members in exceedingly clear terms that I would no longer
accept blanket holdovers.
The same Senator who has made today's blanket holdover
request was present at that meeting. As such, we will debate
and vote on the entire agenda notice for this business meeting.
Let me first turn to nominations. We have a number of critical
ones on the agenda, Peru, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Jordan, Lebanon,
and others.
We also have other important nominations that we have not
got an agreement to include on today's nominations --on today's
nominations list.
I do hope--we have a lot of nominees, mostly from my
understanding, uncontroversial, and we need Ambassadors in
place, in-country to be promoting our challenges--meeting our
challenges and promoting our goals, views, and ideas. When we
talk about meeting the China challenge, China has more
embassies, consulates, and ambassadors throughout the world
than we do. That is not acceptable. We can do a lot better.
So, I hope we can more vigorously move other nominations
expeditiously. Turning to the Chile Tax Treaty, I am very
pleased that we are taking up this critical agreement today. We
have considered this treaty on three previous occasions,
including the last Congress. I appreciate the work of the
ranking member and his staff in getting to this point.
Look forward to working together to get it approved by the
Senate. Chile is one of our strongest democratic partners in
the Americas, and this treaty will help protect and grow U.S.
direct--foreign direct investment, facilitate U.S. economic
engagement in the region, and strengthen the hand of U.S.
companies operating in Chile.
We have received an outpouring of support for this treaty
from the business community, including letters from the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce and a coalition of businesses, and I ask
unanimous consent that these letters be included in the record.
Without objection, so order.
[The information referred to is located at the end of this
transcript.]
The Chairman. We all know that China has entered into a tax
treaty with Chile, and Chinese companies are taking advantage.
They are investing in Chilean companies, expanding their
position in Chile's markets and economy. We need to level the
playing field and give our companies the tools they need to
compete.
Additionally, Chile is the world's second largest producer
of lithium, a critical mineral that is a building block for
many modern technologies, and a global demand will skyrocket in
the coming years by as much as 4,000 percent. But the absence
of a tax treaty makes it harder for U.S. businesses to be
competitive in Chile's lithium center.
We need this treaty to advance U.S. interests in this
critical mineral and build partnerships that will position our
country, our economy, and our manufacturing sector for the
future. As we work to secure Senate approval of the Chile
Treaty, I must note that the Biden Administration last year
withdrew from the Hungary Tax Treaty without consulting this
committee or providing notice, much less seeking Senate or
Congressional approval.
Presidents of both parties have advanced these types of
unilateral actions and omissions which are completely
inconsistent with our Constitutional structure. Treaties are,
of course, a shared responsibility of the Senate and the
Executive Branch. I have asked the President to commit, at
minimum, to meaningful consultations with this committee prior
to terminating any treaty.
Absent such a commitment, I will work to address this
matter in future resolutions in advice and consent, as well as
in legislation. I look forward to working with all of our
colleagues to ensure that the committee and the Senate protects
our Constitutional prerogatives.
With that, let me turn to the ranking member for his
statement.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JAMES E. RISCH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO
Senator Risch. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Tax treaties
are a critical part of the U.S. tax landscape. They prevent
double taxation for U.S. taxpayers, help eliminate tax
uncertainty, and are important instruments in fighting tax
fraud.
In addition, of course, the China component has been
underlined by the Chairman, and I concur therein. These
treaties strengthen the ability of U.S. businesses to explore
new opportunities. The treaty we are considering today
continues the long-standing provisions and practice of previous
tax treaties.
The committee reported this convention favorably in 113th,
114th, and 117th Congresses. It is time to move this treaty
forward to the full Senate for a vote where I expect it will
receive broad bipartisan support. I also know that there is a
request to hold of the nominations on the agenda.
I am glad to see a number of the qualified career nominees
for important posts in the Middle East, Western Hemisphere, et
cetera. I plan to support each of the nominees that are listed
on today's agenda and commit to continue to work with the
Chairman as we try to move these forward expeditiously.
It is important to have these people in place. As to the
President withdrawing from treaties, I share the Chairman's
concern in that regard and look forward to further discussions
to see what we can do about that. It should--it really needs to
be addressed. Thank you.
The Chairman. With that, we will now consider nominations,
then I will turn to members. We will now consider nominations.
The nominees we will vote on are as follows, Mr. Arthur Brown
to be Ambassador to Republic of Ecuador. Ms. Ana Escrogima to
be Ambassador to the Sultanate of Oman. The Honorable Lisa
Johnson to be Ambassador to the Lebanese Republic. Ms. Yael
Lempert to be Ambassador to the Kingdom of Jordan. Mr. Ervin
Jose Massinga to be Ambassador of the Federal Republic of
Ethiopia. Mr. Roger Nyhus to be Ambassador to Barbados,
Federation of St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, Antigua and
Barbuda, the Commonwealth of Dominica, Grenada, St. Vincent and
the Grenadines. The Honorable William Popp to be Ambassador to
the Republic of Uganda. Ms. Stephanie Syptak-Ramnath to be
Ambassador to the Republic of Peru. Ms. Julie Turner to be
Special Envoy on North Korea Human rights Issues.
Would any member like to comment on any of these
nominations?
Senator Paul.
Senator Paul. I would like to make a comment initially on
the question of holding over the meeting. I was the Senator who
requested the holdover. I think it is important for everybody
to know that this would be a new precedent now, that basically
things will be completely at the discretion of the Chairman,
and that holdovers that he does not like will not be accepted
because that is what is happening today.
The reason for my holdover though is not petulance, but to
try to encourage the Chairman to be interested in allowing the
minority to gather records from the Biden administration. I
have been asking very nicely, in private and in public, to the
Chairman for assistance in getting records.
I told him a couple of weeks ago that I will oppose all
nominees now and make everything through a floor, which I have
not been doing, and I do not generally do. But I will do that
until I get some assistance with records. The records I am
looking for are not classified.
They have to do with scientific grants that were applied
for, received, or rejected, having to do with viral gain-of-
function research that could have created what became COVID-19.
We know of one of these, DARPA, from a leak. We would like to
know because USAID engaged in somewhere between $10 and $20
million worth of research in this area.
We would like to see these research grants, yet so far we
have been denied this. When I have asked the Chairman, I got no
response. That the committee already has all this information,
I discovered through a roundabout fashion, and also then from I
believe Wendy Sherman the last time that actually indeed the
committee does have a lot of these records that I am interested
in looking at.
And now the committee is sort of negotiating with me and
says, I can see the records but only in camera. Well, how could
you possibly have oversight, if I discover something that
actually could change the public--paper, and I am not allowed
to tell the public, of what value would it be for me to read
records in private that I cannot discuss publicly?
But we also discovered that these records have been shared
outside the committee--actually given to a Republican member of
another committee, but they made him sign an agreement not to
talk about them. But some of those records did go to an
Inspector General, nonetheless. But the thing is, is that we
should all want the exposure of where our money is being spent.
There was a report today of several million more dollars that
was unrecorded that was going to China, to Wuhan for this
research.
We also know now that some of it is going to our
universities, to the Academy of Military Medical Research. It
is actually going for military research in China. Almost all of
this is unclassified. I am more than happy to quit blocking
anything, quit obstructing any meetings if I could get the
Chairman to be interested in signing a records release. And
with that, I would like to pass this over--this is a letter
that narrows some of the requests.
So it is, you know, maybe less than what we have seen in
the past to see if we could specifically get some documents.
But here is an example of Freedom of Information Act, U.S.
right to know about these cables, that are all talking about
the Wuhan Institute of Virology in the cables right after
January, that are talking about the Academy of Military Medical
Sciences, in cables that are all redacted.
So, we know there was a discussion going on. They were very
worried about these labs in January of 2020, but we should have
oversight of this. And I cannot--nobody can do oversight and
has to be secret. It is of no value to go to a room and read
these records if you cannot talk about them publicly.
Now classified I understand. If there is something in there
secret or personal you do not reveal. None of these that we are
asking for are classified. But anyway, that is my reason for
recommending the hold, and we will continue to do what we can
to slow things down so that we can get the attention of the
majority and we would like to get records from the
Administration.
The Chairman. Let me take a moment to respond. First of
all, on the overall question of holdovers, I explained all of
this in significant detail in the last Congress, and in this
Congress, I clearly stated for the record for all members to
hear that I would not honor blanket holdovers. On March the 8th
of this year, I clearly informed members that I would not honor
blanket holdovers.
Holdovers were never intended to be used to obstruct an
entire agenda. To the contrary, they are a courtesy afforded on
this committee to a Senator who seeks additional time to
consider a specific nomination. That is clearly not the case
here. And let me just remind everyone that the rules of this
committee are particularly generous with regard to notice and
an adequate time afforded to members to consider items slated
for markup.
Our rules require seven-day notice for business meetings,
unless, of course, the Chair, in consultation with the ranking
member, determines there is good cause to proceed with less
than that. I have ensured that this committee abides by this
rule.
If someone has a specific need to consider a particular
item further before debate and vote, that is where a holdover
can be appropriate. But to take the entire agenda and strike
it, that is simply not going to fly. As to the specific issue
Senator Paul has, I think as you may know, Senator Paul, I
appreciate and greatly support the rights of individual
Senators to seek and obtain information from the Executive
Branch.
We all have likely experienced frustration with the
Executive Branch's reluctance to turn over information to
Congress, including myself. In fact, I recall months of efforts
trying to seek documents from the previous Administration with
little or no response whatsoever.
That was the case, in fact, even though I was the ranking
member at that time of this committee. You are neither the
Chair nor the ranking member of the committee. Nevertheless, in
this particular instance, I worked in good faith to provide you
access to documents that are in the possession of the
committee. In fact, you and your staff currently have access to
review those documents, first in camera.
Yet you have chosen not to avail yourself of that option. I
went further after listening to your requests, and my staff
made a presentation to your staff that we would give you the
documents but under the same conditions that the other Senator
that you mentioned was able to obtain the documents. That has
not seemed to be enough either.
And now I have not looked at your letter, but I am told if
it is the same letter that was previously given, that it is not
a limiting of documents, you are seeking an expansion of
documents beyond those which the committee presently has in its
possession. So, you want me to go ahead as the Chair and be
your foil with the Administration to get documents?
I do not particularly see that as my role. But to the
extent that we have had documents, we have now offered to you
to have them given to you in possession but with certain clear
conditions.
So, I do not know what more to do because obviously the
goalposts keep getting moved, and I cannot allow the
committee's agenda to be stifled by blanket holdovers, and so
that is why I have decided to move forward.
Senator Paul. I have a question----
The Chairman. Absolutely.
Senator Paul [continuing]. I guess my question would be,
let us say I come to the committee, and I go through the
millions of pages--and actually some of these I have seen
through other sources.
There are now many different ways I can look at these
documents. But if I go and look at documents and I find, wow,
we funded research that helped to create something that looked
very similar to what the coronavirus is. That knowledge is not
edifying to me. It does not do anything for me.
This is a public debate where I am trying to get more
awareness of the fact that we funded this type of research and
it was dangerous, and that it could happen again in our
country. That we are doing this kind of research in our
country, and if we have another lab leak in our country, it
could be as bad as what happened in China.
But if I am not allowed to reveal that, how can that be--
how can you have oversight if I am told that everything I read
cannot be revealed to the public. It is not classified. I
understand that if you had classified information, but this is
not classified.
If the agreement you want me to sign is that I will not
reveal any detail of what I read, any information, it is
worthless for me to do that, and it actually limits me to sign
that because I have actually seen information in several other
committees, venues, and from other people privately.
So, I am starting to gather this, but as we gather it, we
find that the information actually that you possess I do not
think has the knowledge that I want. I want to see the
individual PREDICT grants.
PREDICT was this virus money program through USAID and we
want to see if any of those research grants involved research
that could have led to the development of what became COVID-19.
We have one from DARPA. But DARPA works with PREDICT, and
we want to see the grants. This is basically the scientists
asking for a grant, why they asked, what the reviewer said, and
why it was denied or accepted. The most important one we have
found so far has actually been denied.
It was a DARPA grant denied, and DARPA did the right thing
by denying some of the dangers. But that is what we are looking
for, but it would actually require more than what you possess.
It would actually require some help in actually getting the
records, and they will not give them to me unless you sign. But
if we do not get any help, then we will obstruct your
nominations.
And as I said before, I have no intention of ever
obstructing a nomination before. I told you in the last
Administration and in this one, I think Administrations should
get who they appoint. I might vote no, but I am, you know, I
have not filibustered nominees before.
The Chairman. Well, I do not think that is exactly the
record. I think you have availed yourself in the past of some
blanket holds.
So, and I respect, you know, the right of being able to
find out more information. If you want to go public with
documents, again, you need to negotiate that with the agencies
that are in possession of the documents. I do think oversight
is worthy of having access to the documents, coming to a
determination.
Maybe you will find that what you think is the case is not
the case. And maybe you will find that what you think is the
case is the case. At which time, then the question is, is it
possible to go public with that? That is a question you need to
negotiate with the agencies who, at the end of the day, are the
ones who are in possession.
I am not in possession of it other than the ones that we
specifically have and have offered to give to you physically
for your review. But, you know, the Senator has every right to
do whatever he wants to do on the floor and that will be the
case.
We also have the responsibility of facing the consequences
when something happens in a country and we do not have an
ambassador there, who held that person up. Senator Shaheen.
Senator Shaheen. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And
actually, I think this is a really helpful debate because I
think all of us, as you pointed out, have been very frustrated
by this Administration and previous Administrations with not
getting documents when we have requested them and not getting
timely responses to questions that we have raised.
So, I do not know whether there is more we can do as a
committee to express our concerns about that, but I do think
those are very real. I wanted to endorse what both you and the
ranking member said about the importance of getting our
ambassadors in place throughout the world.
As we look at the national security of the United States,
one of the most important things we can do is to have our
diplomats in place around the world. Senators Murphy and Young
held a very important hearing this week on the Middle East and
our challenges that we are facing there.
And two of the ambassadors today are in very critical
countries in the Middle East, Ms. Johnson and Ms. Lempert in
Lebanon and Jordan. Those are countries--Jordan because it is
so important to stability in the Middle East, but Lebanon
because it is teetering on being a failed state, and the more
we can do to get somebody there who can continue to negotiate,
the better.
So, I just wanted to endorse what you said, to encourage
all of us to help move these nominations on the floor, and to
get people in place as soon as possible. And with that regard,
I would also like to raise Ambassador Richard, who was
nominated to serve as coordinator for counterterrorism over 18
months ago, 18 months ago, and she is still being held up.
So, I would hope that we would all--I know we are all
committed to making sure the United States is as safe as we can
and competitive against the PRC and Russia and all of the
threats out there, and having these people in place helps us do
that.
So, I just wanted to endorse what you and the ranking
member had to say.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Romney. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Yes, Senator Romney.
Senator Romney. Okay, two--fast. One is, please, give him
the data that he wants. The conspiracy theorists, if you do not
get the data, are convinced it is worse than the reality.
Just give him the data, for Pete's sake, number one. Number
two, these holds on ambassadors and the time that we all take
to confirm ambassadors is very harmful to our country. I have
listened to General Richardson, who is the Chairman of the
Southern Command.
She said, there are 22 Latin American countries, 20 of them
have ceased recognizing any relations with Taiwan. She said
there are major elections coming out in Columbia that is
critical to our country and to peace in the region, and we are
still holding up a person for ambassador. My goodness, the
President has been President now for some years, alright, and
we cannot get--we need ambassadors. And even if they are not
perfect, we need ambassadors.
So let us get them through, and the holds that we put on,
just in my opinion, the hold has got to be resolved on a timely
basis and then move on to a vote. We have got to get
ambassadors throughout the world, and we cannot vote on them
one by one on the Senate floor. It will end up taking years to
get all of our ambassadors through. So please give Senator Paul
the data he wants. It is not classified. Let him have it and
use it. And then let us get the holds off of these ambassadors.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Well, thank you, Senator Romney, for your
remarks. I am in concurrence. I have offered the information
that I have in my possession, in the committee's possession and
my personal possession, to Senator Paul. Now he wants
information beyond that. That is another question.
We have to get that from the Administration, not from me.
But to the extent that I have information, I have offered to
give it to him. On the question of the nominations, I am
perfectly in agreement with you.
As a matter of fact, not only do the holds, but I would
like to see us agree--get more agreement to put nominations up
for a vote. People do not like them, vote against them. Got
questions of a nominee? Give them a hearing and ask the
questions in public. Let them answer it.
But we are in essence, stopping the flow of--we have a
stack of nominees that have not even had the opportunity for a
hearing because we cannot get concurrence of them. And we
cannot get concurrence, once we do have those hearings, to
bring them up for a vote on the business meeting.
So, this is the essence of comity. I have, even though in
the past comity was broken, I have restored it and I have lived
painfully by it, but everything has its limits. Senator Young.
Senator Young. I want to associate myself with everyone who
has emphasized the importance of getting ambassadors in place
as soon as possible, as many as possible, as imperfect as some
may be.
With that said, maybe we can bring some clarity to those of
us who are unfamiliar with the precedent of providing
unclassified information to a duly elected United States
Senator provisionally, that is provided they do not go public
with any findings, as I understand it.
The Chairman. The information, particularly, that Senator
Paul sees was given to another colleague of ours, not a member
of this committee. It was given to him by the agency directly,
not to me, with that proviso, and he accepted that proviso.
That is now the proviso that the agency is seeking to
continue to employ. I got the information from the agency, but
I got it with that understanding, and I offered it to Senator
Paul with the same understanding. Now, if we have the broader
question of that we want agencies to give information
unfettered, then that is a collective effort that we are going
to have to have.
But, you know, I can tell you, as the former ranking
member, I was not only not given information with conditions, I
was not given information. So, this is a constant struggle with
the Executive Branch. Senator Cardin.
Senator Cardin. Let me just try to clarify this. There is a
difference between classified information and sensitive
information that we do not want to share publicly. You have
personnel information. You have proprietary information.
There is sensitive information that is kept confidential,
though it is not classified. I do not know the circumstances of
the information involved here, but I think what the Chairman is
suggesting is the right way to proceed. Sit down, look at the
information, see what is there, because I think Senator Romney
is correct. A lot of what you think is there is not going to be
there.
So, you know, you go through it, have an opportunity to
see. If there is information in there that you think the public
has a right to know, there is a process you can follow to try
to get that information made public, but at least go through
the first stage.
As I understand it, Senator Paul has not gone through the
first stage yet, sit down, take a look at the information, see
what is there. So, I recognize it may challenge his ability to
use that information publicly, but that is a decision we all
make by serving in the Senate.
So, I just really wanted to say that classification is not
the only standard for release of information publicly. There
are privacy issues here.
Senator Paul. The problem is, is that--
The Chairman. And then you will be the last word on this,
and we are going to move on.
Senator Paul. The problem is, is that to begin the
conversation, I have to sign an agreement saying I am not going
to reveal any information. And so, then I am bound, and I do
believe even if I sign something, I am bound by that. I do not
want to sign that because I have already seen this information
in other venues.
Homeland Security has got it in a--some of it but we do
not--we are not sure if it is the same information. We think it
is the same. Some of it is in the Homeland Security
subcommittee. Some of it is with the other Senators. Some of it
is floating around.
Now, some of it has been gotten on the internet over time.
But the main thing is, is everything I have seen so far, all of
it excludes the scientific grant proposals that I want to see.
The one grant proposal that is out there, that points towards
the Wuhan Institute wanting to do research to create a
coronavirus with a furin cleavage site, went to DARPA.
And scientists are alarmed because they see this and they
say, oh my goodness, COVID-19 looks exactly like their
proposal. We only know that because a whistleblower told an
Inspector General, and then it became released to the public
somehow through a leak. But that is the way we have gotten any
information.
PREDICT does the same thing. It is a big program within the
State Department. It has been going on for 10 years. I just
want the coronavirus research, the grant proposals, what they
asked for, why they asked for it. If there was a discussion of
why it was denied or why it was accepted.
And then--but the thing is, is the other reason, I cannot
read it myself and provide the medical background. I am not a
virologist. I would immediately want to show a virologist this
so they can read it. Some of the stuff that is most damning I
can read through and think, wow, it might be this or it might
that.
I have got to have a virologist to help me read it to
understand it. And so, limiting just to me makes the
oversight--I just cannot do the oversight, because I do not
have the knowledge or bandwidth to get experts to help me with
it--they are not, many of them are not my staff. It would be
like virologists that would have to see this information.
The Chairman. Well, it sounds like, to a large degree, that
that which at least that the committee has in its possession,
you already know what it is based upon your statements. So
either from the other colleague, from the Homeland Security
Committee, from floating out there.
So, it sounds like you have it. And we are still willing to
give you the totality of it, but with that one condition, which
is a condition under which we received it from the agency. So,
yes, Senator Merkley.
Senator Merkley. So, this--the term for this is Gain of
Function. And there was a 2021 Scientific American article that
I have right here, right now that talks about all the research
that we have funded in order to establish viruses to be able to
do the things they cannot naturally do, including the bird flu
that can leap from one mammal to another through the air, which
was not naturally able to do.
We know this research took place. This does not seem to be
the right forum for this. Senator, I am happy to join you in a
public records request for information that pertains to this. I
do think that there should be transparency about the research
we funded on gain of transmission.
There was a moratorium from 2014 to 2017 for three years
because of researchers' concern about gain of ability, gain of
transmission. And so, this is a very real issue. It seems more
like in the health realm than foreign policy. But if we were
doing international collaborations on this topic, I think the
public has a right to know, if that is--let us be transparent
about it.
Do not hold up the ambassadors, but certainly the cause
that you are on, which is transparency with the public over the
type of research we are doing, seems to me valid. But records
that have been made to this committee under a condition, that
the Chair got under a condition, he has to honor that
condition.
And so there may be other routes, and maybe seeing these
things, you could then ask for a public records request that
all of us could join you in. I just want to say it makes sense
to have public transparency over research in this area. I do
not think that this strategy is the right strategy in this
committee.
The Chairman. Okay. I think we have exhausted this
conversation. Listen, one feels--compelled. 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?
[No response.]
The Chairman. If there are none, is there a motion for a
roll--
Senator Risch. So moved--
The Chairman.--call vote on the resolution of advice and
consent? So moved. Is there a second?
Senator Cardin. Second.
The Chairman. Seconded. The Clerk will call the roll on the
approval of the resolution for advice and consent.
The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
Senator Cardin. Aye--
Senator Paul. This is the--excuse me, are you calling the
tax treaty? Following the territory?
The Chairman. Yes. It has been moved and seconded for--
Senator Paul. I have an amendment to the tax treaty.
The Chairman. Well, I called for any amendments to be
offered and no one spoke up.
Senator Paul. I am sorry, I have a hearing disability and
did not quite hear what you said--
The Chairman. Okay. Pull up your amendment.
Senator Paul. Are you ready for me, Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. You are the only person that has an
amendment.
Senator Paul. For several years now, I have been trying to
improve the tax treaties. I support many aspects of these
treaties, including the treaty's goal to avoid double taxation.
I think that is a great benefit to our country.
I have tried to improve them over time and worked with
multiple administrations on this. Today, as we consider the tax
treaty with Chile, I will offer a reservation proposal. If we
adopted a reservation today, it will not affect Chile and would
not require a renegotiation of the treaty. The reservation
would only affect the United States.
The only thing my reservation would accomplish is heighten
the standard from which our Government would review someone's
bank account or financial information. My concern with the
provisions of the treaty as currently written, is that it
contains a standard that empowers the contracting governments
to exchange personal financial information as is foreseeably
relevant to carrying out the provisions of the convention of
the domestic laws of the contract states.
So, what we have done here is that you are going to
exchange information based on a relevant standard, not a
standard as such that is individualized or personalized. We are
all familiar with the concept of different legal standards. We
are familiar with the different standards of probable cause
versus reasonable suspicion.
The relevant standard is one step lower than reasonable
suspicion. The relevant standard is probably the lowest
possible standard and effectively allows for the exchange of
personal information. The relevant standard effectively says
that the Government can obtain anything it wants.
Arguing that information is relevant to a tax treaty or any
U.S. law, maybe not, is essential no standard at all. My fear
is that with the tax treaties without first--privacy
protections, that the bulk exchange of individuals who live
overseas will be an invasion of their privacy that normally,
domestic citizens would not have to encounter.
My amendment would add a reservation to the treaty that
would mandate that the United States will only request or
accept deposit account information if there is a reasonable
basis for believing that such a person may not have complied
with the tax law. All that means is that the Government has to
say that it believes Mr. Schmitt is not paying the taxes, and
only then can they get account information. It is a fairly low
standard. They have to point suspicion towards an individual.
As it stands now, it will be the bulk collection of data,
just let us look at all the data, swift through it, and see if
we can find anything that is anomalous. Since we all support
and honor the Fourth Amendment, I would think that this is
something we can all agree with.
My amendment will prevent the bulk exchange of private
banking records unless there is a specific allegation.
Relatedly, I think we do not want Americans overseas to be
treated at a lower standard than Americans are at home. If the
Government wants to peer into your bank account in the United
States, you have a chance to hire an attorney and quash the IRS
subpoena.
Particularly problematic in this regard and closely related
to this tax treaty is the 2010 Foreign Tax Compliance Act,
FATCA, which allows for the bulk collection of detailed
financial data of Americans abroad without probable cause or
reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. FATCA forces foreign
financial institutions to hand over these data automatically or
face steep withholding penalties on their U.S. sourced income.
This happens all over the world, including in Chile, and
the fact that it is blatantly unconstitutional--and I have
fought for its repeal for years. The reservation I have
introduced today would put a stop to the unconstitutional
practice, at least as far as Chilean banks and Americans are
concerned.
Beyond the IRS's coercive dealings with Chilean banks,
FATCA also calls for government-to-government sharing of
information. In 2014, the U.S. signed an intergovernmental
agreement, or an IGA, with Chile to implement FATCA, which by
the way, is effectively a treaty in its own right and not
Constitution for the Executive Branch to enter into without the
advice and consent of the Senate, but it was entered into
without any agreement by Congress.
Article 2.A of the procedural governmental agreement allows
for the U.S. to request the Chilean Government share
information about U.S. citizens in Chilean banks in which the
holder has not consented to voluntarily share this information.
Of note, however, is that this intergovernmental agreement says
that the U.S. cannot make such request until the tax treaty we
are debating today enters into force.
So, the tax treaty is not just about the tax treaty, it
also will empower another intercontinental agreement, and also
empower FATCA. So, there are under extensions other than just
the treaty we have. There are about 9 million Americans who
live overseas.
I have spoken with representatives from two groups,
Democrats Abroad and Republicans Overseas. Both groups are very
concerned about protecting their bank accounts. They are
concerned that as we continue to add rules, the banks do not
want to serve them.
Chair, we are not talking about people with billions of
dollars to deposit. We are talking about people who try to open
an account overseas for $2,000. The Government should be
prevented to obtain information of people who are not paying
the taxes, of course.
The Government should at least be expected to name the
people it thinks broke the law. My amendment does not prevent
the ability of the Government to enforce of the law. My
amendment prevents the idea that we are just going to control
the bank accounts of all Americans overseas.
The Chairman. Senator Risch.
Senator Risch. With all due respect to Senator Paul, I am
going to oppose this amendment. This proposed amendment would
overturn decades of tax practice and procedures. It would call
into question our existing tax treaties.
Senator Paul has said it would not require a renegotiation
with our foreign partner. We have been told otherwise. First of
all, I support Senator Paul's concern about U.S. taxpayers and
their protections overseas. But questions have been raised
regarding taxpayer protections. This committee has previously
heard from witnesses from the Joint Tax Committee and from the
Senior Treasury officials, there are extensive protections
already in place provided for U.S. taxpayer information under
the longstanding practice of exchange of information with
treaty partners. I plan to support the treaty.
It would prevent double taxation for U.S. taxpayers. It
will help eliminate tax uncertainty. It is an important
instrument in fighting tax fraud. In addition, it will
strengthen the ability of U.S. businesses to explore new
opportunities. We have already discussed the fact that China is
exploiting a weakness that we have here.
We really need to do this. Again, I sympathize with the
general proposition that Senator Paul has raised. Problem is,
we have not seen one single instance where this has been a
problem. So, we need to move this forward. I am going to
support it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Very briefly, I agree with Senator Risch. I
understand and appreciate Senator Paul's consistent concerns
about privacy, including in the context of tax treaties. But
this language has been worked out not only between the ranking
member and myself, but also with the Republican leadership of
the Senate Finance Committee that originally had some issues.
The Treasury Department has made clear that this language
does not allow bulk collection of taxpayers' information, and
it comports with existing provisions of the tax code. For those
reasons, as well as those stated by Senator Risch, I shall
oppose the amendment. Does the Senator request a record vote?
Senator Paul. Yes, please.
The Chairman. The Clerk will call the roll on the
amendment.
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. 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. Ms. Duckworth?
Senator Duckworth. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
Senator Risch. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
Senator Romney. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Ricketts?
Senator Ricketts. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
Senator Paul. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Young?
Senator Young. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Cruz?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Hagerty?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Scott?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. No.
The Clerk will report.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 2, the nays are 19.
The Chairman. And the amendment is not agreed to. Now, on
the resolution of advice and consent. The motion has already
previously been made 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?
Senator Coons. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
Senator Murphy. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
Senator Kaine. 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. Ms. Duckworth?
Senator Duckworth. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
Senator Risch. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
Senator Romney. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Ricketts?
Senator Ricketts. Aye.
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 Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Hagerty?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Scott?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Aye.
The Clerk will report.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 20, the noes are 1.
The Chairman. And the resolution is favorably approved and
reported to the Senate. Now I would ask my colleagues
indulgence for a few more minutes. We are going to go through a
series of roll call votes on nominations. So, is there a motion
to have a roll call vote on Arthur Brown to be Ambassador to
the Republic of Ecuador?
Senator Cardin. So moved.
Senator Coons. 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?
Senator Coons. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
Senator Murphy. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
Senator Kaine. 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. Ms. Duckworth?
Senator Duckworth. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
Senator Risch. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
Senator Romney. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Ricketts?
Senator Ricketts. Aye.
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 Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Hagerty?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Scott?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Aye.
The Clerk will report.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 21, they nays are 0.
The Chairman. The majority of the members present having
voted in the affirmative, the ayes have it and the nomination
is agreed to. Is there a motion to--for a roll call vote on Ms.
Ana Escrogima to be Ambassador to the Sultanate of Oman?
Senator Cardin. So moved.
Senator Coons. Second.
The Chairman. 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?
Senator Coons. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
Senator Murphy. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
Senator Kaine. 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. Ms. Duckworth?
Senator Duckworth. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
Senator Risch. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Ricketts?
Senator Ricketts. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Young?
Senator Young. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Cruz?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Hagerty?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Scott?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Aye.
The Clerk will report.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 20, the nays are 1.
The Chairman. Majority of members present having voted in
the affirmative, the ayes have it, and the nomination is agreed
to. Is there a motion for a roll call vote on the Honorable
Lisa Johnson to be Ambassador to the Lebanese Republic?
Senator Coons. So moved.
The Chairman. So moved. Is there a second?
Senator Shaheen. Second.
The Chairman. 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?
Senator Coons. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
Senator Kaine. 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. Ms. Duckworth?
Senator Duckworth. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
Senator Risch. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Ricketts?
Senator Ricketts. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Young?
Senator Young. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Cruz?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Hagerty?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Scott?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Aye.
The Clerk will report.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 17, the nays are 4.
The Chairman. Majority of members present having voted to
affirmative, the ayes have it, and the nomination is agreed to.
Is there a motion for a roll call by Ms. Yael Lempert to be
Ambassador to the Kingdom of Jordan?
Senator Cardin. So moved.
The Chairman. So moved.
Senator Shaheen. Second.
The Chairman. And seconded. The motion has been made to
second. 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. 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. Ms. Duckworth?
Senator Duckworth. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
Senator Risch. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Ricketts?
Senator Ricketts. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Young?
Senator Young. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Cruz?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Hagerty?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Scott?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Aye.
The Clerk will report.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 16, the noes are 5.
The Clerk. Majority of members present having a vote in the
affirmative, the ayes have it, and the nomination is agreed to.
Is there a motion for a roll call vote on Mr. Ervin Jose
Massinga to be Ambassador of the Federal Democratic Republic of
Ethiopia?
Senator Coons. So moved.
Senator Shaheen. 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?
Senator Coons. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
Senator Kaine. 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. Ms. Duckworth?
Senator Duckworth. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
Senator Risch. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Ricketts?
Senator Ricketts. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Young?
Senator Young. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Cruz?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Hagerty?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Scott?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Aye. Clerk will report.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 20, the noes are 1.
The Chairman. A majority of members present having voted in
the affirmative, the ayes have it, and the nomination is agreed
to. Is there a motion for a roll call vote on Roger Nyhus to be
Ambassador Barbuda, Federation of St. Kitts and Nevis, St.
Lucia, Antigua and Barbuda, the Commonwealth of Dominica,
Grenada, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines?
Senator Shaheen. So moved.
The Chairman. Moved. Is there a second?
Senator Coons. Second.
The Chairman. 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?
Senator Coons. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
Senator Kaine. 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. Ms. Duckworth?
Senator Duckworth. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
Senator Risch. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Ricketts?
Senator Ricketts. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Young?
Senator Young. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Cruz?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Hagerty?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Scott?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Aye. The Clerk will report.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 17, the noes are 4.
The Chairman. A majority of the members present having
voted in the affirmative, the ayes have it, and the nomination
is agreed to.
Is there a motion for a roll call on the Honorable William
Popp to be Ambassador to the Republic Uganda?
Senator Shaheen. So moved.
The Chairman. So moved.
Is there a second?
Senator Coons. Second.
The Chairman. 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?
Senator Coons. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
Senator Kaine. 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. Ms. Duckworth?
Senator Duckworth. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
Senator Risch. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Ricketts?
Senator Ricketts. Aye.
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 Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Hagerty?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Scott?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Aye. The Clerk will report.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 20, the nays are 1.
The Chairman. A majority of members present having voted on
the affirmative, the ayes have it, and the nomination is agreed
to. Is there a motion for a roll call vote on Ms. Stephanie
Syptak-Ramnath to be Ambassador to the Republic of Peru?
Senator Shaheen. So, moved.
The Chairman. It has been so moved. Seconded? Is there a
second?
Senator Coons. Second.
The Chairman. Seconded. 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. 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. Ms. Duckworth?
Senator Duckworth. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
Senator Risch. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Ricketts?
Senator Ricketts. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Young?
Senator Young. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Cruz?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Hagerty?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Scott?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Aye. The Clerk will report.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 20, the no is 1.
The Chairman. The majority of members present having voted
in the affirmative, the ayes have it, and the nomination is
agreed to. And final one, Ms. Julie Turner to be the Special
Envoy on North Korean Human Rights Issues.
Is there a motion?
Senator Shaheen. So, moved.
The Chairman. So, moved. Seconded?
Senator Cardin. Second.
The Chairman. 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?
Senator Coons. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
Senator Kaine. 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. Ms. Duckworth?
Senator Duckworth. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
Senator Risch. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Ricketts?
Senator Ricketts. Aye.
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 Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Hagerty?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Scott?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Aye. The Clerk will report.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 21, the noes are 0.
The Chairman. A majority of members present having voted in
the affirmative, the ayes have it, and the nomination is agreed
to. With the thanks of the Chair for everybody's cooperation,
participation, that completes the committee's business.
I ask unanimous consent the staff be authorized to make
technical and conforming changes. Without objection, so order.
This meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:24 a.m., the meeting was adjourned.]
----------
BUSINESS MEETING
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 8, 2023
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
Summary of Action Taken by the Committee
LEGISLATION
S. 920, International Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization
Act of 2023, without amendments--agreed to favorably by voice
vote
S. 1457, Taiwan Tax Agreement Act of 2023--held over
S. 1074, Taiwan Protection and National Resilience Act of 2023, with
an amendment in the nature of a substitute--agreed to favorably
by voice vote (Paul recorded as no)
Managers substitute amendment--agreed to favorably by voice vote
S. 308, Ending China's Developing Nation Status Act, with an
amendment in the nature of a substitute--agreed to favorably by
voice vote
Managers substitute amendment--agreed to favorably by voice vote
S. 416, Holding Accountable Russian Mercenaries Act--held over
S.Res. 174, A resolution condemning the human rights record of the
Government of the Kingdom of Eswatini and the brutal killing of
Eswatini activist Thulani Maseko on January 21, 2023, with
amendments--agreed to favorably by voice vote
Preamble amendment--agreed to favorably by voice vote
Resolving clause amendment--agreed to favorably by voice vote
S.Res. 156, A resolution calling on the Government of the Russian
Federation to release United States citizen Paul Whelan, with
amendments--agreed to favorably by voice vote
Preamble amendment--agreed to favorably by voice vote
Resolving clause amendment--agreed to favorably by voice vote
S.Res. 158, A resolution condemning the deportation of children from
Ukraine to the Russian Federation and the forcible transfer of
children within territories of Ukraine that are temporarily
occupied by Russian forces, with amendments--agreed to
favorably by voice vote
Managers preamble amendment--agreed to favorably by voice vote
Managers resolving clause amendment--agreed to favorably by voice
vote
S.Res. 126, A resolution recognizing the vital importance of the
Mekong River to Southeast Asia and the role of the Mekong-
United States Partnership in supporting the prosperity of the
region, with amendments, with amendments--agreed to favorably
by voice vote
Preamble amendment--agreed to favorably by voice vote
Resolving clause amendment--agreed to favorably by voice vote
NOMINATIONS
Mr. Bryan David Hunt, 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 Sierra Leone--agreed to favorably by
voice vote
Ms. Heather Roach Variava, of Iowa, a Career Member of the Senior
Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of
America to the Lao People's Democratic Republic--agreed to
favorably by voice vote
Mr. Matthew D. Murray, of Maryland, a Career Member of the Senior
Foreign Service, Class of Counselor, for the rank of Ambassador
during his tenure of service as United States Senior Official
for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)--agreed to
favorably by voice vote (Barrasso recorded as no)
Dr. Jennifer M. Adams, 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 Cabo Verde--agreed to favorably by
voice vote
Ms. Jennifer L. Johnson, 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 Federated States of Micronesia--agreed to
favorably by voice vote
FSO LISTS
Ali Abdi, dated March 30, 2023 (PN495)--agreed to favorably by voice
vote
Mark Petry, et. al., dated March 30, 2023 (PN496)--agreed to
favorably by voice vote
Meeting Transcript
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:34 a.m., in
room 116, The Capitol Building, Hon. Robert Menendez, chairman
of the committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Menendez [presiding], Cardin, Shaheen,
Coons, Kaine, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen, Duckworth,
Risch, Romney, Ricketts, and Paul.
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 several important pieces of legislation and a
handful of nominations. We have requests for holdovers on the
Taiwan Tax Act and the Harm Act, both which I intend to honor.
I will be speaking to Senator Risch. Hopefully we can hold
another business meeting soon so that we can move those items
as quickly as possible. Let me then turn to nominations. We
have a number of important ones on the agenda, Sierra Leone,
Laos, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, Cabo Verde, and
Micronesia.
These posts are each strategically important to the United
States, especially in the face of the China challenge, and I
hope all of our colleagues can support the nominations before
us today. Turning to legislation, we will vote on three bills
and four resolutions that represent the good bipartisan work of
many members of the committee and the Senate. I will speak to
just a few.
First, I am pleased that we are taking up the International
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. Last year,
this bill passed out of the committee, and subsequently the
Senate, both times by voice vote.
Along with Senator Risch, with the support of Senators
Kaine, Rubio, and others, I have reintroduced this critical
legislation to reauthorize and strengthen U.S. tools to fight
the scourge of human trafficking around the world. I hope we
can all support it again, as we did last year.
Let me just say, even though we are not going to be voting
on it today, a few words about the Taiwan Tax Agreement Act,
despite the hold over. I am grateful for the superb
collaboration with Senator Risch and his staff, as well as the
support from Senator Van Hollen and Senator Romney, who are our
original co-sponsors on this legislation. The legislation comes
at a critical time.
The tax agreement with Taiwan that the bill authorizes will
facilitate investment in key strategic industries such as
semiconductors, support U.S. businesses active in Taiwan, and
deepen our economic engagement with Taiwan. The administration
concluded the U.S., Taiwan Initiative, the 21st Century Trade,
just last week and this is a necessary complement to those
efforts.
It is something that Taiwan has requested. It is something
the administration has asked to work with us on. It is
something that the U.S. business community supports. Just
today, the Chamber of Commerce wrote to the committee
expressing its strong support for this bill in recognition of
the importance of a tax agreement between the United States and
Taiwan, and so I ask unanimous consent that that letter be
included in the record. Without objection, it shall be
included.
[The information referred to is located at the end of this
transcript.]
The Chairman. This committee needs to act to move this bill
forward quickly. We are also taking up other important bills
sponsored by Senators Rubio and Romney, and resolutions
sponsored by Senators Coons, Merkley, and Peters.
I appreciate the work of all these members. I will note
briefly the Peter's resolution on Paul Whelan. All of us are
unified in condemning Russia's unlawful detention of Mr. Whelan
and urge the administration to continue to do everything
possible to ensure his return.
Finally, I also want to note that I expect to be able to
notice a markup for June 21st for the State Department
authorization bill. This is one of the most important
responsibilities of this committee, and I am pleased that we
have reinvigorated the function during my chairmanship.
A State authorization bill has been inactive 2 years in a
row, after nearly a two-decade lapse. I deeply appreciate the
work of Senator Risch and his team, along with many members
here, and I am confident that we will move forward with a
strong bipartisan product.
With that, let me turn to Senator Risch for his opening
remarks.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. RISCH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO
Senator Risch.Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand
also we are not going to take up Taiwan tax agreement, but the
agreement is an important step toward strengthening our
economic relationship with Taiwan.
I do hope we can get a business meeting and move it on
quickly. Specifically, this would allow the President to start
negotiating an agreement that would encourage increased
investment between the U.S. and Taiwan by eliminating
duplicative tax structures.
Also, perhaps just as importantly, the agreement has the
potential to encourage other nations to increase their economic
relations with Taiwan. Very important.
I am also glad we are able to find a path forward to
consider Senator Rubio's and Senator Romney's stand-alone China
related bills outside the larger China to bill negotiations.
These bills address important issues related to China's
continued abuse of the developing nations status and
identifying gaps in Taiwan's resiliency planning that could be
exploited by China. It is important to move these bills
expeditiously.
We also have a number of important Russia related items on
today's agenda, including the Harm Act, to designate the Wagner
Group a foreign terrorist organization. I understand that will
be held until the next business meeting but hope to move it
forward.
Wagner's activities on behalf of the Kremlin continue to
destabilize entire governments, cut natural resources in
vulnerable countries, and commit war crimes in Ukraine, Syria,
and Libya.
Russian malign influence is bigger than Wagner, but this is
a start. Also, I would like to thank Senator Coons for his
partnership on Senate Res. 174, condemning the government of
Eswatini for its human rights record.
On the nomination for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
position, the United States will host the APEC Leaders' Summit
later this year. APEC is a great forum to cooperate with close
partners and connect Asia to our own hemisphere.
However, under no circumstances should the administration
waive or remove sanctions on Hong Kong officials to facilitate
their participation in this meeting. Hong Kong officials want
to tell the international business community that everything is
back to normal, and that is far from the truth.
We should not normalize their behavior. We must stand firm
and not put engagement, for engagement's sake, ahead of our own
interest or U.S. support for Hong Kong human rights. Beyond the
APEC nominee, I plan to support each of the career nominees on
the agenda.
And last, as always, I would ask that members be permitted
to file a no on items. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Risch. Without objection,
we will now consider en bloc several nominations and two FSO
lists. All the nominations on the agenda have been listed. You
have them.
Would any member like to speak to any of these nominations
before we vote? Senator Paul.
Senator Paul.As we discussed previously, I have been
holding these nominees. I think I have 30 of them now, and it
will take a bit of time to go through them, if we have to go
through them one at a time. I am more than willing to release
any hold on all of these nominees, if I can see some
unclassified documents.
The documents are predominantly from one program called
PREDICT. PREDICT was a 10-year program that had $200 million
appropriated to at the time. $65 million of those dollars went
to one entity, EcoHealth Alliance.
Several million dollars went to one lab, Wuhan Lab. And
when we had the head of the USAID in recently, she said that we
never funded any gain of function research. However, if you
look at a 2015 PREDICT grant that went to Wuhan, it funded the
development of what are called chimeric viruses.
These are viruses where they take the S protein off of the
coronavirus and they stick it on another unknown, but then they
run it through humanized mice that have human lungs. And as you
run it through repeatedly, you make the virus more adaptable.
You select out of that which grows best in human cells.
So, you take a virus that might be more adapted originally
to bats, and over serial passage over time through humanized
mice, you make it more adaptable to humans. This is the very
definition of gain of function research.
So, there is a debate. The head of USAID says, we never did
gain of function, because they know that there are risks to
that, and they know that there is opposition out there. But in
order to have oversight, we would like to read those PREDICT
grants and make our own mind up. Let the public make up their
mind of whether or not they were gain of function.
To my knowledge, none of this is classified. We still are
talking directly with both State Department and USAID, but it
would be of great benefit if the Chairman would help in getting
this information released.
The Chairman. Are there any other comments on the
nominations?
[No response.]
The Chairman. If not, I will entertain a motion that the
nominees be approved en bloc.
Senator Cardin.So, moved.
Voice. Second.
The Chairman. Is there a second? 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 the
members having voted in the affirmative, and the ayes have it,
and the items--all of those nominations are favorably reported
to the Senate.
Now, without objection, we will consider en bloc three
bills and four resolutions. They are all resolutions and
legislation that are on the agenda, except for those that have
been held.
And I appreciate that we finally got Senator Merkley's
Mekong Delta resolution on, and I think he has been working on
it for a while, so I appreciate that. Happy to entertain anyone
who wishes to speak on any of these items. If there is----
Senator Paul. Which items again?
The Chairman. The resolution and legislation, except for
the two that were held.
Senator Paul.Everything that we are talking about today.
The Chairman. Everything, yes. Except for the two that were
held. The hold on the Taiwan tax act, the hold on the Wagner
designation. Everything else is up for consideration.
Senator Paul.And we are going to have amendments on 1074?
The Chairman. We can----
Senator Paul. That is the one--I think there were two
Murphy amendments.
The Chairman. Yes.
Senator Paul. But are they are included?
The Chairman. Yes, they are in a manager's package.
Senator Paul. Ok, all right, I guess I would like to speak
to that one, if we are doing everything all at once. I just
wanted to make sure we----
The Chairman. Absolutely. Senator Paul.
Senator Paul. You know, our policy toward China fand toward
Taiwan for 50 years has been this idea of strategic ambiguity.
My fear is that each time we attempt to display bellicosity and
our might and our displeasure, we become less ambiguous. And
the lesson being we become less strategic is the value of
policy.
Murphy's amendments, both concluded I guess, one that says,
nothing in this act may be construed as authorizing use of
force. I support that. And then also his amendment, I think, is
important because it says that nothing in the act may be
construed as a change to the one-China policy.
The problem is, is if you think you have to add that
amendment, it is because you think there is stuff in here that
may be changing the one China policy and maybe making it less
ambiguous.
So, I think we can say all we want that we believe in one
China policy, but at the same time, every time we make it more
explicit what we are going to do, or you know. The thing is we
have all kinds of military contingency plans that are
discussed.
Many of them we do not discuss in public, many of them we
do not saber rattle in these different bills. But none of this,
I think, works to deter China. You could make that argument,
but you can equally as well make the opposite argument that it
may serve to provoke a situation as well.
So, I for one am opposed to the passage of this particular
piece of legislation, the Taiwan Protection and National
Resilience Act of 2023, even with the amendment.
The Chairman. Thank you. Is there anyone else who seeks
recognition? Senator Coons.
Senator Coons.Very briefly. I would appreciate the
bipartisan support for a resolution that is essentially focused
on ensuring a competent investigation of the brutal murder of a
human rights activist, Thulani Maseko, in Eswatini, and draws
attention to the human rights situation in Eswatini.
On the resolution related to Paul Whelan, who is being held
unjustly in Russia, I just briefly wanted to reference, Senator
Rounds and I produced a bill whose name explains its purpose,
stop tax penalties on American hostages.
When Americans are held overseas inappropriately, the first
thing they get when they come home is often tax penalties from
the IRS. Jason Rezaian, a Washington Post reporter, came to
meet with me to say, after 500 days in an Iranian prison, he
came back home to a $30,000 tax bill because he had not paid
his taxes on time, despite it being front page news that he was
a prisoner in Iran.
So, this would simply authorize the IRS to take note that
when the State Department publicly identifies someone as
wrongfully detained overseas, they have the power to waive
their penalty. I would appreciate the support of members who
might be interested in that topic.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Merkley.
Senator Merkley.Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate
that the Mekong Delta resolution is on the agenda. And really
appreciate the support and partnership of Senator Sullivan on
this effort.
This really came out of the geostrategic considerations of
how important the Mekong Delta is. It is basically five key
nations, all of which collectively produce some--well
significantly, a little more than 25 percent of the freshwater
fish in the world and an enormous amount of rice. It is
critical to those economies.
This understanding is very closely related to our support
for ASEAN. It is important to both Vietnam and Thailand
specifically, and they have weighed in to say they appreciate
our understanding of the economic importance of the Delta.
And it just fits very well with our concern about creating
a closer relationship with key nations. Thank you.
The Chairman. Any other members seeking recognition on
either the resolutions or the legislation?
[No response.]
The Chairman. If not, I would entertain a motion that the
agenda, the legislative agenda would be considered en bloc.
Senator Paul. That includes the manager's amendments----
The Chairman. Including the manager's amendments.
Voice. So, moved.
Voice. Second.
The Chairman. Moved and seconded. All those in favor will
say aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
The Chairman. All those opposed say no.
[No response.]
The Chairman. The ayes have it. The majority of the members
having voted in the affirmative, the legislation is favorably
reported to the Senate. That completes the committee's
business.
I ask unanimous consent the staff be authorized to make
technical and conforming changes. Without objection, so
ordered. Thank you all for your appearance.
[Whereupon, at 10:49 a.m., the meeting was adjourned.]
Additional Information Submitted for the Record
From the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Supporting Senate Bill S. 1457--The
Taiwan Tax Agreement Act of 2023
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
BUSINESS MEETING
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 13, 2023
U.S. Senate
Committee on Foreign Relations
Washington, DC.
Summary of Action Taken by the Committee
LEGISLATION
S. 2043, Department of State Authorization Act of 2023, with an
amendment in the nature of a substitute, and amendments--agreed
to favorably by voice vote (Barrasso recorded as no)
Managers substitute amendment--agreed to favorably by voice vote
Barrasso 1st Degree 1--not agreed to by roll call vote (10-11)
Ayes: Risch, Rubio (proxy), Romney, Ricketts, Paul, Young,
Barrasso, Cruz, Hagerty (proxy), Scott (proxy)
Nays: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen (proxy), Coons (proxy),
Murphy (proxy), Kaine, Merkley (proxy), Booker (proxy), Schatz
(proxy), Van Hollen (proxy), Duckworth
Cardin 1st Degree 1--agreed to favorably by voice vote
Cardin 1st Degree 2--agreed to favorably by voice vote
Cruz 1st Degree 1--agreed to favorably by voice vote
Kaine 2nd Degree 1 to Menendez 1st Degree 2--agreed to
favorably by voice vote
Schatz 2nd Degree 4 to Menendez 1st Degree 2--agreed to
favorably by voice vote (Risch recorded as no)
Murphy 1st Degree 4--agreed to favorably by voice vote (Barrasso
recorded as no)
Paul 1st Degree 1--not agreed to by roll call vote (3-18)
Ayes: Rubio (proxy), Paul, Scott (proxy)
Nays: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen (proxy), Coons (proxy),
Murphy (proxy), Kaine, Merkley (proxy), Booker (proxy), Schatz
(proxy), Van Hollen (proxy), Duckworth, Risch, Romney,
Ricketts, Young, Barrasso, Cruz, Hagerty (proxy)
Paul 1st Degree 2--not agreed to by roll call vote (5-16)
Ayes: Rubio (proxy), Paul, Cruz, Hagerty (proxy), Scott
(proxy)
Nays: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, Kaine,
Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen (proxy), Duckworth, Risch,
Romney, Ricketts, Young (proxy), Barrasso (proxy)
Paul 1st Degree 5--not agreed to by roll call vote (1-20)
Ayes: Paul
Nays: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, Kaine,
Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen, Duckworth (proxy), Risch,
Rubio (proxy), Romney, Ricketts, Young (proxy), Barrasso
(proxy), Cruz, Hagerty (proxy), Scott (proxy)
Romney 1st Degree 1--agreed to favorably by roll call vote (14-7)
Ayes: Shaheen, Murphy, Kaine, Schatz, Duckworth, Rubio
(proxy), Romney, Ricketts, Paul, Young, Barrasso (proxy), Cruz,
Hagerty (proxy), Scott (proxy)
Nays: Menendez, Cardin, Coons, Merkley, Booker (proxy), Van
Hollen, Risch
Shaheen 1st Degree 2--agreed to favorably by roll call vote (11-
10)
Ayes: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, Kaine,
Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen (proxy), Duckworth
Nays: Risch, Rubio (proxy), Romney, Ricketts, Paul, Young
(proxy), Barrasso (proxy), Cruz, Hagerty (proxy), Scott (proxy)
Van Hollen 1st Degree 5--agreed to favorably by voice vote
(Barrasso, Cruz, Scott recorded as no)
S. 1457, Taiwan Tax Agreement Act of 2023, with an amendment in the
nature of a substitute--agreed to favorably by voice vote
Managers substitute amendment--agreed to favorably by voice vote
Paul 1st Degree 1--not agreed to by roll call vote (3-18)
Ayes: Romney, Paul, Cruz
Nays: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, Kaine,
Merkley, Booker (proxy), Schatz, Van Hollen, Duckworth (proxy),
Risch, Rubio, Ricketts, Young (proxy), Barrasso (proxy),
Hagerty (proxy), Scott (proxy)
S. 1203, Peace Corps Reauthorization Act of 2023, without
amendments--agreed to favorably by voice vote (Cardin recorded
as no)
S. 847, International Children with Disabilities Protection Act of
2023, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute--agreed
to favorably by voice vote
Substitute amendment--agreed to favorably by voice vote
S. 2006, Safeguarding Tunisian Democracy Act, with an amendment in
the nature of a substitute--agreed to favorably by voice vote
(Cruz recorded as no)
Managers substitute amendment--agreed to favorably by voice vote
S. 416, Holding Accountable Russian Mercenaries Act, with an
amendment in the nature of a substitute, and an amendment--
agreed to favorably by roll call vote (14-7)
Ayes: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Kaine, Merkley, Risch, Rubio
(proxy), Romney, Ricketts, Young (proxy), Barrasso, Cruz
(proxy), Hagerty (proxy), Scott (proxy)
Nays: Coons, Murphy, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen, Duckworth,
Paul (proxy)
Managers substitute amendment--agreed to favorably by voice vote
Booker 1st Degree 1--not agreed to by roll call vote (8--13)
Ayes: Coons, Murphy, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen,
Duckworth, Paul (proxy)
Nays: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Kaine, Risch, Rubio (proxy),
Romney, Ricketts, Young (proxy), Barrasso, Cruz (proxy),
Hagerty (proxy), Scott (proxy)
Merkley 1st Degree 1--agreed to favorably by voice vote
S. 490, Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office Certification Act, with
an amendment in the nature of a substitute--agreed to favorably
by voice vote
Substitute amendment--agreed to favorably by voice vote
S.Con.Res. 2, A concurrent resolution commending the bravery,
courage, and resolve of the women and men of Iran demonstrating
in more than 133 cities and risking their safety to speak out
against the Iranian regime's human rights abuses, with an
amendment--agreed to favorably by voice vote
Managers preamble amendment--agreed to favorably by voice vote
S.Res. 20, A resolution condemning the 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, promoting accountability and
justice for those killed by the Burmese military, and calling
for those elected to serve in parliament to resume their duties
without impediment, and for other purposes, with amendments--
agreed to favorably by voice vote
Managers preamble amendment--agreed to favorably by voice vote
Managers resolving clause amendment--agreed to favorably by voice
vote
Managers title amendment--agreed to favorably by voice vote
S.Res. 75, A resolution reaffirming the state of Arunachal Pradesh as
Indian territory and condemning the People's Republic of
China's provocations in South Asia, with amendments--agreed to
favorably by voice vote
Preamble amendment--agreed to favorably by voice vote
Resolving clause amendment--agreed to favorably by voice vote
NOMINATIONS
The Honorable Richard Mills, Jr., of Georgia, a Career Member of the
Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United
States of America to the Federal Republic of Nigeria--agreed to
favorably by voice vote
The Honorable Nisha Desai Biswal, of Virginia, to be Deputy Chief
Executive Officer of the United States International
Development Finance Corporation--agreed to favorably by voice
vote (Rubio recorded as no)
Mr. Gerald H. Acker, of Michigan, to be a Commissioner on the part of
the United States on the International Joint Commission, United
States and Canada--agreed to favorably by voice vote (Rubio,
Barrasso, Hagerty recorded as no)
Ms. Kara C. McDonald, 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 Lithuania--agreed to favorably by
voice vote
The Honorable Jack A. Markell, of Delaware, to be Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of
America to the Italian Republic, and to serve concurrently and
without additional compensation as Ambassador Extraordinary and
Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic
of San Marino--agreed to favorably by voice vote (Rubio,
Barrasso, Cruz recorded as no)
The Honorable Dorothy Camille Shea, of North Carolina, a Career
Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-
Counselor, to be the Deputy Representative of the United States
of America to the United Nations, with the rank and status of
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary and the Deputy
Representative of the United States of America in the Security
Council of the United Nations--agreed to favorably by voice
vote (Rubio, Barrasso, Cruz recorded as no)
The Honorable Dorothy Camille Shea, of North Carolina, a Career
Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-
Counselor, to be Representative of the United States of America
to the Sessions of the General Assembly of the United Nations,
during her tenure of service as Deputy Representative of the
United States of America to the United Nations--agreed to
favorably by voice vote (Rubio, Barrasso, Cruz recorded as no)
Ms. Vernelle Trim FitzPatrick, 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 Gabonese Republic--agreed to favorably by voice
vote
The Honorable Lisa Peterson, 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 Burundi--agreed to
favorably by voice vote (Rubio, Ricketts, Barrasso, Cruz,
Hagerty recorded as no)
Mr. Joel Ehrendreich, of New York, a Career Member of the Senior
Foreign Service, Class of Counselor, to be Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of
America to the Republic of Palau--agreed to favorably by voice
vote
The Honorable Cynthia Kierscht, of Minnesota, a Career Member of the
Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United
States of America to the Republic of Djibouti--agreed to
favorably by voice vote
Mr. Edgard D. Kagan, 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 Malaysia--agreed to favorably by voice vote
Mr. Mark W. Libby, 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 Azerbaijan--agreed to favorably by
voice vote (Rubio, Ricketts, Barrasso, Cruz, Hagerty, Scott
recorded as no)
FSO LISTS
Michael J. Fitzpatrick, et. al., as modified, dated January 26, 2023
(PN283)--agreed to favorably by voice vote
Ihuoma A. Akamiro, et. al., dated May 30, 2023 (PN737)--agreed to
favorably by voice vote
Christopher M. Cushing, et. al., dated February 13, 2023 (PN356)--
agreed to favorably by voice vote
Maura E. Boyle, et. al., dated February 13, 2023 (PN357)--agreed to
favorably by voice vote
Meeting Transcript
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:36 a.m., in
room S-116, the President's Room, Hon. Robert Menendez
presiding.
Present: Senators Menendez [presiding], Cardin, Shaheen,
Coons, Murphy, Kaine, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen,
Duckworth, Risch, Rubio, Romney, Ricketts, Paul, Young,
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 a robust agenda both on legislation and nominations
and I very much appreciate the work of the ranking member and
his staff in crafting this agenda as well as my staff.
I must say that both sides were here till 4:30 in the
morning this morning. So I deeply appreciate the incredible
work that was done to bring us to a point that we can move
forward together on a bipartisan fashion, particularly as it
relates to AUKUS.
I expect today's meeting may be longer than usual so I will
turn right to legislation and speak briefly only on the State
Authorization bill in AUKUS.
I would be remiss, however, if I did not mention that we
are marking up multiple other bills and resolutions that
reflect the superb work of many Senators on and off the
committee.
My support for those items is set out in a longer set of
remarks and I would ask for consent to enter them into the
record. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information referred to follows:]
Prepared Statement Submitted by Chairman Menendez
Today, we are considering a robust agenda. I very much appreciate
the work of the ranking member and his staff in bring this meeting
together.
I will turn right to legislation and speak on a few of the items.
Legislation
S. 2043--Department of State Authorization Act of 2023
I am pleased that we are considering the State Department
Authorization Act of 2023, a crucial piece of legislation to provide
the State Department with robust authorities and provide the Department
with the requisite tools to carry out its mission. I again want to
thank Ranking Member Risch for working with me to produce a bipartisan
bill that reflects our joint efforts. I am confident that this year's
initiative will result in enactment of a State Authorization bill for a
third consecutive year.
I would also like to thank members of the committee for their
important contributions to this effort. Thanks to your input and the
work of Senator Risch and his staff, we have a managers' package that
includes more than 40 amendments from 15 members of this committee,
including Senators, Barrasso, Cardin, Coons, Hagerty, Kaine, Merkley,
Murphy, Ricketts, Rubio, Schatz, Scott, Shaheen, and Van Hollen. These
amendments would strengthen crisis contingency planning, require
surveys of why employees leave the Department, increase oversight of
special appointments, improve support for foreign service couples
serving together, protect employees from cyberattacks, and create new
special envoys--among many other priorities.
The amendments put forward make this bill stronger, reflect the
wide views and priorities of this committee, and will help advance
committee prerogatives and give the Department the authorities and
resources it needs.
This effort is an example of this committee carrying out our
critical duty to ensure the Department is well-equipped to advance U.S.
foreign policy and further our national security. And it is evidence
that we can achieve bipartisan consensus.
I also want to highlight here an important bipartisan effort, with
Senators Risch, Kaine, and Shaheen, to implement the AUKUS partnership.
This is a monumental step to bolster regional security in the Indo-
Pacific, strengthening our already close with two of our most important
allies.
S. 1457--Taiwan Tax Agreement Act
Second, we will consider the Taiwan Tax Agreement Act, which I
spoke about last business meeting and will simply reiterate that I am
grateful for the superb collaboration with Senator Risch and his staff,
as well as the support from Senator Van Hollen and Senator Romney. This
committee needs to act to move this bill forward quickly.
S. 847--International Children with Disabilities Protection Act
I am also pleased that we are considering the International
Children with Disabilities Protection Act. This important legislation
will support parents with children with disabilities and relevant
disabilities rights organizations in their advocacy for the development
of laws and policies that promote inclusion and to ensure these
children can thrive within their communities.
S. 1203--Peace Corps Reauthorization Act of 2023
Next, the Peace Corps Reauthorization Act--a once in a generation
bill that implements necessary changes to the Peace Corps as volunteers
return to service after being forced to evacuate in March 2020 due to
the pandemic.
I appreciate Ranking Member Risch's partnership on this
legislation, and that of our bipartisan cosponsors, which Senators
Cardin, Young, Coons, Merkley, and Schatz.
S. 2006--Safeguarding Tunisian Democracy Act
The Safeguarding Tunisian Democracy Act, led by Senator Risch, is
timely as the country's democratic backsliding is tragic and ominous.
The legislation makes clear that the Tunisian government has a choice--
continue its slide toward authoritarianism and jeopardize important
U.S. support, or respond to the Tunisian people and reform. I am
pleased to cosponsor it.
S. 416--Holding Accountable Russian Mercenaries Act
The Holding Accountable Russian Mercenaries Act--HARM Act--led by
Senators Wicker and Cardin, is in response to the Wagner (VAHG-ner)
Group's horrific acts of terror, targeting civilians not only in
Ukraine but also in Syria, Libya, and the Central African Republic.
Given the uncertain future of Wagner, I recognize we will continue
to assess how to best address Wagner's conduct. However, their past
wrongs must be met with severe consequences.
We are also considering several resolutions: I am pleased to see
the important work of Senators Merkley and Cardin in their resolutions
reaffirming recognition of the Indian State of Arunachal Pradesh [AH-
ROO-NA-CHAWL PRAW-DESH] and condemning the military coup in Burma
respectively.
Finally, I am gratified that we are considering my resolution
commending the bravery and courage of the women of Iran at a time when
the regime continues to show its iron fist against those who dare to
speak against it. We must reaffirm our support for the Iranian people
and their struggle against a ruthless regime.
I am pleased that we are considering the State Department
Authorization Act of 2023. This is a crucial piece of
legislation to provide the State Department with robust
authorities and provide the department with the requisite tools
to carry out its mission.
Let me thank again Senator Risch for working with me to
produce a bipartisan bill that reflects our joint efforts. I am
confident that this year's initiative will result in enactment
of a State Authorization bill for a third consecutive year. For
those who serve on Armed Services this is our NDAA.
I would like to thank members of the committee for their
important contributions to this effort. Thanks to the work of
Senator Risch and his staff we have a Manager's Package that
includes more than 40 amendments from 15 members of this
committee, including Senators Barrasso, Cardin, Coons, Hagerty,
Kaine, Merkley, Murphy, Ricketts, Rubio, Schatz, Scott,
Shaheen, and Van Hollen.
These amendments would strengthen crisis contingency
planning, require surveys of why employees leave the
department, increase oversight of special appointments, improve
support for Foreign Service couples serving together, and
protect employees from cyber-attacks, among many other
priorities.
The amendments put forward make this bill stronger, they
reflect the wide views and priorities of the committee, and
will help advance committee prerogatives and give the
department the authorities and resources it needs.
This effort is an example of this committee carrying out
our critical duty to ensure that the department is well
equipped to advance U.S. foreign policy and further our
national security and it is evidence that we can achieve
bipartisan consensus.
I also want to take a moment to highlight here a momentous
bipartisan effort to implement the AUKUS partnership. I am very
pleased that we were able to add to the State Authorization Act
a strong AUKUS provision based on the amendment I sponsored
with my colleague, Senator Kaine, and drawing from the ranking
member's AUKUS amendment as well.
This provision will cement the AUKUS partnership for
decades to come. It is a critical step in strengthening U.S.
alliances and bolstering deterrence in the Indo-Pacific.
Among other things it authorizes the transfer of nuclear-
powered submarines with high nonproliferation standards to
ensure the Australian military can become an even greater
partner to our own and it streamlines U.S. export controls for
the United Kingdom and Australia, guaranteeing our three
countries can better cooperate in developing advanced military
capabilities.
AUKUS is in our national security interests and I am
pleased that members of our committee have come together in a
bipartisan fashion to move it forward.
I look forward to working with all of you who have been
involved--Senator Risch, Senator Kaine, Senator Shaheen,
Senator Schatz, and others--to get the legislation enacted in
short order.
Let me briefly--before I turn to Senator Risch, let me just
go through three housekeeping notes before we begin.
First, the Appropriations Committee is also having a markup
this morning and there is significant overlap between our two
committees.
I understand that some members will need to leave to vote
in that markup around 11:15. I urge our colleagues who are on
the Appropriations Committee to return as quickly as possible
to get through this full agenda.
For everyone who is not on Appropriations I would ask you
to stay so that we have enough members to continue to debate
and vote on amendments and we will try to move through the
agenda as expeditiously as possible regardless of the back and
forth.
Second, for the State Authorization bill in particular I
want to note my commitment to ensuring that product coming out
of this markup is as thoroughly bipartisan as the bill I
dropped with Senator Risch.
That is the only way we can be confident the bill will pass
the Senate and ultimately become law and the stakes are too
high for the committee and the State Department to add any
uncertainty to our task.
As a result, I will consider moving to table any amendment
that does not have that type of bipartisan support.
Finally, I want to ensure that all members have an
opportunity on amendments to the State Authorization bill, and
as I have done in the past, I will go down the line based on
seniority alternating between the majority and the minority and
giving each member an opportunity to call up one amendment per
turn.
Given the number of potential amendments, I would ask
everyone to strive to limit remarks to just a few minutes--I
have a timer but I hope not to have to emphasize on that--so
that we can proceed expeditiously.
And 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, Mr. Chairman, thank you much. I would
like to start with the State Authorization bill. I am happy to
have several priorities included in this year's package
including improving wait times for passport applications for
Americans seeking to travel abroad and visas for foreigners
hoping to visit and stimulate economic growth in the United
States.
The legislation also presses the department to get Foreign
Service officers into some of the most challenging posts while
overseas while promoting family togetherness for those serving.
Combining those--these efforts will improve the experience
of Americans and their engagements with the State Department as
well as their overseas travel.
I would like to join the Chairman in commending the
committee and everyone, staff and everyone who worked on this
to reach a bipartisan agreement.
The national media loves to jump up and down with joy when
we have partisan fights. They are going to be deeply
disappointed that we are working together on a bipartisan basis
to do this and will probably not include this in any newscasts.
On the Taiwan Tax Agreement Act, this agreement is another
important step forward strengthening our economic relationship
with Taiwan. Our trade policy in Asia is nonexistent and is
causing some U.S. allies to question our desire to grow
economic opportunity in the Pacific.
This bill will allow the administration to start
negotiating an agreement that would encourage increased
investment between the U.S. and Taiwan by eliminating
duplicative tax structures.
Also, and perhaps most importantly, this agreement has the
potential to encourage other nations to increase their economic
relations with Taiwan.
On the Safeguarding Tunisian Democracy Act over the past
couple of years we all know Tunisia's President has taken
several drastic actions that would undermine Tunisia's
democratic institutions and consolidated power in the
executive.
The legislation will limit State Department funding to
Tunisia until Presidency Saied ends the State of emergency and
provides real economic incentives and meaningful democratic
reforms.
Tunisia is an important partner but it needs to change
course or risk further degradation of our relationships.
On the HARM Act, Wagner's activities on behalf of the
Kremlin continue to destabilize entire governments, gut natural
resources in vulnerable countries, and commit war crimes in
Ukraine, Syria, and Libya.
Russian malign influence is bigger than Wagner. We must
carefully go after the people that run Wagner but this
legislation is just a start.
The Peace Corps Act is an important step in enacting long
overdue reforms that will improve the safety and security of
our Peace Corps volunteers. It includes important measures such
as reauthorization of the Sexual Assault Advisory Council,
mandated security briefings, improve whistleblower protections,
and a new authority to suspend Peace Corps volunteers without
pay in the event of misbehavior.
On Senate Con.Res. 2 earlier this year the Iranian people
bravely protested the regime's brutality, demonstrated their
desire for a more peaceful and free Iran.
This resolution recognizes their efforts and encourages the
administration to do more toward ending the regime's systematic
persecution of women and to hold human rights violators in Iran
accountable.
On the AUKUS legislation that we have before us I join the
Chairman in underscoring the importance of this legislation. I
think probably there is not as much understanding in the
American public as there needs to be on this.
This is a huge step forward. The chairman and I have
discussed this with the Australians directly amongst themselves
and with a lot of other people. It is a bold step forward.
It is a big step forward, and I suspect that in decades to
come people will look back at this as we have started much like
they do look back at NATO today in the European theater.
So with that, I am happy and proud to be part of the effort
to get AUKUS moving forward and it is going to take some time
but this is a start.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Risch.
Without objection, we will start now. We will consider S.
1457, the Taiwan Tax Agreement Act of 2023. There is a
Manager's Package. Is there a motion to adopt the Manager's
Package?
Senator Kaine. So moved.
The Chairman. So moved. And second?
Senator Shaheen. Second.
The Chairman. Second. All those in favor will say aye.
All those opposed will say no.
The ayes have it and the Manager's Package is agreed to.
Is there anyone who wishes to offer an amendment on this
legislation? Hold on 1 second.
Senator Paul is recognized.
Senator Paul. This is Amendment 1. For years now we have
been trying to improve several tax treaties. I support many
aspects of these treaties and the goal of these treaties to
avoid double taxation is a great benefit. But all these
treaties contain specific provisions for information sharing
that put Americans' Fourth Amendment rights at risk.
Today we are discussing not a complete treaty as we usually
do but rather a bill that will authorize the administration to
negotiate an agreement with Taiwan that would function as a tax
treaty.
As the bill indicates, the starting point for this
agreement will be the same as the other tax treaties that we
have entered. This model tax treaty contains a standard that
empowers the contracting governments to exchange personal
financial information as is foreseeably relevant to the
carrying out the provisions of the treaty.
So the standard is not that you have committed a crime or
are accused of committing crime, accused of not paying your
taxes. It is just is it relevant to the treaty, which basically
is no standard at all as far as I am concerned.
We are familiar with the concept of different legal
standards. We are all familiar with the different standards of
probable cause versus reasonable suspicion. The relevant
standard may be the lowest possible standard and effectively
allows the exchange of bulk personal financial information.
The relevant standards says, effectively, the Government
can obtain any information it wants about U.S. citizens living
abroad.
Arguing that the information is relevant to a tax treaty or
any U.S. law is essentially no standard at all. This relevant
standard is particularly troubling given the increasing
practice of governments exchanging private financial data of
their respective citizens automatically and in bulk.
For example, through the Foreign Account Tax Compliance
Act, FATCA, a law that we have felt to be unconstitutional for
years, my amendment would simply place restrictions on the
information our government can request from Taiwan on U.S.
citizens.
It requires that when the administration negotiates the
agreement with Taiwan that the agreement include a provision to
the effect that the U.S. can only accept or request only
information that is individualized and relevant to an
individual investigation.
In other words, they have to at least say we think Mr.
Smith is not paying his taxes and we want Mr. Smith's
information they cannot just get every American's information
that happens to be in whatever country it is without even any
semblance of an accusation.
So I think this helps to protect our citizens who live
abroad. Both American and democratic groups of Americans living
abroad would be in favor of these changes to the treaties.
This is actually simpler than what we have dealt with in
the past because we are not actually amending the treaty. We
just say when you negotiate this treaty you should include a
provision that protects American abroad and I request a roll
call vote.
The Chairman. Anyone else wishing to speak to Senator
Paul's amendment?
If not, I understand and appreciate Senator Paul's
consistent concerns about privacy including in the context of
tax agreements.
However, the United States has extensive experience with
the foreseeably relevant language in the tax agreements and the
concerns related to such language have not been borne out in
practice.
The foreseeably relevant standard has been extensively
defined in internationally accepted guidance to which no
country has expressed a dissenting opinion to date.
The Treasury Department has made clear that this language
does not allow, quote, ``bulk collection of taxpayers
information'' and it comports with existing provisions in the
tax code. Most recently, we did this in the Chile tax treaty.
Senator Paul offered a similar amendment. It was not
accepted and it was overwhelmingly ratified by the Senate. So
for all those reasons, I will be voting no on the amendment.
Senator Risch?
Senator Risch. Very briefly, I am also going to vote no on
it for similar reasons. I certainly sympathize with the overall
view of what Senator Paul is attempting to do but this is
really a solution looking for a problem and I think that it is
going to cause us more difficulty than not.
I do underscore that this is not a treaty, cannot be a
treaty because of Taiwan's status. It will be done as an act
but in a similar vein. So I am going to vote no on it.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman. Any others?
If not, the Senator has 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. Booker?
The Chairman. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Schatz?
Senator Schatz. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen?
Senator Van Hollen. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Duckworth?
The Chairman. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
Senator Risch. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
Senator Rubio. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
Senator Romney. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Ricketts?
Senator Ricketts. 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 Cruz. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Hagerty?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Scott?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. No. Clerk will report.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are three. The noes are
18.
The Chairman. And the amendment is not agreed to.
Is there a motion to approve S. 1457 as amended?
Senator Cardin. So moved.
The Chairman. Moved by Senator Cardin. Is there a second?
Senator Shaheen. Second.
The Chairman. Seconded. Moved and seconded.
The question on the motion to approve S. 1457 as amended.
All those in favor say aye.
All those opposed say no, and the ayes have it. The
majority of members present having voted in the affirmative,
the ayes have it. The legislation is agreed to and is reported
favorably to the Senate.
Without objection we will now consider S. 2043, the
Department of State Authorization Act of 2023.
So first let me see. Is there a motion to adopt the
Manager's Package?
Senator Cardin. So moved.
The Chairman. So moved. Is there a second?
Voice. Second.
The Chairman. Second. The question is on the motion to
approve the Manager's Package to S. 2043, the Department of
State Authorization bill.
All those in favor say aye.
All those opposed say no.
The majority of members present having voted in the
affirmative, the ayes have it and the Manager's Package is
agreed to.
As I mentioned earlier, if there are amendments I will call
on each of you in order of seniority in the committee
alternating between majority and minority members.
When called upon please indicate whether you wish to call
up one of your amendments. We will do multiple rounds if it is
needed and we will begin with Senator Cardin.
Senator Cardin. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
First, let me thank Senator Risch and yourself for putting
together the State Department reauthorization in the Manager's
Package.
I thank you for including many of the amendments that I
offered including the one with Senator Young dealing with the
rating of countries on their anti-corruption practices and
legislation coming out of the work of Senator Hagerty and
myself in our subcommittee dealing with career promotions for
our support service officers based upon their training and
improvements in the passport operations that many members have
brought forward. We appreciate all that, and providing for
contingency evacuation planning at our missions.
There are two amendments that with your permission I will
call them up together because they are both related to the
concerns we have in combating our ability for trafficking in
persons.
These amendments are meant to strengthen how we address
trafficking around the world and here in the United States. My
first amendment authorizes the Diplomatic Security Services to
investigate violations of human trafficking.
They are currently allowed to do so but only on cases of
where there is apparent fraud in the application, which is a
very tough standard. This would strengthen our TIP reports as
Diplomatic Security would be more involved with local law
enforcement agencies on how they are handling trafficking
cases, and since the Diplomatic Security is already posted in
275 U.S. posts around the world this would not create any
additional burdens.
In fact, the State Department supports these provisions.
You have heard directly from the Bureau of Diplomatic Security
that their agents would welcome the broadening of this
authority.
And my second amendment amends, I think, a technical issue
within the services they provide to victims. They can currently
provide services to victims but it does not cover their
dependents. Many victims of trafficking have dependents.
Therefore, it is an amendment that would include the
dependents as well as the victims for the ability to be able to
offer services.
I would hope that the committee would support these two
amendments that strengthen our commitment against trafficking
in persons, and with the committee's permission I would offer
them en bloc.
The Chairman. Let me thank Senator Cardin for offering
these important amendments. I accepted both of them at the same
time because he is right, they are in common and can move
things along. They strengthen the capacity to hold both human
traffickers to account, support vulnerable victims of human
trafficking, and help us with our Diplomatic Security Service
to be more effective. So I intend to support the amendments.
Is there anyone else who wishes to speak?
Senator Risch?
Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman, I am going to oppose these
amendments, not because I am in favor of trafficking in
persons. I am not. But the diplomatic security that is done for
the State Department is a very narrow focus by that entity.
We already have entities that pursue trafficking in persons
and right now the Diplomatic Security Mission is understaffed.
I really think they are going to have trouble doing all of
these things at the same time.
I am certainly not opposed to increasing further efforts in
the entities like Homeland Security and the FBI and those that
pursue trafficking in persons. But I really do not think this
is the right training to do this. So I am going to oppose the
amendments.
Senator Cardin. Could I just respond very briefly?
The Chairman. Senator Cardin?
Senator Cardin. Just to respond very, very briefly to this,
they currently can do it in cases of fraud on their--on the
applications for visas and passports. The bureau itself has
requested this additional clarification of authority. So they
would not do that unless they had the capacity to handle it.
The Chairman. Anyone wishing to speak to the amendments?
Senator Paul. I just want to clarify. This is Amendment 1
and 2? Cardin 1 and 2?
The Chairman. Yes. Is that the right number?
Senator Cardin. I have to check to see if they are the
right numbers. All the rest of them, this is----
Senator Risch. It is Cardin 1 and 2.
Senator Cardin [continuing]. Cardin 1 and 2.
The Chairman. Anyone else wishing to speak to the
amendments? Would the Senator take a voice vote?
Senator Cardin. Yes.
The Chairman. All those in favor will say aye.
All those opposed say no.
The ayes have it and the amendments are agreed to. Let me
turn to--Senator Rubio is not here. So let me turn to Senator
Romney if he has any amendments.
Senator Romney. Can I wait until there are more Republicans
here?
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. I think they get to vote by proxy.
Senator Risch. It is all right. I got the votes. We are
still one short.
Senator Romney. I am going to ask my Democrat colleagues to
listen carefully to this as opposed to just assuming direction
from leadership one side or the other on things that you may
have received from your staff.
But I do not--I think it goes without saying but I am going
to say it anyway.
The Chairman. Could you speak to which amendment you are
calling up?
Senator Romney. Yes, it is Romney Amendment No. 1.
The Chairman. Okay.
Senator Romney. Romney Amendment No. 1.
China, as we all know, has been making strategic
investments of, roughly a trillion dollars doing two basic
things.
One is to shore up their economic domination of critical
minerals necessary for an electric world, and two is to secure
military assets, and we had been asleep at the switch.
We have watched this go on year after year after year and
we say, well, we have to build that. We have DFC. But those are
focused entirely on development projects that alleviate poverty
and do great things for other people without any consideration
whatsoever of national security interests of what China is
doing, whether a project--a particular development project
might actually help people get out of poverty but also secure
vital minerals or counter China in a key way.
And not only do we not even consider those things, in some
cases we might invest in a project that really is good for
alleviating poverty but it is going to a country that has
aligned itself with China, is no longer recognizing Taiwan,
is--and, yet, because it is a good development project we are
sending money there.
So this amendment is very simple. The amendment says that
the DFC, in addition to looking at what is an excellent
development project to help the poor, is also to look at the
national security interests of the United States of America.
It is a very simple amendment, and I have been told, wait,
we do not get into the DFC until later--let us have a bill that
looks at the DFC and reauthorizes the DFC. I am perfectly
comfortable with withdrawing this amendment for a vote today if
the Chairman and ranking member are willing to say, hey, look,
during this Congress we will have a bill to reauthorize the DFC
and this will be considered as part of that.
But barring that, and I think the answer is that is barred,
that amendment is not going to be forthcoming then I want to
have that vote.
And let me tell you, guys, we do not have a vehicle. If
there is a key--a project to secure a key mineral in Africa and
we do not have--we do not have a vehicle to invest in that.
This is it, and we are sending money out to help the poor,
which is a wonderful thing. But let us also consider our
national security and certainly our energy and climate
priority.
So that is my amendment and I would ask for a roll call
vote unless the Chairman and ranking member would like to make
a commitment that we are going to deal with this and
reauthorizing the DFC sometime during this Congress.
The Chairman. Senator Risch and then Senator Coons.
Senator Risch. Well, I find myself in a difficult position
having to oppose this, not because of--and I always hate
opposing something on procedural grounds as opposed to the
merits.
Senator Romney is absolutely right on this. I think this
whole thing needs an airing as to how we do this. We need a
really robust discussion and debate as to how the DFC is
functioning and how it is making these investments. I am deeply
disappointed in some of the ways that they are doing business.
Unfortunately, we have not had that and it probably should
be done first with a hearing and then a markup with proposed
legislation.
I would hope we would be able to find ground to do
amendments to the way the DFC is doing business. But with all
due respect, I just--I cannot support the single shot at it
like this. But I am fully on board with doing some laundry on
the DFC.
The Chairman. Senator Coons?
Senator Coons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Romney, I deeply respect your long experience in
finance, in projects, and in structuring finance to advance
projects that advance our national security.
I would love to work with you on examining the mix of
projects the Development Finance Corporation is currently
approving and its mission.
My understanding, and it has been some years since I helped
to lead on the Democratic side of the BUILD Act, is that
national security concerns, although secondary to development
concerns, are part of the core mandate of the DFC and my
understanding from a recent meeting with Scott Nathan, the CEO
of the DFC, is they are currently investing in projects,
particularly in Africa, that advance our access to critical
mineral processing and mining.
I would love to work with you on this. I agree that the DFC
is not perfect. I think it needs--we need to fix the way that
equity investments are currently being scored. We could have
significantly greater impact if we would simply do that.
It would unlock billions of dollars of potential
investment, and the idea that we would be doing development
projects that are contrary to our national security interest I
would welcome the opportunity to have a robust discussion about
that.
So please do not misinterpret my no vote on your amendment
today as a lack of enthusiasm for your concern and criticism. I
look forward to working with you on this.
The Chairman. If I may, then I would be happy to turn back
to Senator Romney.
I believe the DFC needs to be more strategic with its
approach to project selection and the objective of encouraging
if not requiring the DFC to be more strategic is something that
I think many on this committee share.
In fact, we have to reauthorize the DFC, hopefully this
year. So if Senator Romney would like to work on giving greater
attention to the strategic imperatives of DFC projects I would
be very happy to join him in those efforts.
However, not on the State Authorization bill, given that we
must keep the scope narrow so it remains important to the
overall prospects of the bill. I also think there are other
appropriate vehicles for efforts like this, whether it be the
China bill or the reauthorization of the BUILD Act or
addressing the question of how we make the DFC more strategic
should be answered.
So I hope we can work together on a comprehensive and
focused approach to making the DFC more strategic in its
operations on a bill that is more fit for that purpose. You
have my commitment to do that.
But I respect your rights if you insist on offering the
amendment and then having a vote.
Senator Romney. Thank you. I would note, Senator Coons, if
they are already evaluating projects in part based upon
national security then my amendment is in no way troublesome to
you because it says--it does not say that that becomes the
primary consideration. It is just a consideration for national
security.
So it does nothing in that. But it does allow the people at
the DFC to explicitly recognize that national security
interests, economic interest, global warming, all those things
can be part of a consideration. Right now that is not part of
their charter.
So I would suggest that this--if they are already doing it,
great. There is no reason not to do it. I would also suggest
that sort of a, hey, we ought to look at the DFC and consider
how we are going to do it in the future, let us consider that,
let me tell you, folks, Rome is burning.
All right. China has been doing this. They put out a
trillion dollars and we still do not have a vehicle to make
investments that are critical for essential minerals for
national security interest, for instance, to invest in a port
or in a railroad. It is essential.
So I am--I do not understand why we--let us take a year to
think about this. It is, like, really?
Yes, I am happy to take a full look at the DFC at some
point but this is--DFC is part of the State Department. There
are other amendments that I know that are--that relate to the
DFC.
One relates to being able to invest in energy projects that
Senator Barrasso is going to propose. This is it--this is part
of this legislation and deserves to be voted upon.
So I am going to call for a vote and if it fails I look
forward to taking a second swing at the apple. But, gosh, it is
killing me that we are not--that we are not competing with
China in these--in these regards.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I appreciate the Senator's remarks. I would
just note, the DFC is a separate entity from the State
Department. It is not wholly within the State Department and,
therefore, technically not necessarily subject to a State
Department authorization.
But the Senator has a right for a recorded vote. The Clerk
will call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
Senator Cardin. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Shaheen?
Senator Shaheen. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
Senator Coons. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
Senator Murphy. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
Senator Kaine. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
Senator Murphy. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
The Chairman. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Schatz?
Senator Schatz. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen?
Senator Van Hollen. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Duckworth?
Senator Duckworth. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
Senator Risch. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
Senator Romney. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Ricketts?
Senator Ricketts. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
Senator Paul. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Young?
Senator Young. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Cruz?
Senator Cruz. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Hagerty?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Scott?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman----
The Chairman. Clerk will report.
The Clerk. The yeas are 14. The noes are seven.
The Chairman. And the amendment is agreed to.
Next is Senator Shaheen.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
you and Senator Risch and to the staffs on both sides of the
committee for all of your hard work in putting together today's
markup on the State Authorization.
I would like to call up Shaheen First Degree No. 1, which
is an amendment that would advance the Global Respect Act and I
recognize that there are concerns on the part of the Chairman
and ranking member about this legislation.
I would point out that it passed last year with a
bipartisan vote out of this committee and was dropped out in
the final negotiations.
But this amendment is based on legislation that I
reintroduced with Senators Murphy and Merkley. It has strong
bipartisan support, as I said, from members of the committee
last year.
It would do three things. It would require the executive
branch to send Congress a list of foreign persons complicit in
inhumane treatment of LGBTI individuals, it would deny or
revoke visas to individuals who are placed on this list, and it
would require the State Department to designate a senior
officer responsible for tracking this violence.
I think it is really important that we make it clear to
countries across the world that behavior that intimidates LGBTI
individuals is unacceptable. Visa-blocking sanctions sends a
strong message to deter these human rights abuses and I would
just point out that we saw just last week in the country of
Georgia efforts to brutalize and break up a peaceful
demonstration in support of LGBTI individuals.
So this continues to be an issue around the world, and as
we are looking at the stance we have in this country on human
rights this is one that I think is important for us to be
strong on.
The Chairman. Anyone else wishing to speak to the
amendment?
Senator Paul?
Senator Paul. I have a question. Is there is a human right
to gay marriage?
Senator Shaheen. Well, the bill text States that the Global
Respect Act would impose sanctions on individuals who are
responsible for or complicit in the torture or cruel, inhuman,
or degrading treatment or punishment or long detention without
charges and trial, causing the disappearance of such persons by
the abduction and clandestine detention of such persons or
other flagrant denial of the right to life, liberty, or the
security of such persons. It does not deal with your question
about marriage.
Senator Paul. It sounds like the last clause could include,
perhaps, things like gay marriage.
Again, the problem we have is that about a third of the
world--the Islamic world does not have gay marriage and it does
not approve of gay marriage.
Senator Shaheen. This does not deal with gay marriage,
Rand.
Senator Paul. It sounds like--the final clause sounds like
and other rights that might be and it sounds like a catch all
to me.
Senator Shaheen. Life, liberty, or the security of such
persons.
Senator Paul. What is that?
Senator Shaheen. It is life, liberty, or the security of
such persons.
Senator Paul. Well, it says rights as well--rights. And so
the question is what----
Senator Shaheen. Right to life, liberty or the security of
such persons.
Senator Paul. That is the question. That is the question is
whether or not marriage is part of the rights you are listing.
Senator Shaheen. It does not mention marriage.
Senator Paul. No. I mean, the question is is whether or not
when you mention rights, other rights, whether those rights
will include marriage.
Senator Merkley. I will note, Rand----
The Chairman. One moment, folks. Last time I checked I am
the Chairman. So we are going to have an orderly debate and we
will respect each other and give each other the opportunities
to respond.
Senator Paul just had his say. Senator Merkley, then I will
go to Senator Cruz.
Senator Merkley. I strongly support this legislation, and I
thank the Senator for bringing it forward, and a statement that
we support life, liberty, and personal security, this whole
thing is focused around torture, kidnapping, abuse.
Can we not stand all together on those core principles
around the world? The special targeting of the LGBTQI
community--I would hope we could and I strongly support this
bill. Thank you.
Senator Cruz?
Senator Cruz. I was going to say I think Rand is raising a
reasonable question and I would note, Senator Shaheen, the
words life, liberty, and security are in there and the Supreme
Court in Obergefell, the basis for the right to gay marriage,
the Supreme Court found was liberty.
So it is not a difficult interpretation to say given that
Supreme Court precedent that any nation that does not
acknowledge gay marriage is not--is flagrantly violating the
right to liberty. And so I think Rand is right that you are
talking about sanctioning every Muslim country on earth. I
mean, that----
Senator Shaheen. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Senator Coons wants to speak and then I will
recognize Senator Shaheen.
Senator Coons. I will simply briefly speak in support of
this amendment as someone who has met with, counseled,
supported individuals who were imprisoned, tortured,
fundamentally mistreated simply because of who they love from a
dozen countries. I think this is a concern we need to elevate
and appreciate the Senator's leadership on this.
The Chairman. Senator Paul, and then I will let Senator
Shaheen close it out.
Senator Paul. It appears the bill is not just sanctioning
countries. It would be sanctioning individuals. Is that
correct?
Senator Shaheen. Correct.
Senator Paul. Yes. And so I guess--you see, the problem is,
I mean, and I referred to the Islamic world. There are other
religions that have problems with this. I mean, you could be
sanctioning tens of thousands of Imams who really do not--they
might preach again--they probably preach and say things that
are very objectionable, sometimes on homosexuality.
But the thing is is that would infringe on liberty. Many of
them believe strictly in the appearance of their religion which
probably, I would think, would be offensive to many people who
believe in the liberty of homosexuals to be free.
And I am not saying I am for any of that. I am just saying
that realize that you are talking about sanctioning a third of
the world who believes in a religion that does not believe what
you are saying.
It is not saying that what you are saying is not admirable
and I support being admirable, obviously, with the violence.
But there is a question of whether or not you want to pass
legislation that would allow the sanctioning of everybody that
is preaching in Islam that homosexuality is wrong.
Senator Shaheen. Mr. Chairman, this is not about
sanctioning individuals. It is about visa sanctions. So it
would address the visas.
And, in fact, the definition that I read earlier is the
exact definition of gross violations of internationally
recognized human rights that are currently in the U.S. code and
that already undergirds our existing visa sanctions regime.
So I think I should have been clearer that this was about
visa sanctions. So it does not really do what I think you and
Senator Cruz are concerned about.
The Chairman. Senator Risch?
Senator Risch. I am going oppose this for the reasons
raised. I think this needs to be a lot clearer. If what Senator
Shaheen is saying is correct----
Senator Shaheen. It is in the bill.
Senator Risch [continuing]. It ought to specifically
exclude that.
I agree with the Senator Cruz and Senator Paul. There is a
very significant population on this planet that have a
different view of this than the U.S. Supreme Court does,
including religions right here in the United States. And so I
have a real difficulty with this. I am going to oppose this.
The Chairman. Let me speak to the amendment and use it as a
broader issue.
First of all, I support Senator Shaheen in this effort. I
did last year. But I want to make a clear case to everybody.
The reason we got a State Authorization bill done is because we
narrowly tailored it and the more we deviate from that it is
less likely that we will get a State Authorization bill.
So we can have some Pyrrhic victories where we have an
amendment adopted today but then as this bill actually--as this
amendment actually was--ended up getting stripped in order to
make it possible to get a bipartisan addition into NDAA and
since it is the Armed Services Committee's leadership position
that only bipartisan amendments will get put into their
Manager's Package my sense is from what we hear today is that
we are not going to get that from the ranking member as we seek
to have a final version go into the NDAA.
So I just--this is not the only amendment that falls in
that category. There are several others. So we have to think
about do we want a State Authorization bill or do we want to
have our particular issues that we care passionately included
even if it means that at the end of the day it will not make it
to the final version.
I would just urge members to think about that on both
sides. This is why I will both support and oppose amendments on
both sides in order to achieve that goal.
Senator Shaheen. Can I ask for a clarification, Mr.
Chairman?
The Chairman. Of course.
Senator Shaheen. When you say bipartisan amendments does
that mean that the bipartisan amendments have to include the
support from both the Chairman and ranking member or can they
be amendments that include bipartisan support from the
membership of the committee?
The Chairman. In order to get into NDAA it must be the
Chairman and the ranking member that agree in order to tell the
Armed Services Committee leadership that we agree to move
forward with that legislation or that amendment.
It is clear to me, based upon what happened last year where
this was passed and then stripped out, in order to make it
eligible for NDAA to get the ranking member's approval to have
a State Department authorization where this is not the only
thing--there were a couple things that ended up having to get
stripped out it will get stripped out, and so that is the
reality.
So it is beyond the question of a bipartisan vote of
membership. It is a question of what the chair and the ranking
member are going to say to the Armed Services Committee, and
that is the way it has been. It is nothing new.
Senator Kaine. Mr. Chair, I would like to direct a question
maybe both to the patron of the amendment and to the
Republicans who have raised the concern.
Would there be a drafting amendment that would clarify that
just because a country did not legally authorize marriage
equality that would not put them within the visa sanction
category--that that by itself would not trigger visa sanctions,
and if you could accept that would that enable there to be
bipartisan support--some bipartisan support for the amendment
on the Republican side? So I am just curious.
Senator Shaheen. I would be fine with that.
Senator Kaine. Because you are really focused on
imprisonment, torture, and cruelty.
Senator Shaheen. Right. Right.
Senator Kaine. You are not so much focused on----
Senator Shaheen. That is right. This is not about----
Senator Kaine.--every country that does not allow marriage
equality would then get into the visa sanction category. Would
her willingness to make that amendment and clarify it enable
the amendment to then gain some bipartisan support on the GOP
side?
Senator Paul. I can say just from my perspective----
The Chairman. Well, I am waiting for those who have been
opponents up till now to address the question.
Senator Paul. I can say from my perspective if you were
talking about violence it is a lot easier. I am not in favor of
most of the sanctions we do on everybody around the world. I
think we need to mind our own business more. So, in general, I
am not really for most of the sanctions we do on everybody.
But if it were only violence the problem is----
Senator Shaheen. Visa sanctions, though, Rand.
Senator Paul. Let me finish. If you exclude marriage that
helps but there are a lot of other things that people preach so
that go contrary to liberty and the words that were in the
clause.
If you take that clause out and you say just it is toward
violence I think you would get better bipartisan support. I am
not guaranteeing my support. I am just saying that I think you
would do better with it.
You really have to get away from that somebody could
possibly be sanctioned, if it--that it is ambiguous enough that
you could possibly be sanctioned for preaching against liberty.
Senator Shaheen. Visa sanctions, Rand.
Senator Paul. Excuse me?
Senator Shaheen. No, visas. We are not talking about--we
are talking about saying to somebody so they get into the
country and get a visa.
Senator Paul. Well, sanctioning their--you are sanctioning
their travel. Sanctioning their travel.
But, anyway, that is just my point of view. It would be
better if it were just violence and you left out what people
think or say about it in their religion.
The Chairman. Senator Cruz?
Senator Cruz. Well, in response to Senator Kaine's
question, look, I have been very vocal condemning laws in other
countries that criminalize homosexual conduct, homosexuality
and I think it is fundamentally wrong to--those decisions
should be made by consenting adults. I would be willing to work
on a much narrower provision that is focused on torture,
imprisonment, capital punishment for homosexual conduct.
This is a complicated enough amendment that I would have
had lots of concerns about other areas that could be applied. I
mean, Rand raised the issue of marriage but you could have all
sorts of different policies.
We are debating a lot of issues in the United States about
people who are transgendered and children having what is
euphemistically called gender-affirming treatment.
I would want to look very carefully at the language and
make sure it was not covering something like that. But on the
question of violence or criminalizing homosexuality I would be
willing to work on something very narrow.
The Chairman. Senator Merkley?
Senator Merkley. The heart of this goes--and page five of
the amendment--the conduct they are talking about is torture,
cruel, inhumane, degrading treatment of punishment, prolonged
detention of an individual without charges or trial, causing
the disappearance of an individual by the abduction or
clandestine detention. All those fit within this category of
violence.
I think it is the fourth provision on that page that it is
raising these questions about other flagrant denial of rights
to life, liberty and security of an individual. You say is
there a way to focus on the first three of those. That may
solve the challenge.
The Chairman. Senator Shaheen, what is your pleasure?
Senator Shaheen. If folks tell me that they think that that
would address the concerns on the other side--Senator Risch
tells me that that addresses his concerns--then I am happy to
do that.
Senator Risch. Well, I want to see the language. There are
some of us that have strong feelings on this on both sides. I
do not take issue with people who have a different view of
things than I do.
But I think the vagueness of it, I have a real problem with
and I would want to see the language before I would commit to
it.
Senator Kaine. Are you just proposing to drop the clause?
Senator Shaheen. Yes.
Senator Kaine. And that might be smart even for us. Could
somebody say the fact that we do not have the Equality Act
means we are flagrantly denying individual rights?
I mean, somebody could look at our laws and say that we are
not--we cannot hold ourselves up as the complete example
either. So if you drop that Clause 4 and you just limit it to
the first three classes, which are really focused on physical
persecution that----
The Chairman. I think Senator Cardin has a good suggestion.
We are going to be in this markup for a while. Could I suggest
that we withdraw it without prejudice for the moment, see if at
a staff level we can work out whether that--the eliminating of
that provision satisfies the issue or whatever else? If not,
you are free to recall the amendment and without prejudice.
Senator Shaheen. Great. Thank you.
The Chairman. Yes, Senator Coons?
Senator Coons. Mr. Chairman, the Appropriations Committee
members have to leave.
The Chairman. I know. Last week it was Armed Services. Now
it is Approps. I am going to continue to march forward as best
as I can.
Senator Coons. We will be back. Thank you for
accommodating, all.
Senator Van Hollen. Mr. Chairman, just on the amendments I
just want to make sure that on the State Authorization we will
have a chance to offer them when we come back.
The Chairman. Of course.
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you. Thank you.
The Chairman. I am not going to foreclose anybody from
their opportunity. So that is withdrawn for the moment without
prejudice.
Let us see. Who is next on the hit parade? Senator
Ricketts, let us recognize you. You have no amendments for the
moment. Thank you.
Senator Paul?
Senator Paul. My amendment is Amendment No. 1--actually is
good on the heels of the last amendment. It is too bad that
most people will not be here.
But, you know, people are concerned and I think rightly so
about violence toward homosexuals in other countries.
The Chairman. I am sorry. I am sorry. I cannot hear you and
can you tell me which amendment you are speaking to and then I
am going to move on.
Senator Paul. It is Amendment No. 1 and I think it fits
well with the debate that we have just been having because the
concern has been about violence toward people who are
homosexual. I think that that is appropriate to be concerned
about it.
But I think we should have the same concern about State-
sponsored violence such as the death penalty toward people who
are accused of blasphemy, anti-apostasy or interfaith marriage,
and my amendment would actually repeal the foreign aid and say
you do not give foreign aid to any country that has the death
penalty for blasphemy, apostasy, and interfaith marriage.
This was based on the story of Asia Bibi, who was a
Christian in Pakistan, went to gather water at the well and was
stoned and beaten, and then when the police came she called for
help.
When the police came they arrested her because the other
women at the well said that she had said something that was
anti-Islamic. She said she had said nothing but since she was
Christian they did not want her drinking from their water.
But she was sentenced to death and was on death row for
several years until we finally negotiated her entry into the
United States.
But if this amendment were actually married with Senator
Shaheen's amendment and you could put into there the protection
of people being persecuted by religion as well I think then you
have a good coalition where you could get something that would
be strongly bipartisan.
Mine eliminates the aid and I know no Democrats, probably
no Republicans actually, are eliminating foreign aid. But this
would eliminate foreign aid but I would be willing to marry it
with Senator Shaheen's amendment that would just give them visa
penalties if they put people to death for their--for religious
differences.
So I think it would be a good way to trying to bring our
side together with your side in agreement and I think if you
included this on religious faith--people were being killed for
their religious faith I think you would have a good coalition.
Anyway, I would like a vote on my amendment. My amendment
simply would prohibit aid to countries who have the death
penalty for blasphemy, apostasy, and interfaith marriage.
The Chairman. Anyone else wish to speak to the amendment?
The law that Senator Paul's amendment addresses is
profoundly offensive and I join him in condemning it. But the
amendment before us is a blunt instrument.
It is incredibly restrictive with no exceptions for U.S.
foreign public--excuse me, U.S. foreign policy priorities or
for responding to a humanitarian crisis and such flexibility
would be critical given the scope of the restriction and
dynamic and unpredictable nature of global events.
Countries that may be impacted in this amendment includes
Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, the Maldives, Qatar, the United Arab
Emirates, and Yemen, and when it comes to countries that punish
interfaith marriage with the death penalty there are none.
So for those reasons, while I join in the concern that
Senator Paul is trying to address I would be voting no on this
amendment as it is. I would urge colleagues to do the same.
And I do not know if there is anyone else who wishes to
speak.
Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman, I am also going to oppose the
amendment. I am in the same place you are. These kinds of laws
are just outrageous and certainly rub us the wrong way.
But we have national security interests in countries that
we are doing things in that this would stop and--well, I will
tell you, this would cause a tremendous upheaval.
This is not a minor thing we are talking about. This is
this--this is a major step forward in changing alliances that
we have had for sometimes many, many decades.
So I cannot support this. I agree with Senator Paul about
the awfulness of some of these things. Unfortunately, the
people we deal with as allies many times are not perfect and I
think this is just too tough.
The Chairman. If there is no one else wishing to speak to
the amendment, Senator Paul, do you want a roll call vote?
Senator Paul. Please.
The Chairman. The Clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
Senator Cardin. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Shaheen?
The Chairman. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
The Chairman. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
The Chairman. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
Senator Kaine. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
The Chairman. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
The Chairman. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Schatz?
The Chairman. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen?
The Chairman. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Ms. Duckworth?
Senator Duckworth. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
Senator Risch. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
Senator Romney. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Ricketts?
Senator Ricketts. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
Senator Paul. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Young?
Senator Young. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
Senator Barrasso. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Cruz?
Senator Cruz. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Hagerty?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Scott?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. No. Clerk will report.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are three. The noes are
18.
The Chairman. And the amendment is not agreed to.
Next in line is--who is present--is Senator Kaine.
Senator Kaine. I have two amendments, Mr. Chair, and there
are differences. Should I just offer them one at a time?
The Chairman. Offer one, please.
Senator Kaine. Okay. What I would like to do is call up
Kaine First Degree No. 2.
This builds upon the language that is in the base bill
including the Manager's Package and it deals with FSOs who
leave the State Department to take other positions and then
want to rejoin the State Department in an FSO capacity.
So the base bill sort of says that they may and this would
go further and say that they shall be able to return to FSO
status if they apply to return and that they could return at
the same level that they left, and there would be two
exceptions or limitations to the shall.
The first is there would need to be an ethical review to
make sure that what they had done in the interim did not impose
any ethical challenges to the return to service, and the second
is if they leave as an FSO to take a political appointment they
would not be able to rejoin.
But if somebody leaves to come work on the Hill, if
somebody leaves to go work for a think tank or for a university
they should not be able to rejoin as an FSO at the same level
that they left.
So, again, the bill as it is before us now with the
Manager's Package has a may and this would be a shall with the
two limitations I have described.
The Chairman. Anyone wishing to speak to the amendment?
Senator Cardin?
Senator Cardin. Just a question. Why was the prohibition
originally put into the practice? Why were they denied the
ability to return?
Senator Kaine. I am not sure that the--it was a complete
denial. It was just that there was no clear path back, and so
this is a way of saying to folks if they leave and you want to
come back you can. So I do not--I think it was probably sign
language.
Senator Cardin. Does the State Department have an opinion?
Does the State Department have an opinion?
Senator Kaine. Let me cede to my State Department expert.
Does the State Department have a position? They support it.
The Chairman. Senator Risch?
Senator Risch. Senator Kaine, would you yield to a
question?
Senator Kaine. Yes.
Senator Risch. What is the problem here?
Senator Kaine. It is--well, the problem is recruiting,
trying to get people back, and there are people who want to go
back who have challenges.
Senator Risch. Well, but you say--if there is a problem in
recruiting this should cut the other way because if they want
to go back they should be able to go back. I am having trouble
grasping the thing here. There is something----
Senator Kaine. It makes it easier for somebody if they want
to leave to take a position in a university or a think tank or
come to the Hill or something like that to know that they can
still have the ability to go back rather than we will see if
they want me back.
Senator Risch [continuing]. That would seem to me to cut
the other way because if I was looking at the job and saying,
well, I can do this and if this does not work I will try
something else. I am just--I am really having trouble getting
arms around the thing. I mean, I----
The Chairman. I think--Senator Risch, I think the issue
here is also that there are people who are looking at it in
that way--I can go and come back.
There are people who just legitimately go and then at some
point in time say, you know what, I would like to come back if
there is a possibility.
But under the present system that ability to come back is
not there, and so being able to come back. There is no downside
for us. It is an upside for the department because if you get
somebody with experience, the only thing is that person does
not want to come and start as a rookie all over again.
Senator Risch. Whose brainchild is this? I suspect--it does
not sound like it is your----
Senator Kaine. The State Department.
Senator Risch. The State Department?
Senator Kaine. Yes. They said that this would be helpful.
Senator Cardin. One additional. Do they have to take the
person back?
Senator Kaine. Yes, except for the two limitations I
described. Yes.
The Chairman. Anyone else? Yes, Senator Ricketts?
Senator Ricketts. I am sorry. Could I have a clarification
again?
Senator Kaine. Yes.
Senator Ricketts. So the language right now says they may
take them back?
Senator Kaine. That is in the base bill. Right.
Senator Ricketts. It is the base bill. You want to change
that to a shall?
Senator Kaine. Shall with two limitations.
Senator Ricketts. I am sorry. What were the two limitations
again?
Senator Kaine. The two limitations is there would have to
be an ethics review about what they did during the interim to
make sure that they had not done anything that created ethical
challenges to rejoin the State Department, and the second is if
they take a political post with the executive. If they decide
to go from kind of career to politics they do not have the
ability to automatically----
Senator Ricketts. What if they just were not a good
employee and we do not want them back? Would that require the
State Department to take them back even if they really were not
good at their job in the first place? Maybe they left and that
was a good thing.
Senator Kaine. Yes. You would think that if they were not a
good employee they would not have been an employee in good
standing when they left. They would have----
Senator Ricketts. Yes, but there is a lot of reasons that
you do not fire somebody and they leave you are, like, well,
that was a good thing they left, right.
So I think a may is better because it allows the State
Department flexibility to take someone back.
Senator Kaine. So, okay, I am hearing your point. Your
point is what if somebody is about to get disciplined and
before they get disciplined they quit.
Senator Ricketts. And they quit. Yes.
Senator Kaine. You are right. I am not intending that that
person should be able to go back.
Senator Risch. Senator Kaine, I will tell you where this is
really going to rear its ugly head is I would like to hear the
arguments in court when the guy is arguing to come back and the
department is saying no, we do not want him back and they are
arguing about the language that we have in here. I just--I got
real reservations about this. I really do.
Senator Kaine. I would say Senator Ricketts' question about
what if somebody is on the verge of being disciplined when they
leave and they should not have an automatic right to come back
I think that is a good objection. I will withdraw the
amendment.
The Chairman. The amendment is withdrawn. Thank you,
Senator Kaine. I know that there is a vote going on. Let us see
if we can get at least one more amendment and in the order of
things Senator Young is next if you have an amendment.
Senator Young. No.
The Chairman. Okay. Thank you. Senator Barrasso is next.
Senator Barrasso. Yes. I only have one amendment. It is
Barrasso Amendment No. 1 and it has to do with energy and the
U.S. International Development Finance Corporation.
They need to provide financing for energy projects that are
suitable to the needs of the developing countries. The
administration has announced that the financing can fall off of
fuel investments and this is a big problem with trying to get
people out of poverty.
We have 759 million people living without any electricity
and stable affordable, reliable electricity is the best way to
help developing countries climb out of poverty.
No modern economy can run on only variable renewable power.
Abandoning important energy projects makes poverty worse, slows
economic growth, slows job creation.
And you do not have to take my word for it. Listen to some
African leaders. The President of Uganda--he wrote actually an
editorial in the Wall Street Journal that solar and wind forces
poverty on Africa.
Africa cannot sacrifice its future prosperity for Western
climate goals. African manufacturers are going to struggle with
attracting investment, therefore, to create jobs without
consistent energy sources. Talks about these policies by these
lending institutions which the U.S. drives stands to forestall
Africa's attempts to rise out of poverty, which requires
reliable energy.
This amendment that I have will ensure that the DFC
promotes a technology and fuel neutral all of the above energy
development strategy for countries that are most in need. Our
nation ought to be focused on lifting people out of poverty. If
we are serious about helping the U.S. needs to promote an all
of the above energy and I ask support for this amendment.
The Chairman. Anyone else wishing to speak to the
amendment?
The approach outlined in this amendment I respect and
appreciate Senator Barrasso's consistent tenacity on the
question of energy security.
This approach, however, outlined in this amendment is
problematic and redundant. As written this amendment would
promote an all of the above strategy, which implies the use of
certain types of fuels, including, for example, heavy fuel oil.
As we know, that use of such fuels is extremely detrimental
to the environment and can cause devastating implications to
human health.
Further, the DFC has a process that considers all types of
energy projects including fossil fuel projects. Thus mandating
the promotion of this strategy would be unnecessary and
damaging to DFC's efforts to pursue strategic bankable projects
with the most significant development outcomes.
For these reasons I will oppose the amendment. I urge my
colleagues to do so.
Does the Senator wish a recorded vote?
Senator Barrasso. Just to rebut the----
The Chairman. Sure.
Senator Barrasso. The gross number of projects that can be
done through the--for the end of time is eight by the way that
this program has been set up.
And I appreciate your comments, Mr. Chairman. I raised this
last year and when we had people nominated to positions I
raised this and they admit, yes, eight total project fossil
fuel wise worldwide forever.
The President of Senegal explained this. Ending gas
financing for Africa would be a fatal blow. He said at the time
when African countries are preparing to exploit their
significant gas resources the end of funding for the gas sector
under the pretext that gas is a fossil fuel is going to bear a
fatal cost to our emerging economies.
The Economist had four articles on this a week or two ago
about the fact that we are holding people in poverty. The
Economist is not any conservative--it is a British group.
We are holding people down, holding people in poverty by
these purist views on where our reinvestment dollar goes. The
development of the energy sector is a fundamental pillar of a
country's economic development. So I would ask for a roll call
vote.
The Chairman. The Senator is entitled to a roll call vote
and the Clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
Senator Cardin. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Shaheen?
The Chairman. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
The Chairman. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
The Chairman. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
Senator Kaine. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
The Chairman. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
The Chairman. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Schatz?
The Chairman. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen?
The Chairman. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Ms. Duckworth?
Senator Duckworth. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
Senator Risch. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
Senator Romney. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Ricketts?
Senator Ricketts. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
Senator Paul. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Young?
Senator Young. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
Senator Barrasso. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Cruz?
Senator Cruz. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Hagerty?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Scott?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. No. Clerk will report.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 10. The noes are 11.
The Chairman. And the amendment is not agreed to.
Next in the--based on presence--I am going to hang in there
a little bit before this vote which is still hanging in
normally takes a long time.
Senator Cardin. Do you want to--we have got an hour and a
half more.
The Chairman. What is that?
Senator Cardin. We got another hour and a half.
The Chairman. Hour and a half. Ready to go?
Next Democrat who is available here is Senator Duckworth if
she has an amendment.
Senator Duckworth. I do not.
The Chairman. You do not have an amendment. Thank you.
So then we will turn--extra points. So then we will return
to Senator Cruz.
Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to call up Cruz First Degree No. 1 revised and
this is an amendment that the Chairman and I and the ranking
member have had extensive discussions about.
This is an amendment that concerns cross border bridges
between the United States and Mexico and there are right now
four bridge projects that are attempting to be built, either
new bridges or expansion of current bridges to expand commerce
with Mexico.
Last year the value of goods traded between the United
States and Mexico was $779 billion and what is happening right
now to build a cross border bridge is a different process than
any other bridge. If you are building a bridge between Virginia
and Maryland you go through the ordinary NEPA process and
everything else.
But a cross border bridge has an additional requirement of
a Presidential permit because it is crossing the border to
another country, and the State Department in the last couple of
years changed the way this Presidential permit occurred.
Previously, the permit had been granted contingent on the
completion of a NEPA review. What the State Department began
doing is delaying the Presidential permit until after all of
the NEPA analysis is complete.
The consequence of that is it is delaying these bridge
projects by several years and the builders of the bridges are
finding financing very difficult to get because of the
permitting--the Presidential permit has not been granted. And
so this proposal would expedite that process of the
Presidential permit to build a cross border bridge.
I would say a couple of things on this. No. 1, this should
be, I think, an easy bipartisan priority. I can tell you the
Texas--the south Texas congressional delegation is completely
unified in a bipartisan way and so every south Texas Member of
Congress has supported this effort including both Vicente
Gonzalez and Henry Cuellar, both Democrats, along with Monica
De La Cruz and Tony Gonzales, both Republicans. So this is an
issue that unifies both Republicans and Democrats.
I will point out also for anyone concerned about
environmental issues nothing in this amendment limits,
constricts the NEPA analysis. These bridges will not be built
without the NEPA review.
All it does is say that State does not have to wait on
that. The NEPA review still has to happen. I will point out
additionally that right now the status quo is objectively
terrible for the environment.
If you go down to Laredo--many of us have been to Laredo--
it is the largest land port in the United States. Massive
amount of commerce goes through. You go see Laredo right now
and you will see hundreds or even thousands of 18-wheelers
sitting there for three, four, or 5 hours just spewing
pollution and carbon into the air and it is not good for the
environment to have this massive delay at the bridge.
If you want a cleaner environment expanding the bridge so
the trucks can move more expeditiously is better for the
environment, better for trade, better for jobs.
I would point out, finally, and in a development that
happened late last night both the State Department and the
White House have signed off on this amendment now and I think
they have conveyed the same to the chairman.
So I would--I would ask colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to support the amendment.
The Chairman. Let me just say we have a significantly
redrafted amendment here, and I have spoken to Senator Cruz
about this amendment and I am happy to work with him on it. I
think we are getting to a point that it will be acceptable.
We just learned earlier today that the administration may
be okay with a revised version of the amendment and that is
promising for reaching an agreement with Senator Cruz.
But I do not know if I can have members vote on a
substantially modified first degree amendment on a sensitive
subject with national and international consequences when no
member has had an opportunity to review the text.
So I would urge the Senator to withhold with a commitment
from me that when we finish the vetting of it if it is as we
believe it will be that it will be in line with the
administration's agreement that I would certainly work with him
to--and the ranking member to line it up for NDAA.
But if we ask for a vote my proxies right now are noes
based on the original amendment, and since no one has had a
time to review your modified amendment I do not know that that
is where we want to end up at the end of the day.
Senator Cruz. Mr. Chairman, what I would say on that the
amendment itself is quite brief and it was modified following
discussions with your staff and with State just to narrow the
scope. And so the original amendment but they asked us to
narrow it so we did.
We do have the position of the administration, State, and
the White House in writing where they sent us in writing that
they approved it. So you can see the email chain if you like.
I can tell you that in terms of the impact on Texas it is
exceptionally important and my strong preference would be to
have it incorporated in this bill because to try to get it as
an amendment to NDAA and SASC my understanding is they require
four corners sign off from five different committees to get
this in, which having been through this process for a long time
there are lots of places you could run into a bump on that
whereas here if we include it in this bill then the whole bill
can get added to NDAA. You would have to think the chances of
all those sign offs are not great.
With respect to the proxies, I would be open to a voice
vote if that were amenable to the members of the committee. I
do think----
The Chairman. The voice vote is not the issue, Senator
Cruz.
I work really hard to allow members on both sides to know
what they are voting on. I am not always happy how they vote.
But I work really hard to let people know what they are voting
on.
Right now I do not feel that I have that standing, at least
on my side of the aisle, with the modified amendment. I want to
help you get to yes, understand that.
But I am also not willing to use my good faith with my
members to say vote on something that they have not seen. And
maybe the structure of your modified amendment meets the
administration's okay.
I have to--we have to check to make sure that what you are
doing in language is equal to what they said okay to. That is
part of the problem there.
Senator Cruz. Can I make a request, perhaps?
The Chairman. Sure.
Senator Cruz. This markup may go on for some time, I think.
The absent members have sat here. Can I ask if people would
review it? I am happy to withdraw it for now and perhaps
introduce it at the end of the markup.
The Chairman. Sure. If you want to--if you want to withdraw
it without prejudice, and we would ask colleagues to take a
look at it to see if they can come to an independent
conclusion. I am happy to consider that.
Senator Cruz. I would ask the Chairman and the members to
take a look at it. It is a fairly unusual circumstance where
you have got both State and the White House and the NSC in
writing saying--and it is this revised--the reason we have a
revised text was based on discussions with you and your staff
and also with State that they all asked us to narrow it. So we
revised it in response to those concerns.
The Chairman. And all I am saying is we have not had the
time to see that the revised text is the embodiment of those
discussions. That is what we need to say.
Senator Cruz. Okay. We can--my staff can show you that this
was the language that State and the White House is looking at.
Senator Cardin. And if I might just raise--Senator Cruz, I
am trying to get the timelines. I see it has to go through an
environmental review. But it is also a very short time for the
President to make a decision, and the criteria is national--is
the interests of the United States.
So it is a very narrow focus in a very short period of
time. So I would just like to be able to----
Senator Cruz. Right. The statute requiring the Presidential
permit is narrowly focused to: Is there a foreign policy
objection, and that is why the President is doing the
certification. So the Presidential certification of that
statute does not address environmental issues at all.
It is NEPA that applies to every bridge, whether it is
international or not. That standard applies regardless, and so
the bridges will not be built unless they clear NEPA review.
Senator Cardin. So the 60 days--the NEPA review has already
been done before the 60 days of the President?
Senator Cruz. The NEPA review will occur after the
President. So, the way it used to be done is, the President
would grant the permit conditional on the NEPA review being
positive. So, if you do not go through a NEPA review it does
not get built. But the----
Senator Cardin. I see. So you are getting 60 days for the
President to make a decision. Then it has to go through a NEPA
review.
Senator Cruz. Exactly. And the challenge--if you talk to
the local officials, the people that are trying to build the
bridges is without the Presidential permit they are having a
hard time getting the financing for the bridges.
So it is delaying the whole thing by years. And so in south
Texas, which I would note is a very Democrat part of the State,
everyone is unified in saying building these bridges or
expanding them is a really good thing.
Senator Romney. Mr. Chairman, I would just that it is a
little unusual to have the Senator from Texas suggesting ways
to reduce carbon emissions and make it easier for Mexican
products to get into the United States, and I applaud him for
that kind of thinking.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. And we thank you, Senator Romney, for your
erudite observation.
So, Senator Cruz has withdrawn, without prejudice, to a
later part of the markup. I would urge members' staff to look
at the revised amendment and see, so that they will be in a
position to cast their vote later on.
With that, I think it would be an appropriate moment to
take a brief recess, go vote, and I would ask all members to
come back.
Senator Cardin. You did that because Senator Booker just
got here.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Well, the committee is recessed subject to
the call of the Chair, which intends to be right after we vote.
[Recess.]
The Chairman. The meeting--the business meeting of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee--will reconvene.
When we left, we were doing amendments. We are glad to see
all of our appropriators back, and the next person in line is
Senator Merkley.
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And I am calling up Merkley First Degree, and I will
withdraw this before we entertain a vote. But the amendment
requests or requires an annual report on the development of
settlements in the West Bank, and for those of us who have been
lifelong champions of Israel, faced by many, many challenges in
the region, we have envisioned a--hopefully setting a
foundation for a long and violence free future involving two
States.
The current government of Israel is on a different track
than that and I think all of us should be a little concerned
about what lies ahead.
In that regard, it makes sense for us to understand how the
physical developments on the ground are changing and to have
kind of the authority and validity of our own government
sharing an assessment of the changes.
So it is in that regard I offer the amendment. It has
always been difficult to have the conversation regarding the
changing dynamics on the West Bank and I think in this regard
this amendment does not express any judgments.
It says that the simple fact should be understood by us as
we engage in trying to be the best partners for peace and
stability and democracy and human rights.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you. The Senator withdraws the
amendment.
Senator Merkley. I will withdraw it, but before I withdraw
it I was not sure if anyone else had any comments to share.
The Chairman. Anyone else wishes to speak to Senator
Merkley's amendment?
Senator Schatz?
Senator Schatz. I apologize at the risk of prolonging
things.
I just think it is--I just want to agree with Senator
Merkley that this is the place to conduct foreign policy as it
relates to Israel and a lot of us who are steadfast supporters
of Israel on--from the far right to the far left and everywhere
in between have to acknowledge that the current Israeli
Government is allowing things that make peace over the long run
more and more difficult to achieve.
And so there just has to be a space here for us to have
this conversation without being accused of being anti-Israel or
even antisemitic.
And so I support Senator Merkley's amendment. I will not
prolong this discussion, but we should have this conversation.
The Chairman. Anyone else?
If not, I appreciate Senator Merkley bringing the issue to
the committee, and I am sure this will be something that we
will continue to be engaged in dialog and action in the future,
and the Senator has withdrawn his amendment.
So now we start anew. Since I am alternating, Senator
Risch, do you have any amendments?
Senator Risch. No.
The Chairman. Senator Ricketts?
Senator Ricketts. No.
The Chairman. Senator Paul.
Senator Paul. Paul Amendment No. 2. This amendment is
designed to prevent the State Department from censoring speech
that is protected by the First Amendment.
Over the past several years the U.S. Government has taken
upon itself the task of protecting Americans from
misinformation and disinformation.
These are statements and messages that the Government in
its self-appointed role as arbiter of truth decides are false
and then have what the Government judges are harmful effects.
So, for example, our government has judged that certain
opinions about COVID vaccines or masks or natural immunity are
misinformation and to be prevented from speech. To suppress
this misinformation elements of our government put pressure on
tech companies like Facebook and Twitter to remove or downplay
posts, which in many cases these companies happily do.
In addition, the FBI has actually paid big tech to remove
constitutionally protected speech. Just by labeling speech
misinformation or disinformation does not mean that it is not
protected by the First Amendment.
Because this is such an obvious blatant violation of the
Constitution the Government often masks its role by funding
nonprofit organizations whose purpose is to identify so-called
misinformation and disinformation and feed their analysis to
tech companies to take action.
The State Department, which is authorizing legislation we
are debating today, is no exception to this practice. The
principal player at stake is the Global Engagement Center--GEC.
As the journalist Matt Taibbi in his Twitter files has
documented the GEC regularly engages with Twitter executives to
remove or suppress accounts that it says are purveying foreign
disinformation.
While the GEC's alleged focus is only speech for
foreigners, the Twitter files show that Americans are often
caught up in the net. Why does the GEC get to decide what the
American people read and do not read?
The GEC also provides grants to organizations that do
similar things. In one particular notable example the GEC has
funded the Global Disinformation Index--GDI.
GDI maintains an exclusion list of sites that in GDI's
judgment post disinformation. The purpose of this list is to
help advertisers know which outlets to avoid and inclusion on
the list can do great damage, especially to smaller outlets,
and yet the GDI black list includes as mainstream publications
as the New York Post and the Washington Examiner.
It is outrageous that the U.S. Government would fund such
censorship. My amendment addresses this problem in a couple of
ways.
First, it would prohibit State Department employees from
engaging with platforms with the goal of removing or
suppressing constitutionally protected speech, blacklisting
accounts or labeling speech as misinformation or
disinformation.
Second, it would require the recipient of any State
Department grant to certify that it will not designate any
creator of news regardless of medium as a source of
misinformation or disinformation, and I would ask for a
recorded vote.
The Chairman. Anyone wish to speak to the amendment?
Free speech in a democracy is essential. However, what this
amendment does is take away our ability to engage on weaponized
information that aim to divide societies, turn citizens against
each other, and encourage hatred of the United States abroad.
We have seen Russian disinformation sources spread lies
about U.S. soldiers raping young women. We have seen Russian
sources claim U.S. bio labs were experimenting with COVID on
Ukrainian citizens. Allies and partners all over the world are
facing this very real threat.
Let me be clear. This is the type of amendment that our
adversaries--Russia, China, Iran--would love to see pass
because it would tie our hands and give them free rein to
manipulate our society as we work to collaborate with partners
and allies as they see fit.
It would be an equivalent of failing to arm our military
with the arms and ammunition needed to defend our homeland.
Let us be clear about another point. Social media firms
only take down or block accounts when they find their user
terms have been violated, not when they receive requests from
outsiders, including the Government.
What we should be doing is developing and bolstering our
capacity to resist and respond to malign information operations
by flagging disinformation, informing the public, coordinating
with governments, the private sector and others working to
defend it. It is for all of these and other reasons that I will
oppose the amendment.
Anyone else who wishes--I will get back to you.
Anyone else who wishes to speak to it?
Senator Paul?
Senator Paul. It is important to note that FBI actually
paid Twitter to take down information. This is not just say,
oh, why do you guys not do this. Twitter said, well, it is a
lot of work--will you pay us. The FBI paid Twitter to take down
information.
There is a court case right now ongoing where there has
been a preliminary injunction, Missouri v. Biden. In that there
is a whole list of the different threats--antitrust threats if
you do not take this down, we will take away your Section 230
if it does not come down--this will go the highest levels of
the White House if you do not listen to us. There is a whole
written trail of threats from government on this.
The problem with labeling misinformation is this. So, for
example, in 2016 it was said that Trump was colluding with the
Russians. Where did this information come from?
Well, it came from the Steele dossier, which actually came
from the Clinton campaign which actually came from the
Russians. So what we call Russian disinformation and Russia
manipulating the 2016 election turned out that they were
actually manipulating the election by making allegations that
Trump was disinformation--Trump was engaged with the Russians,
which was itself disinformation.
If you look at the Hunter Biden laptop what you find is
before the election you had 55 former security analysts or
intelligence folks sending and writing up that absolutely this
is misinformation and that it is not true and it was not his--
it was not his laptop, that this is the creation of Russian
misinformation. Well, it turns out it is the complete opposite.
The Russian disinformation was that it was disinformation.
All I am saying is this is complicated. We all have
different feelings on what it is. But to allow the Government
to define what is disinformation or misinformation runs afoul
of the First Amendment.
The left--the Democratic Party was once a great bastion of
the First Amendment. Many on the left were great defenders
throughout the 1960's of civil rights and those were abused by
the FBI and the civil rights movement, of those who were abused
in the protests to the Vietnam War.
The Church Commission was a marvelous example of the
Democrat Party protecting speech, trying to regulate and limit
the intrusion of our intelligence agencies into
constitutionally protected activity.
I do not understand why we cannot still have some
bipartisanship in saying that the Government should not be
flagging American information. The Government should not be
removing American opinions, and this is something I hope we
will have more openness to discussion over time.
But I would like a recorded vote.
Senator Murphy. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Senator Murphy?
Senator Murphy. Mr. Chairman, this is just a massive
conflation of two totally separate issues. The GEC, which has
been a product of bipartisan cooperation for--over the course
of the last decade is focused on foreign propaganda and foreign
misinformation.
We are tracking Chinese misinformation, we are tracking
Russian misinformation, not in the United States but in their
spheres of influence. That is what the GEC does, and to
conflate Hunter Biden's laptop and Hillary Clinton emails with
the GEC, it is a massive gift to our adversaries if we just
decide to stand down on the question of fighting foreign-based
propaganda.
An enormous part of Russia's effort inside Ukraine is
trying to manipulate information inside that country. All of
our efforts to try to build alliances in Asia are compromised
by the way in which China builds misinformation campaigns
against the United States.
The GEC is focused on those fights outside of the United
States, fighting back against those efforts. I think there
probably is a legitimate conversation to be had about domestic
misinformation and what is labeled as propaganda and what is
not inside the United States. But that is not what the GEC
does. The GEC is operating outside of the United States.
The Chairman. I have given you 10 minutes, Senator. This
will be the final one.
Senator Paul. Okay. The GEC subcontracts to something
called the Global Misinformation Index. In that, thought, they
list domestic publications--the New York Post and the
Washington Examiner--as areas of speech that should be limited
and those are areas that they talk to Twitter about about
protecting the American public from the New York Post.
That is a clear violation of First Amendment and we have to
do something about it. I think this does extend. There is an
analogy for FISA in the sense that FISA collects data on all
worldwide phone calls--yes, we are only going after foreigners.
But then we look at the FISA data base and it includes
thousands and thousands of Americans who have their information
gathered without a warrant. So it is inadvertent and maybe the
goals of the GEC are looking at foreign propaganda but I think
what ends up happening is the extension is now into
constitutionally protected speech and I think the court
ultimately is going to find a real problem with this.
The Chairman. You have asked for a recorded vote. Is that
correct?
Senator Paul. Yes.
The Chairman. 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. Merkley?
Senator Merkley. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
Senator Booker. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Schatz?
Senator Schatz. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen?
The Chairman. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Ms. Duckworth?
Senator Duckworth. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
Senator Risch. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
Senator Romney. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Ricketts?
Senator Ricketts. 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 Cruz. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Hagerty?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Scott?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. No. And Clerk will report.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are five. The noes are
16.
The Chairman. And the amendment is not agreed to.
The next person in line is Senator Booker if he has any
amendments.
Senator Booker. No.
The Chairman. No. Then I will turn to Senator Schatz, do
you have any amendments?
Senator Schatz. Two things.
First, I will just--I am not going to offer and withdraw
but just to point out that I had an amendment on global press
freedom. I think Senators Romney and Young have been working in
this space--Senator Kaine, others.
This is a key foreign policy priority. We were not able to
get my provision or any others in the base text. Mine was to
establish an ambassador-at-large for global press freedom.
But we have got to figure out a way to kind of merge these
efforts and work together on a bipartisan basis. This is not
something that cuts along partisan lines.
We ought to be able to do this and I am hopeful that we
will be able to do that. I will not ask for a recorded vote on
my--on that amendment.
But I would like to offer the second degree amendment and
call up Schatz Second Degree Amendment No. 4.
This amendment was cleared by DOD and it may be--and in
staff level conversations with the Pacific Fleet no concerns
were raised.
It simply allows for the funds accrued in the newly
established AUKUS submarine and security activities account to
development and increase submarine industrial base work force
by investing in specialized labor at U.S. shipyards and to
upgrade facilities and infrastructure at shipyard where
submarines are maintained.
The purpose is to explicitly State in the text that the
health and development of the submarine industrial base work
force is important and we just want to make that explicit in
the underlying language.
I do not think this is controversial, and I would be
amenable to a voice vote if the chair wishes.
The Chairman. Is there anyone who wishes to speak to the
amendment?
If not, since the Senator asked for a voice vote, all those
in favor will say aye.
All those opposed will say no.
Senator Risch. No. I want to be recorded as no, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Risch will be recorded as no.
The ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to.
Next is we will go back down the line. Do you want to--do
you feel lucky again, Senator Romney?
Senator Romney. No.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Okay.
Senator Romney. There are a lot of things I could say but I
am not going to.
The Chairman. Okay. Senator--oh, I am sorry. The last
person I called was Senator Paul.
Senator Paul. No. No. I was just going to----
Senator Ricketts, you have no amendments as I understand
it.
Senator Ricketts. No.
The Chairman. Then I have had Senator Paul. I think that
I--you just had an amendment, right?
Senator Paul. I just had one.
The Chairman. Let me call--go back to Senator Cruz.
Senator Cruz. So I am not going to call up an amendment but
I do want to take a minute since a lot of the room was not here
when the last amendment came up to explain an amendment that I
hope to call up before the end of this markup, which is an
amendment that addresses cross border bridges, bridges between
the United States and Mexico.
There are four bridge projects that are either constructing
new bridges or expanding existing bridges. This is an amendment
that I hope and believe should be bipartisan. As I discussed,
the Texas congressional delegation in south Texas, every
Democrat every Republican, supports this effort to build these
bridges.
The administration--both the State Department White House
have signed off on it. We have revised language that all of
your staff has and I am hearing gestures that I think Senator
Kaine and Senator Coons are giving me thumbs up that they are
at least yeses.
So I would just ask for the Senators who were not in the
room if your staff can look at the language because I am hoping
we can get agreement to include this in the bill before the end
of the markup.
The Chairman. Well, at some point they will tell the
Chairman how they are going to vote on it, too.
Next is--Senator Cardin, do you have----
Senator Cardin. No.
The Chairman. Senator Shaheen?
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I have
another issue that I know has concerns from the minority, but I
think it is important to talk about it because I would like to
call up Shaheen First Degree No. 2, which is an amendment to
codify the Office of Global Women's Issues.
I know you remember that I asked for the inclusion of this
amendment in last year's State Authorization as well and I am
very happy that after 18 months we finally now have an
ambassador for Global Women's Issues, Dr. Geeta Rao Gupta. She
was finally confirmed.
And I call it up again because I think it is important for
us to try and correct what still continues to be misinformation
about the Office of Global Women's Issues. That office deals
with half of the world's population.
It should not be subjected to partisan politics, I do not
think, because what it is about is trying to promote the
economic empowerment of women around the world. It is not about
health care.
It is not about abortion. It is not about reproductive
rights. That is not dealt with in the Office of Global Women's
Issues despite all of the misinformation to try and suggest
that.
I think it is really important to codify this office
because of what we know about empowering women around the
world. What we know is that women give back more to their
families, more to their communities, more to their countries
when they are empowered and that countries are more stable when
women are empowered in those countries.
And what this office does is to try and address the
position of women around the world in ways that I think are
really important for our foreign policy.
This is not a Democratic or Republican issue. We saw during
the Trump administration there was an ambassador for Global
Women's Issues who was approved by this committee who went
through the Senate, and so I would hope that we could codify
this and make sure that this continues to be part of our
foreign policy because it is in our national security interest
to address the status of women around the world.
The Chairman. Anyone else wishing to speak to the
amendment?
How do you wish to proceed?
Senator Shaheen. I would like a vote, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. A recorded vote?
Senator Shaheen. Yes, please.
The Chairman. 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. Merkley?
Senator Merkley. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
Senator Booker. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Schatz?
Senator Schatz. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen?
The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Ms. Duckworth?
Senator Duckworth. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
Senator Risch. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
Senator Romney. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Ricketts?
Senator Ricketts. 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. Hagerty?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Scott?
Senator Risch. No. by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. This is an example of where we are going to
have challenges to get this into the NDAA. I will vote yes. But
I may--I advise my colleague that I may very well have to move
to strip it out if I can get agreement from the Republicans to
get it into NDAA.
Yes?
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 11. The noes are 10.
The Chairman. And the amendment is agreed to.
Let us see. Senator Van Hollen, you made it just in time.
Timing is everything in life. I am sorry, if you would withhold
a moment. I am sorry. I do not know if anybody else has any
amendments on this side left.
Senator Paul?
Senator Paul. This is Amendment No. 5. This amendment would
make foreign aid contingent on corruption. Many in Congress
have argued that--in fact, some members of this committee have
traveled to different countries and threatened foreign aid if
there was not better behavior and less corruption.
Probably the most prominent example was by Senator Biden in
2014--or vice president. Yes, still a Senator at the time,
going to--no, vice president at the time, going to Ukraine and
threatening their aid if there was not what he perceived to be
an improvement in corruption.
There are different groups that look at corruption. There
is the Transparency International Corruption Index. And what
this bill would do and say if you score lower than the bottom
50 percent of the Transparency International Corruption Index,
meaning one of the more corrupt countries, that you would not
be eligible for foreign aid. Currently, Ukraine has ranked
116th out of 180 countries in the transparency index.
According to the index 23 percent of public service users
reported paying a bribe in the past 12 months. Embezzlement of
public funds is commonplace. As we saw on January 2023 a little
after U.S. funds had started to flow into Ukrainian coffers
Ukrainian officials were caught selling goods at inflated
prices to the Ukrainian government.
Ukraine has struggled in the past to gain IMF funding due
to corruption concerns including a case more than $5 billion
disappearing from a Ukrainian bank tied to a Zelensky ally.
So I think it would be a good idea. We do not really have
the money anyway. We borrow all this money from other countries
to send it to other countries--when we are sending money around
the world if we make it contingent on behavior.
And so I would ask for a recorded vote on my amendment,
which would prohibit foreign aid to the bottom 50 percent of
the Transparency Index for Corruption.
Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Senator Risch?
Senator Risch. Would Senator Paul respond to an inquiry?
Senator Paul. Sure.
Senator Risch. As I understand this, you want to cutoff the
aid to Ukraine that ends the Ukrainian war. Is that what this
does?
Senator Paul. No, this is for corruption in general. I have
made the point of pointing out some of the corruption because
Ukraine has been famous for it.
But this would not be just for Ukraine. It would be for----
Senator Risch. Well, I understand that. But it would
include Ukraine.
Senator Paul. Yes.
Senator Risch. All right. So--all right. Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Cardin?
Senator Cardin. Let me thank Senator Paul for his concerns
on corruption. I agree with you on it being a major national
security interest of the United States to deal with anti-
corruption policies including the use of our foreign aid.
This committee has taken a major step forward in the State
Department Authorization with the legislation that has been put
into this bill that was sponsored by Senator Young and myself
that will start this process moving in a much more
sophisticated way than the amendment offered by Senator Paul.
Senator Paul's amendment would have adverse consequences,
as Senator Risch has pointed out. I oppose the amendment but I
thank him for his interest and I hope he would work with us to
strengthen the provisions that are already in this bill.
The Chairman. Anyone else wishing to speak to the
amendment?
Senator Coons?
Senator Coons. Just briefly, I would like to thank and
commend Senator Cardin for his long leadership advancing
transparency in combating corruption. This is a meat cleaver
when a scalpel would be more appropriate.
It would cutoff foreign assistance to dozens and dozens of
countries where U.S. foreign aid is helping combat corruption
and so I will be voting against it.
The Chairman. Senator, did you ask for a recorded vote?
Senator Paul. Please.
The Chairman. 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. 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. Ms. Duckworth?
The Chairman. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
Senator Risch. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
Senator Romney. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Ricketts?
Senator Ricketts. 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 Cruz. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Hagerty?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Scott?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. No. Clerk will report.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are one. The noes are 20.
The Chairman. And the amendment is not agreed to.
Now Senator Van Hollen is recognized.
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My amendment relates to the U.S. Visa Waiver Program. I
think everybody here is aware of the fact that we have
established--we have established Visa Waiver Programs with
countries that meet the conditions of the program and when we
enter into an agreement--the visa waiver agreement with those
countries it allows their citizens to come to the United States
for 90 days visa free.
One of the conditions is reciprocity, that a country that
we enter into a Visa Waiver Program agreement with treats U.S.
citizens with reciprocity and that means making sure that all
American citizens are treated equally. The saying is blue is
blue. You have a blue American passport you are treated as an
American and no American is treated better or worse than any
other American.
And what this amendment--what it says is that if you are
going to be a country participating in the Visa Waiver Program
you have to abide by the blue is blue requirement, that you
cannot discriminate against Americans seeking to enter your
country based on religion, based on race, based on ethnicity.
It is pretty straightforward, and I have heard that there
are some concerns about this amendment. I would just ask my
colleagues which Americans with blue passports are they--that
you would not want to be allowed to enter a country when other
Americans do.
Do you want a country that is part of the Visa Waiver
Program to be able to exclude Black Americans? Jewish
Americans? Hispanic Americans? Any other kind of Americans?
Arab Americans?
Now, this issue has come to the fore because Israel is
seeking admission to the Visa Waiver Program. It is something I
support so long as Israel meets the conditions of blue is blue.
And there was a letter sent by many members of this
committee, including eight Republican members of the committee,
to Secretary Blinken and Secretary Mayorkas that also says
pretty much the same thing, as far as I can determine.
It says--and Israel recognizes that they have got work to
do in this area--it says we recognize that there are still
outstanding issues that must be addressed before Israel's
participation in the program can be finalized and we urge both
sides to continue working to addressing these issues including
the reciprocal treatment of U.S. citizens to ensure Israel's
compliance with all program requirements before September 30,
2023.
This amendment, of course, would deal with this case but it
also has a general applicability. I mean, this just says as
part of reciprocity you cannot discriminate against Americans
traveling to your country based on religion, race, or
ethnicity.
Now, of course, any country can choose to do whatever they
want on their entry programs. But if they want to be part of
the Visa Waiver Program, which is a privilege, then they have
got to make sure that they abide by the blue is blue principle
and I hope we would all support this and make sure every
American is treated fairly when they are traveling overseas to
a country that we have included in the Visa Waiver Program.
The Chairman. Any other member seeking to speak to the
amendment?
Senator Merkley. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Senator Merkley?
Senator Merkley. I just strongly echo the core principle
here. It is a very, very brief amendment but the key words are
saying that in this program a country cannot discriminate
against a United States citizen on the basis of the citizen's
race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, or membership in
any protected class recognized by U.S. law.
It is making sure that blue is blue. The principle of all
the waiver--the Visa Waiver Programs and it absolutely should
be a principle in which we all stand for the fair treatment of
all Americans.
The Chairman. Any other members seeking recognition?
Senator Coons?
Senator Coons. Perhaps I misunderstand the underlying
facts. There is a slight difference but to me an important one
between this amendment, which prohibits State from nominating a
country for the Visa Waiver Program, and what I was reassured
was strong reciprocity requirements to be included in the Visa
Waiver Program.
Is there a process concern about this amendment blocking
State from nominating a country rather than concluding the
agreement?
Senator Van Hollen. No. The way this works, and we have had
extensive briefings on this, it turns out that the ultimate
decisionmaker is the Department of Homeland Security but they
only will consider an application when the Department of
State--the Secretary of State--has determined that it meets the
requirements, especially in the area of reciprocity which is an
area that the State Department has jurisdiction over.
Senator Coons. Are you concerned the State Department will
nominate a country without their having satisfied the
underlying reciprocity requirements of the program?
Senator Van Hollen. The State Department has been--has been
clear that they intend to apply the reciprocity principle. I
think it is important that we make clear what our Ambassador to
Israel has said that means.
That is all this does and it applies not just in the case
of Israel. Obviously, it applies across the board and I would
think it is a policy we would want to adopt for countries that
are admitted in the Visa Waiver Program.
The Chairman. Any other member wishing recognition on the
amendment?
There are no others. What do you wish to do?
Senator Van Hollen. I ask for a vote, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. A recorded vote?
Senator Van Hollen. Yes, or a voice vote.
The Chairman. I am just asking you what you want.
Senator Van Hollen. A vote is fine.
The Chairman. A voice vote or a recorded vote?
Senator Van Hollen. Yes. I will ask for a voice vote. I am
fine with a voice vote.
The Chairman. All those in favor will say aye.
All those opposed will say no.
The ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to.
So at this point instead of just going down the line I know
that Senator--so now let me just speak to Senator Cruz's
amendment.
We have had done some significant vetting of the actual
wording, also conferred with the administration who,
unfortunately, chose to speak to Senator Cruz and not to us,
which would have been helpful at the end of the day.
And so I would tell the State Department representative
here I really do not appreciate that. I cannot operate in a
vacuum and I cannot operate with the State Department operating
behind my back. But it seems that we are in concurrence.
Now, would you like to offer your amendment?
Senator Cruz. I would like to offer my amendment and I
would be fine with a voice vote.
The Chairman. Anyone who wishes to speak to the amendment?
Senator Merkley?
Senator Merkley. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
So I have a question for you, Senator Cruz. So as I read
this what I see is that it says that you do not need
environmental documents completed up front but the President
can make the approval conditional on completion of the
documents.
Senator Cruz. Correct.
Senator Merkley. But once the documents are completed what
if the documents come up with something that says, well, there
are some big environmental problems here? It seems like all
this bill requires is completion of the documents and there is
no real path in which the President says, well, now that we
have discovered this problem we need to rework things. So what
is the point of even completing the environmental documents if
they have actually no effect at all?
Senator Cruz. Because the bridges cannot get built without
the NEPA review and it has to comply with NEPA. So it is the
same standard that applies to any other bridge that we are
building anywhere else.
It is just this has a weird wrinkle because it is cross
border with another country. So if we were building a bridge in
any of our States you go through a NEPA review and if there
were environmental concerns you would have to address those
concerns or you could not build the project.
Senator Merkley. But do you? I mean, that is the question
because all this requires is completion of the documents.
Senator Cruz. But under the terms of NEPA they have to
complete--they have to satisfy NEPA to be able to build the
project.
Senator Merkley. I am going to take your word for it. If
that is not the case then when we are on the floor I will
suggest a modification to make sure that the completion of the
documents actually has some relevance.
The Chairman. All right. Does the Senator--anyone wish to
speak to the amendment beyond?
If not, does the Senator wish to accept a voice vote?
Senator Cruz. Yes.
The Chairman. All those in favor will say aye.
All those opposed will say no.
The ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to.
Who else has a pending amendment? OK.
Senator Murphy has not had an opportunity yet so I will let
Senator Shaheen go vote, come back.
Senator Murphy?
Senator Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Murphy 4, which I hope will draw bipartisan support. This
is authorizing the establishment of an Office of City-State
Diplomacy. This has been a bipartisan proposal before the
Senate for a number of years, first myself with Senator Perdue,
now myself and Senator Cornyn.
This is a desperately needed capacity at the State
Department to help States and municipalities engage in
diplomacy.
China is doing this at a supersized level. The city of
Shanghai alone has 100 people helping to coordinate just
Shanghai's diplomacy around the region and around the world.
The Biden administration has established this office. This
legislation--this amendment would simply codify the existence
of an office that would be tasked with doing two things--first,
helping city and State officials engage in diplomacy.
That is a smart use of our State Department abilities
because our State Department officials cannot be everywhere so
why not help city and State officials represent the United
States around the world.
But maybe more importantly this office is tasked currently
and would be tasked under this legislation with helping to give
advice to cities and States who are getting visits from foreign
diplomats, primarily from Chinese officials.
There are all sorts of incidences of Chinese officials
coming to the United States and trying to push their agenda and
offering support and help for local programs dependent upon
statements from local officials on the status of Taiwan.
This office helps those municipalities try to understand
when to engage and when not to engage with the Chinese
Government.
And so I am hopeful that this can be made part of the State
Authorization bill. Again, it has been a bipartisan proposal.
It is codifying a capacity that is in the State Department
today, and I think given the amount of effort that China is
putting into this effort to try to co-opt our State and local
officials it is a wise investment.
The Chairman. I appreciate the Senator's amendment. Anyone
who wishes to speak to it?
Senator Ricketts?
Senator Ricketts. Yes. As a former Governor I would say
that the State Department does no outreach to--did not outreach
to me personally with regard to my trade missions with China
even to tell me do not take your electronics over there, which
would have been really helpful ahead of time, and I think you
have a lot of new Governors who may be naive about the threat
the People's Republic of China presents and I do think there is
a need to help Governors, mayors, whoever is going to engage
with China with some direction on how.
I will tell you in my experience there was none from the
State Department.
The Chairman. Anyone else wishing to speak to the
amendment? Does the Senator----
Senator Murphy. Have a voice vote.
The Chairman. All of those--the Senator asked for a voice
vote.
All those in favor will say aye.
All those opposed will say no.
The ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to.
Who--Senator Kaine?
Senator Kaine. To my colleagues, this--let me call up--it
was originally Kaine Second Degree 1 to Menendez First Degree.
The Menendez First Degree was the AUKUS package that got added.
So now it is just an amendment to the AUKUS package and let
me tell folks what this is and this is something that our
offered together with Senator Shaheen.
So AUKUS will in pillar one involve cooperation around the
submarines, first U.S.--use of U.S. submarines and eventually
the production of an Australian submarine down into the 2030's
and 2040's.
The industrial base of our defense sector--and Senator
Shaheen and I are both on the Armed Services Committee--have
raised a good question, which is where are the repairs of U.S.
subs going to be done that are part of the AUKUS mission and
this matters a lot to the Defense Industrial Base, which
matters a lot to all of our States.
What this proposal would do is basically say this, that if
U.S. subs--now, not Australian subs but if U.S. subs are being
used in the AUKUS mission and there is a need for repair or
refurbishment of the subs the President can decide whether they
should be repaired or refurbished in the U.S., U.K., or
Australia.
But if the President decides that they should be repaired
and refurbished not in the U.S. the President has to certify
one of three things. Here are the three conditions.
One, that the repair or refurbishment will help the
capabilities of the U.K. or Australia. That is a pretty big
exemption. Or two, that the repair or refurbishment is for a
U.S. sub that is home ported outside the United States. It
would home ported in Japan.
Senator Risch. Say that one again.
Senator Kaine. No. 2, and these are--if you meet any of
these criteria it is OK. The second one is the repair or
refurbishment will be for a U.S. sub that is assigned to a port
outside the U.S. So maybe it is Japan or maybe they might be
ported in Australia in the future.
Or three, that the Sec Def just says there is an emergency
that would suggest that it is better to repair this in the U.K.
and Australia. We have worked together with the Defense
Industrial Base.
I am chairman of the Sea Power Subcommittee in Armed
Services. They feel like this will give them some assurances
there will not just be willy nilly decisions to do the repairs
outside the U.S. except if one of these three broad criteria
are met and the criteria are broad enough that I think it both
protects our industrial base but gives the President and the
AUKUS framework the latitude they need to be successful.
The Chairman. Is there anyone else wishing to speak to the
amendment?
Voice. Is this No. 1 or No. 2?
Senator Kaine. This is Kaine Second Degree 1 to Menendez
First Degree to provide for certain authorities of the
Department of State and for other purposes and it begins on
line three with shipyards.
The Chairman. Senator Shaheen?
Senator Shaheen. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me
just briefly say that I support Senator Kaine's amendment and
both from the perspective of somebody on the Armed Services
Committee but also as someone who has one of our public
shipyards as part of the State of New Hampshire.
I think it is really important that we have some assurances
that the U.S. public shipyards are also going to be included as
we think about what we need to do to sustain both the current
and the future fleet.
So I think this is an amendment that really helps to do
that and I hope that we can support it, and I hope as we go
forward on AUKUS and other provisions that we might need to
include to address it I think it is an important agreement.
But there are a lot of particulars that are going to affect
our States and our own ability to secure our submarine fleet
and so I hope that we can work together to do that.
The Chairman. Anyone else wishing to speak to the
amendment?
And how does the Senator want to proceed?
Senator Kaine. Voice vote is fine.
The Chairman. All those in favor will say aye.
All those opposed will say no.
The ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to.
Is there anyone else who has an amendment pending that they
wish to offer?
Senator Shaheen?
Senator Shaheen. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will
be brief because I am really--I am not going to offer this but
I am hoping that you will--you and the ranking member will work
with us on this.
And this is kind of a complicated issue but basically there
are 277 current and former Foreign Service employees who were
ranked for promotion and designation by the Foreign Service
selection board in 2014 who have not been paid their
meritorious service.
Because the Government was in a shutdown, the State
Department decided not to pay that salary component from 2013
through 2016 as an austerity measure. But they have now gone
back and paid everybody who fell into that bucket except that
2014 cohort, and I think it is just not fair that they got--
they got left out when everybody else got taken care of on
something that they were promised.
So the State Department has said that they cannot do this
independently. But I think they should make this right. It was
a decision that they made and I hope that the committee
leadership will work with me to help get this done.
The Chairman. I am happy to work with you, Senator
Shaheen----
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
The Chairman [continuing]. To rectify the inequity that
took place. Are there any other members seeking to offer an
amendment?
Senator Coons?
Senator Coons. I just briefly wanted to thank the Chairman
for accommodating four amendments that I moved forward. One of
two--I am not going to offer two--were incorporated into the
Manager's Package and I just appreciate overall a very
constructive process.
I must go for 5 minutes to speak to a group and come right
back and my understanding is that enough to be a quorum. Is
that correct?
The Chairman. I think we are at the--at least on this we
are at the moment to vote. So if you can stay one moment.
Senator Coons. And an expression just in terms of AUKUS I
am not sure where this language ended up in the end of all the
back and forth.
I hope that we are respecting Australian sovereignty as we
work out a strategic partnership with them. I am probably late
to the party in expressing that concern.
Mr. Chairman, Thank you for tolerating that.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Anyone else wishing to offer an amendment?
If not then I will entertain a motion to approve S. 2043 as
amended. Is there a motion to that effect?
Voice. So moved.
The Chairman. So moved. Second it?
I think we can have a voice vote in this regard unless
there is a request otherwise.
All those in favor will say aye.
All those opposed will say no.
The ayes have it and the legislation is favorably reported
to the Senate. Thank you all for your work.
Let me turn now to S. 416, Holding Russian Mercenary Act--
Holding Accountable Russian Mercenaries Act. Without objection
we will consider S. 416.
Is there a motion to adopt the Manager's Package?
Senator Cardin. So moved.
The Chairman. So moved. Moved, and seconded? Is there a
second for the Manager's Package on S. 416?
Voice. Seconded.
The Chairman. Thank you. A second.
The question is on approving the Manager's Package to S.
416, Holding Russia Accountable Mercenaries Act.
All those in favor will say aye.
All those opposed will say no.
With the majority of members present having voted in the
affirmative the ayes have it and the Manager's Package is
agreed to.
Now we move to amendments. Are there any amendments to be
offered on S. 416?
Senator--I am sorry. Let me go down--I am sorry, I did not
see the hands before. Who has a hand up?
Senator Coons. I just wanted to express concerns, given my
conversations with the State Department, about the impact of
this on critical humanitarian and the development trajectory,
and I will wait until I hear the outcome of the amendment
votes. But I have significant concerns with the bill as
currently written.
The Chairman. Senator Merkley?
Senator Merkley. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I am calling up
Merkley No. 1 and it addresses very specifically the point that
Chris is making.
It would exempt humanitarian assistance and peace building
activities from the definition for material support with
respect to the activities of the Wagner Group. I know it is no
one's intention to disrupt the humanitarian impacts on so many
challenges we have and I would be happy to accept a voice vote.
The Chairman. Anyone else wishing to speak to the
amendment?
Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman, I am going to oppose these
amendments. I think this really takes the teeth out of what we
are trying to do to Wagner. I appreciate what the Senator is
trying to do but I am going to oppose this amendment.
The Chairman. I do not want Wagner to avoid the
consequences of its actions because of a legitimate concern on
humanitarian assistance being an impediment. I do not believe
that is the way the legislation is written. But I do believe
that Senator Merkley's amendment can help in that regard and so
I will support his amendment.
Is there anyone else who wishes to speak?
Does the Senator accept a voice vote or do you seek a
recorded vote?
Senator Merkley. A voice vote is fine and thank you very
much to Senator Booker for co-sponsoring this amendment.
The Chairman. I appreciate Senator Booker's co-sponsorship.
All right.
All those in favor will say aye.
All those opposed will say no.
The ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to.
Is there any other amendment?
Senator Booker?
Senator Booker. I know we are pressed on time, Mr.
Chairman. Thank you. I am going to go quick. I have prepared
some remarks.
This is really extraordinary important. It is dealing with
a really pernicious awful group. We know much about Wagner.
They have spread across the Middle East and Africa sowing
instability, exploitation, gross abuses of human rights.
We also know over the past several years Wagner has
attempted several--to turn several African countries into
fiefdoms for its mercenaries and criminal activities, helping
to finance its front-line fighters in Ukraine.
And we all have seen the horrific death and devastation
Wagner has caused in Ukraine alongside the Russian military
forces. They are accused of thousands of war crimes.
The full-scale invasion of Ukraine was launched in 2022, as
we know. Notably, Wagner has played a key role in the killing
of 419 people including 9 children during the Russian
occupation of Bucha, a Ukrainian city, obviously, northwest of
Kyiv.
In Africa, Wagner preys on the desperation of troubled
regimes, exploiting citizens and fueling conflict. The group's
networks of shadowy companies extends across Africa including
nations like the Central African Republic, Libya, Mali, Sudan,
Mozambique, and Burkina Faso.
In the Central African Republic the Wagner Group has
established substantial dominance over the country's political
and military leadership. In Libya the Wagner forces are accused
of committing extrajudicial killings and more.
In Mali, in the United Nations report Wagner mercenaries
have been slaughtering hundreds of people and most recently
Wagner has amplified violent conflicts in Sudan.
Wherever Wagner goes it does bring death, destruction,
instability. Its presence erodes accountability and really
undermines truly legal African regimes.
And so this is not a question of should we combat Wagner's
coercive activities. It is a question of how do we combat
Wagner's corrosive activities and what are the most effective
tools at our disposal.
To date the administration has designated Wagner as a
transnational criminal organization and imposed sanctions
against Wagner actors and facilitators for specific
destabilization activities.
The group's designation--in additional measures we have
been able to freeze the Wagner Group's assets in the U.S.,
forbid Americans from offering goods, services, and financial
support to the group.
We are--we are actively collaborating with other nations
and partners to prevent the Wagner Group from gaining access to
essential resources such as transportation access, materials,
personnel and financial aid.
These designations and other actions show the seriousness
of this administration and Congress in dealing with the complex
challenges of Wagner's shadowy network. We should continue to
work together to find ways to deter Wagner and hold them
accountable, and I imagine everyone sitting in this room feels
that strongly.
And so to the HARM Act I am concerned, as Senator Coons
indicated and some of my colleagues, I believe, share that this
is not the most effective tool that we could use and actually
might do more harm than good.
We need more information, especially due to the evolving
and uncertain future of the Wagner Group itself given recent
events. We know that we have wide ranging consequences when
there is a FTO designation.
This would have a real challenge to our humanitarian
operations, diplomatic and geopolitical interests, as well as
the security interests, particularly across countries in
Africa.
First and foremost, the administration and independent
groups have raised a lot of serious concerns that an FTO
designation would constrain efforts to end conflicts and
deliver much-needed humanitarian aid in countries where Wagner
is active.
We know this best because we have seen it in the past. We
know when we put an FTO designation on the Houthi the result
actually was concerns from international communities, others
doing incredible important humanitarian aid, so that
designation was rescinded.
In the context of Wagner I am particularly concerned that
the FTO designation would compromise critical humanitarian aid
in countries like Mali and the Central African Republic, and
with the conflict in Sudan right now it could have chilling
effects because it is such a blunt instrument.
In these countries where Wagner's shadowy network is active
and not always obvious many people are currently relying on
humanitarian assistance for survival.
Second, the FTO destination could backlash by hamstringing
our renewed engagement across the continent of Africa and
alienating African governments that host Wagner without
offering an alternative to their security concerns. We could be
driving them into the--further into the hands of Wagner.
Of course, we have concerns about governments that host
Wagner. However, instead of incentivizing cutting ties, FTO
designation could cause the opposite effect while reinforcing
the perception that the U.S. fails to prioritize the local
security concerns of key nations that are facing instability.
Should Wagner's links to Moscow become more overt, our
African partners could further resent being used as pawns in
our big power--in this big yet important power struggle.
The whole conversation shows that we need to reinvigorate
our diplomatic energy and do better sharing information with
our African partners and be more engaged in these countries in
order to undermine the corrosive influence of Wagner.
That is why I am grateful to this committee for
incorporating some of my other amendments into the Manager's
Package. But we have to be careful with this. Congress
mandating an FTO designation is unprecedented. We have
encouraged designations, yes. We have suggested designations,
yes.
But we have not mandated it. Why? Because the State
Department has a process for making FTO determinations. This
process works to mitigate----
The Chairman. Could I ask the Senator how much longer he is
this going to be?
Senator Booker. I am almost wrapping up, sir. I know you--
--
The Chairman. OK. Because you are past your 5 minutes. I
have not even started----
Senator Booker. Sir, you have endured many of my long
speeches. I will make this quick.
The Chairman. Yes. Only because I do not want to lose
quorum. So----
Senator Booker. Yes, I understand. So, again, our approach
should be to fully understand why this determination has not
been made, take the time to work with the State Department to
assess the potential effects of the designation, and take
appropriate action.
And so I would like to bring up the--my amendment, Booker
Amendment 1, and my amendment would require the Secretary of
State to assess the impact of Wagner. The assessment would
require the administration to consider the full implications of
the FTO designation's effectiveness and how to mitigate its
consequences.
It offers a pathway to minimize potential harm while
continuing efforts to dismantle Wagner's operations. Finally,
this amendment also allows the administration the flexibility
to respond to evolving events on the ground, which is so
important since the underlying bill was written even prior to
the issues we saw with Wagner in Russia and, as a result, we
are all following what is happening.
And so I just find, especially with watching what is going
on in Mali, the Central African Republic, and Sudan, I urge
this committee to consider my amendment and to vote it in.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Cardin, I understand you want to be heard.
Senator Cardin. Yes. First, I accept the first third of
your argument as you were rightly pointing out the horrific
activities of the Wagner Group.
I strongly oppose your amendment and let me give you the
reason why. Humanitarian assistance--I agree with Senator
Menendez.
The original bill provided for that type of considerations.
Senator Merkley's amendment clarifies that further. I am glad
that we have that in the bill, and I do not think it was
necessary but it is in the bill. It is now very explicit. So
the humanitarian issue has been already dealt with in the
language that we have done.
But let me just give you a little bit of background here
about legislative prerogatives versus the executive branch. We
in the United States are blessed with our system of government
where we have separation and independent branches of government
where we can push the executive in directions sometimes they do
not--we cannot go diplomatically.
But we do not have to worry about those niceties. I think
very much of Senator Menendez's original bill for mandatory
sanctions against Iran that the administration was very much
opposed to.
It was the right policy and we led with that policy. I
think about the Magnitsky sanctions and the administration
opposing the Magnitsky sanctions. We were right to force the
administration to go in that direction when diplomatically they
found that difficult. The same thing is true with the Wagner
Group.
Look, being designated as a transnational criminal
organization is important and it provides certain abilities.
But FTO provides much stronger incentives to be able to go
against what they are doing internationally.
So this is Congress exercising our clear message that the
Wagner Group are thugs, what they are doing is terrorism, what
they have done, as you pointed out in the first third of your
statement, is absolutely accurate and we have the prerogative
to legislate. Let us legislate today.
The Chairman. Any other members seeking recognition?
First of all, I agree with my dear friend from New Jersey
that it is important to look closely at the potential impacts
of an FTO designation of Wagner and to work to mitigate any
that are harmful, and I think that to the extent that I believe
the underlying bill met that goal we further enhanced it by the
adoption of Senator Merkley's amendments so that there is no
question about the humanitarian aspects under the legislation.
I would also say it would be ironic that coup leaders and
tyrants who use Wagner to stay in power can ultimately be
protected by our concern on humanitarian elements that they are
the ones driving to a large degree that humanitarian distress.
So in the balance of things I think we have gotten it
right. I understand the Senator's concerns. I am loathe to vote
against my colleagues amendment but in this particular occasion
I will.
Anyone else seeking recognition?
How does the Senator want to proceed?
Senator Booker. I would like a recorded vote, please.
The Chairman. 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. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
Senator Murphy. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
Senator Kaine. No.
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. Ms. Duckworth?
Senator Duckworth. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
Senator Risch. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
Senator Romney. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Ricketts?
Senator Ricketts. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
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. Hagerty?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Scott?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are eight. The noes are
13.
The Chairman. And the amendment is not agreed to.
Is there any other amendments pending before the committee
on this legislation?
If not, then is there a motion to approve S. 416 as
amended?
Senator Cardin. So moved.
The Chairman. So moved. Is there a second?
Senator Shaheen. Second.
The Chairman. Seconded.
All those in favor will say aye.
All those opposed will say no.
The ayes have it and the legislation is----
Senator Schatz. I am sorry. Mr. Chairman, I was
anticipating a roll call vote on that one.
The Chairman. You were--no one asked for it.
Senator Schatz. I understand. I am just wondering whether
we can have a recorded vote on that unless it is--unless you
want to proceed. We have already voted.
The Chairman. I would ask members if they want a recorded
vote to let me know before so I----
Senator Schatz. I just did not know it was so quick. I am
sorry, Chairman.
The Chairman. There has to be a request for a recorded
vote.
The Clerk will call the roll. 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. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
Senator Murphy. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
Senator Kaine. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
Senator Merkley. Aye.
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. Ms. Duckworth?
Senator Duckworth. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
Senator Risch. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
Senator Romney. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Ricketts?
Senator Ricketts. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
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. Hagerty?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Scott?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Aye. Clerk will report.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 14. The noes are
seven.
The Chairman. And the legislation is favorably reported to
the Senate.
Let me turn to what I hope will be an en bloc process.
Without objection, we will now consider en bloc the rest of the
items in the agenda including several bills and resolutions
including any substitute and manager's amendments as well as
nominations and FSO lists. All the legislation and nomination
FSO lists on the agenda have been listed on the agenda and I
welcome any member who wishes to speak to any of them.
Senator Cardin?
Senator Cardin. Could I ask that the Peace Corps be removed
from that list? I would like to talk about it separately.
The Chairman. Surely, we can have a separate--OK.
Any--Senator Shaheen?
Senator Shaheen. I just wanted to point out that the Global
Respect Act that we had hoped we might get some agreement on we
have not heard from the minority on that. So I assume that
means they continue to disagree with the legislation.
I am disappointed that we cannot come to some agreement at
least on the fact that people who are LGBTQI should not be
persecuted in a way that is happening in too many countries
around the world.
So I hope that, going forward, we might be able to get some
agreement to address the concerns that we heard from Senator
Cruz and Senator Paul and Senator Risch and yet address the
underlying concern about people who are really being tortured,
killed, maimed across the world.
The Chairman. I appreciate your remarks. I share your
concerns. I support your initiative and I look forward to
working with you to see if we can find a way to make it happen.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
The Chairman. Any other individuals as it relates to all
but the Peace Corps Reauthorization Act? If not--as well as the
nominations and FSO lists.
Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Yes, Senator Risch?
Senator Risch. I do intend to support the situation. I had
real concerns about the Mills nomination. However, he has
written a letter speaking to the concerns that I have. I would
like to put that in the record and I will support his
nomination.
The Chairman. OK. Senator Risch's request is approved
without objection.
[The information referred to above is located at the end of
this meeting transcript.]
The Chairman. All right. I know, I need a vote. Unless
there is a request for a recorded vote, is there a motion to
approve all of the items except for the Peace Corps
Reauthorization Act, which will be held separately by voice
vote?
Senator Coons. So moved.
The Chairman. So moved and seconded.
All those in favor will say aye.
All those opposed will say no.
The ayes have it and the legislation and nominations and
FSO lists are favorably reported to the Senate.
Now we will return to S. 1203, Peace Corps Reauthorization
Act of 2023.
Senator Cardin, you are recognized.
Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Peace
Corps. I strongly support the substantive changes that are made
in this legislation.
To me, it has been one of the greatest investments we have
made since President Kennedy in 1961 established the Peace
Corps. Two hundred and forty thousand service-minded Americans
have volunteered in 142 countries.
We get our return plus so much more by the investments that
we make in the Peace Corps. Yet, for more than 20 years the
Peace Corps budget authorization has not been renewed and the
appropriations have been flat, basically, for many years. That
means it is shrinking in real terms, even with the modest
increase in this year's appropriations.
I noted three amendments and I did that for a reason. The
authorization is the old authorization number, which is $410.5
million whereas the current appropriation is $435 million.
I do not think we should be authorizing at a lower level
than we are currently appropriating. In fact, I think we should
be increasing the appropriations level.
So I have offered three choices, which I thought was
reasonable, because I recognize the challenge we have to
maintain the bipartisan nature of this bill.
One would bump it up to $435 million, which is the current
level. The second would use a 5-year escalation to $495
million, which is basically their plan. The third, if we do not
want to put a number in, such sums may be necessary.
I would think that is a reasonable--we do not want to put
out an authorization that is lower than the appropriations
level, particularly when there is challenges this year on
appropriation levels.
Now, I am going to look to our leaders, our chairman and
ranking member. I will not support the bill as currently
drafted and I would seek your advice. I do not want to derail
the bill so I am going to seek your advice as to whether I
should be offering an amendment or not at this stage.
The Chairman. I share totally your objectives and I think
it should be more robust. However, I am working with the art of
the possible, and I have checked in with the Peace Corps.
I checked in with the our colleagues in the House who are
offering this legislation. They think they cannot get beyond
this particular authorization. My discussions with the minority
leads me to believe I cannot get more. If I could get more I
would and keep the possibility of reauthorization.
The Peace Corps has not been reauthorized for so long. It
really needs a reauthorization and I would seek to do
everything I can to increase it. But I do not have the
necessary support to make that happen and that is the only
reason that that authorization is the level that is listed
there.
Senator Cardin. Well, I would just respond. I cannot
support an authorization level lower than the current
appropriation level because I am concerned the pressure it puts
on the appropriators if we act on an authorization level which
is lower than the current appropriation level.
Senator Coons. Might I speak, Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Senator Coons?
Senator Coons. I deeply respect the tension between you and
Chairman Menendez and mine and I suspect many other members'
enthusiasm for returning the Peace Corps robustly to the field.
I believe in it as a model and I intend--in fact, I have just
specifically been working through how we get as robust an
appropriation for the Peace Corps as possible given very real
constraints in this year's appropriation process.
In any event, what language appears in this bill will not
set the amount that is appropriate, without putting too fine a
point on it. This will not prevent us from appropriating above
the authorized level.
The Chairman. So much for the importance of this committee.
[Laughter.]
Senator Coons. Well, if this is the price of getting a
State Authorization bill----
The Chairman. No, this is separate from State
Authorization. This is--we are outside of State----
Senator Coons. I am sorry. If this is the cost of getting
the Peace Corps authorized for the first time in decades.
The Chairman. I get it. I get it.
Senator Coons. We will hash out that gap.
The Chairman. Well, if you can convince Senator Risch and
the minority to join you in upping the amount I will happily do
it. But I do not hear any voices urging----
Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to offer my
amendments because I do not want to disrupt the relationship
you have in moving this bill forward. But I will cast a
negative vote.
The Chairman. I understand.
Senator Merkley?
Senator Merkley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just wanted to share that recently on a trip to Vietnam
and Indonesia, Vietnam has just reestablished the Peace Corps.
As we work with the ASEAN nations, our Peace Corps presence
is a significant part of the soft power relationship that we
have and this is particularly important in the context of the
discussions we have been having about Chinese power in the
region, and it plays such a powerful role in other places in
the world in those relationships.
I am not sure that you have--you are conveying that there
is--I have not heard the strong opposition to the role of the
Peace Corps but perhaps it exists.
But I must say all I have seen is that it is a very
powerful complement to our mission of supporting economic
development and democracy in the world and I would certainly
like to see us authorizing consistent with the appropriators.
It is kind of an interesting dynamic that we have here, and if
there was support on both sides of the aisle I would sure like
to see us adopt one of Senator Cardin's approaches.
The Chairman. So would I but I hear no voices rising to the
occasion. So in the absence of that, I think an authorization
is important. It has been rudderless for so long.
We will continue to work to buildup its appropriation. The
cardinals at the appropriation will do what they want to do,
and away we go.
You want to talk about being a cardinal? Is that it?
Senator Van Hollen. Sorry. I do not want to--well, I do. I
do, Mr. Chairman, because I want to make--I share my senior
Senator's concern about this and I want to make sure I
understand what is happening here because as I understand
Senator Coons he is saying that the current appropriations
would exceed the authorization level in this bill.
It will likely, I know, but which does beg the question
about whether this is sending a signal to reduce it in future
years, which is I think Senator Cardin's concern. Maybe Senator
Coons can weigh in on that because----
Senator Cardin. Well, you ignore us is what you are saying.
Senator Coons. We do--we do not ignore you, speaking as
someone who serves on both committees.
Senator Shaheen. Can we vote?
The Chairman. If they want to close the vote they can close
the vote. They do not need my vote. It is okay.
Gentlemen and ladies, all I can tell you is I totally share
your desire. I would have appropriated it--authorized it at a
much higher appropriation. That is not the art of the possible
here and I think everybody can cast their vote accordingly and
I will respect whatever that is.
I am moving for an authorization because without it I just
think that everything else about the Peace Corps does not get
handled appropriately.
Senator Risch. I would ask for the question.
Senator Cardin. It is okay to have a voice vote as long as
I am recorded.
The Chairman. Of course.
All right. Since there is no one else to speak to the
legislation is there a motion to accept a voice vote?
Senator Kaine. So moved.
The Chairman. So moved.
Senator Risch. Second.
The Chairman. Second.
All those in favor will say aye.
All those opposed will say no.
Senator Cardin. And I will be recorded as a no.
The Chairman. Senator Cardin shall be recorded as a no.
I ask unanimous consent that the staff be authorized to
make technical and conforming amendments. Without objection so
ordered, and with that this business meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:21 p.m., the meeting was adjourned.]
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Letter sent to Senator Risch, by Richard Mills, Jr., regarding Mills's
nomination to be U.S. Ambassador to the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
BUSINESS MEETING
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2023
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
Summary of Action Taken by the Committee
NOMINATIONS
The Honorable James C. O'Brien, of Nebraska, to be an Assistant
Secretary of State (European and Eurasian Affairs)--agreed to
favorably by voice vote (Rubio, Cruz recorded as no)
The Honorable Dennis B. Hankins, of Minnesota, a Career Member of the
Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United
States of America to the Republic of Haiti--agreed to favorably
by voice vote
Ms. Nathalie Rayes, of Massachusetts, to be Ambassador Extraordinary
and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the
Republic of Croatia--agreed to favorably by roll call vote (11-
10)
Ayes: Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, Kaine,
Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen (proxy), Duckworth
Nays: Risch, Rubio (proxy), Romney (proxy), Ricketts, Paul
(proxy), Young (proxy), Barrasso (proxy), Cruz (proxy), Hagerty
(proxy), Scott (proxy)
Mr. Tobin John Bradley, 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 Guatemala--agreed to favorably by
voice vote (Rubio recorded as no)
Meeting Transcript
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:57 a.m., in
Room 116, The Capitol Building, Hon. Robert Menendez, chairman
of the committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Menendez [presiding], Cardin, Shaheen,
Coons, Kaine, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen, Duckworth,
Risch, and Ricketts.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY
The Chairman. This meeting of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee business meeting will come to order. And I apologize
for being a few minutes late. I got tied up with the issue of
Artsakh. We have--I am not going to go through all of this. I
am going to save my comments for the record.
We have four important nominees. I support all of them. I
want to thank Senator Risch for the good work in progress over
the last several weeks and our collective efforts to craft a
bill that holistically addresses our foreign policy challenges
with China.
I am pleased that we are getting closer to having a final
text, which will include input from many members of the
committee, and we look forward to sharing that final text with
all of you. My goal is to mark up the China bill early next
month. With that, let me recognize Senator Risch.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert Menendez
This business meeting of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
will come to order.
Today's agenda includes four important nominees. I appreciate the
work of the ranking member in bringing this meeting together.
Before addressing the nominations, I would also like to thank
Senator Risch for the good work and progress over the last several
weeks on our collective efforts to craft a bill that holistically
addresses our foreign policy challenges with China. I am pleased that
we are getting closer to having a final text, which will include input
from many members of the committee, and which we look forward to
sharing with all of you. My goal is to markup the China bill early next
month.
Now to the nominees--First, we are considering the nomination of
Ambassador O'Brien, who is an ideal candidate to be Assistant Secretary
for the Bureau for European and Eurasian Affairs. From the Western
Balkans to the former Soviet Union, he has experience working with key
interlocutors in Eastern and Central Europe who are on the frontlines
of defending democracy around the world. He understands intimately the
role that sanctions play in our foreign policy, critical to degrading
Russia's war machine.
We are also considering the nomination of Nathalie Rayes to be
Ambassador to Croatia. I have the honor of knowing Ms. Rayes for many
years, and am pleased that President Biden recognized her immense
talent and experience when he nominated her. I share the President's
confidence in Ms. Rayes and I am proud of her leadership on issues that
I care deeply about. These include advocating for and amplifying Latino
voices to help our democracy work better for all Americans. Her
experience serving on the boards of international affairs institutions
at the forefront of advancing our foreign policy priorities, as well as
her extensive experience working with Americans across the country,
will serve her well when we confirm her to represent us in Zagreb.
Finally, we have the nominations of Ambassador Dennis Hankins for
Haiti and Tobin Bradley for Guatemala. There is no more critical time
for the United States to have a Senate-confirmed ambassador in both
countries representing our interests. As Haiti continues to grapple
with one of the worst security, governance, and humanitarian crises in
our hemisphere and as Guatemala faces a growing influence of
transnational criminal organizations, we desperately need U.S.
leadership to help address these issues. I am confident that Ambassador
Hankins and Mr. Bradley are the right people for the job.
With that, I'll turn to Ranking Member Risch for his opening
remarks.
Senator Risch. Well, I will do likewise, Mr. Chairman. I
know everybody has got other things to do that they have got to
get to. Appreciate that. I would ask that members to be allowed
to record their no votes if you are going to vote en bloc. I
don't know if you are. I would ask for a roll call vote though
on Rayes--thank you.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. RISCH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like to begin with Mr. O'Brien's nomination. At this
crucial time in Europe, it is key we have a strong leader in
the Europe and Eurasia Bureau. The Bureau should have had him
confirmed before the August recess.
Over the last year, Mr. O'Brien served as the Department's
first sanctions coordinator at the Department--a role I worked
hard to set up. While I believe he did a great job setting up
this new office, he wasn't always playing with a full deck
given some of the problematic sanctions decisions this
administration has made--particularly with regard to Nord
Stream II and Caesar Act compliance.
Despite having been put in some difficult situations, Mr.
O'Brien made his office a go-to for the U.S. interagency as
well as our allies. I thank him for his service, and look
forward to working with him in this new role.
On the nomination of Ambassador to Croatia--I have
thoroughly reviewed Mrs. Rayes' nomination and express my
appreciation for her cooperation throughout the vetting
process.
Despite her taking some steps to rectify outstanding
issues, I still have a few concerns and will oppose the
nomination.
Finally, I am glad to see two career nominees on the agenda
for important posts in Haiti and Guatemala.
Haiti is in absolute crisis. We cannot afford for the
Administration to continue dithering. The United States must
take a more active role in bilateral and international efforts
to stabilize the nation and help the Haitian people retake
control of their country.
Guatemala is an important partner in addressing
transnational organized crime, the illegal migration crisis at
our southern border, and the malign influences of China in our
region.
The Administration should engage with the incoming
government of Guatemala to promote transparency and economic
prosperity through market-based solutions, encourage greater
border security in Central America, and strengthen trilateral
cooperation with Taiwan.
I ask that 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.
With that, I'll turn it back to the Chairman.
The Chairman. Okay. Well, without objection, we will now
consider en bloc several nominations--James O'Brien to be
Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs,
Dennis B. Hankins to be the Ambassador to Haiti, Tobin Bradley
to be the Ambassador to Guatemala. Does any--any Senator who
wishes to speak to these nominees?
[No response.]
The Chairman. If not, is there a motion to move en bloc?
Voice. So moved.
The Chairman. So moved. Second?
Voice. Second.
The Chairman. The motion has been made 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 the nominations are
reported to the Senate favorably. And then next----
Senator Risch. Maybe we can submit it and move on.
The Chairman. Yes, if anyone wishes----
Senator Risch. Thank you.
The Chairman [continuing]. If anyone wishes to submit their
no vote. Next is Nathalie Rayes to be the Ambassador to
Croatia. Let me just say very briefly, I know Ms. Rayes.
She is an exceptional individual. She is going to be one of
the first Latinas to serve us in Europe and has a deep
background from her time in the Woodrow Wilson Center and
others in terms of foreign policy affairs.
I strongly support her. Urge my colleagues to do the same.
Any other member who wishes to speak to her nomination? Senator
Risch.
Senator Risch. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I thoroughly reviewed Ms.
Rayes' nomination and expressed my appreciation to her for her
cooperation throughout the vetting process. With that said, our
ambassadors abroad need to reflect American values at home.
I have concerns due to Ms. Rayes' history of opposing pro-
life policies through her leadership role in institutions that
promote abortion, namely through Planned Parenthood. For this
reason, I am going to oppose her nomination.
The Chairman. Anyone else who wishes to--Senator Shaheen.
Senator Shaheen. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I want to speak in
favor of Ms. Rayes both because I think it is so critical that
we have an ambassador in Croatia and in the region. Croatia is
one of the countries in the Balkans, the Western Balkans, that
has been a blueprint for recovery from the conflict of the
breakup of Yugoslavia, and especially as we look at a
deteriorating situation in Bosnia, as we look at what is
happening in Montenegro and North Macedonia.
Having an ambassador in Croatia who can serve, help serve--
have the country serve as a model for those other countries in
the Western Balkans, I think is really important. And, you
know, Ms. Rayes has stepped down from her position on the board
of Planned Parenthood.
Her testimony affirmed her commitment to following U.S.
laws on abortion. The standard that says, we are not going to
support anyone who has been pro-choice, I think, is just--
denies all kinds of good people who have served this country,
the ability to continue to serve, and I just think that is a
really poor standard.
So, I hope we will support her and approve her.
The Chairman. Anyone else?
[No response.]
The Chairman. If not, a roll call vote has been requested.
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 Merkley?
Senator Merkley. Aye.
The Clerk. Senator Booker?
Senator Booker. Aye.
The Clerk. Senator Schatz?
Senator Schatz. Aye.
The Clerk. Senator Van Hollen?
The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Senator Duckworth?
Senator Duckworth. Aye.
The Clerk. Senator Risch?
Senator Risch. No.
The Clerk. Senator Rubio?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Senator Romney?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Senator Ricketts?
Senator Ricketts. No.
The Clerk. Senator Paul?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Senator Young?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Senator Barrasso?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Senator Cruz?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Senator Hagerty?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Senator Scott?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Aye.
The Clerk will report.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 11, the noes are 10.
The Chairman. The majority of members present having voted
in the affirmative, the ayes have it, and the nomination is
agreed to. I would ask unanimous consent that my full statement
be included in the record. Without objection.
Senator Risch. Chairman--
The Chairman. Yes.
Senator Risch. I would ask unanimous consent that I be
allowed to add two opinions from editorials to the AUKUS
hearing from September 6th, 2023.
The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information referred to can be found in the transcript
of the hearing held on September 6, 2023.]
The Chairman. With the thanks of the Chair to all of you,
thank you very much. This meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:02 a.m., the meeting was adjourned.]
----------
BUSINESS MEETING
----------
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2023
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
Summary of Action Taken by the Committee
NOMINATIONS
The Honorable Jacob J. Lew, of New York, to be Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of
America to the State of Israel--agreed to favorably by roll
call vote (12-9)
Ayes: Cardin, Menendez, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy (proxy), Kaine
(proxy), Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen, Duckworth, Paul
(proxy)
Nays: Risch, Rubio (proxy), Romney (proxy), Ricketts, Young,
Barrasso, Cruz (proxy), Hagerty (proxy), Scott (proxy)
Mr. Richard H. Riley IV, 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 Federal Republic of Somalia--agreed to favorably
by voice vote
Mr. Mark Toner, 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 Liberia--agreed to favorably by
voice vote
The Honorable Herro Mustafa Garg, of California, a Career Member of
the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United
States of America to the Arab Republic of Egypt--agreed to
favorably by voice vote (Cruz recorded as no)
The Honorable Paul K. Martin, of Maryland, to be Inspector General,
United States Agency for International Development--agreed to
favorably by voice vote
Mr. David E. White, Jr., of New York, to be Deputy Director of the
Peace Corps--agreed to favorably by voice vote (Rubio, Hagerty
recorded as no)
FSO LISTS
Andrew Edlefsen, et. al., dated February 13, 2023 (PN355)--agreed to
favorably by voice vote
Olutayo O. Akingbe, et. al., dated May 30, 2023--agreed to favorably
by voice vote
Meeting Transcript
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m., in
Room S-116, Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin, chairman of the committee,
presiding.
Present: Senators Cardin [presiding], Menendez, Shaheen,
Coons, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen, Duckworth, Risch,
Ricketts, Young, and Barrasso.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MARYLAND
The Chairman. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will
come to order.
Colleagues, I want to start with some very, very sad news.
I have been informed our beloved hearings manager Bertie Bowman
passed away this morning. He joined the committee in 1964 and
served under 16 chairmen of this committee.
He really represents the best of our Senate family here on
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. We ask that we all hold
Bertie's children and family in your prayers and we will make
the proper acknowledgments.
Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman, let me join in and express my
condolences. Bertie was one of a kind. I have never met anybody
like him here. He served here longer than any anybody who has
been around here and the way he got into it is an interesting
story that someday people ought to hear.
He pursued this job and stayed at it for a long, long time.
So thank you for those kind remarks, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Today we are going to be considering six
nominations and two FSO lists. I want to thank Senator Risch
for his cooperation. This has been on a very fast track and,
Senator Risch, thank you for allowing us to accommodate an
early consideration of these nominations and the FSO lists.
Let me start first with the nomination of Secretary Jacob
Lew to be ambassador to Israel. Three members of this committee
and 10 members of the United States Senate got back yesterday
from a trip to the Middle East.
We visited Israel. It was bipartisan as it should be and
what we saw and what President Biden saw during his visit and
Secretary Blinken and Secretary Austin saw during their visit
was sheer depravity.
What Hamas did in Israel is something we never thought we
would ever see in our lifetime. The videos, the photos, meeting
with the families of the hostages--we saw things that remind us
of the darkest chapters in the history of civilization.
So it was right for us to be unified, to make it clear to
Israel that we stand with them, and we made that clear. We will
be considering a supplemental appropriation I believe as early
as next week before the United States Senate.
That includes $14 billion of aid to Israel, something that
this committee will be engaged in that discussion and debate to
make sure Israel has what it needs to defend against the air
assaults and to provide the type of assistance that it needs
going forward and replenishing the U.S. supplies that they have
given to Israel.
We met with the families of the hostages and we are doing
everything--we are going to continue our effort to get more
hostages released.
We want them all released and we have a strategy working
with countries who we think can help us in that regard as well
as the shared information between the United States and Israel
intelligence as to the hostages and the best strategies to get
them home safely.
We are very much interested in preventing the flow--
expansion of this war. We thank President Biden for a clear
message to Iran with the presence of U.S. aircrafts, batteries
in that region.
We know that there is the risk factor of Iran's proxies in
Lebanon with Hezbollah and Syria, in Yemen with the Houthis,
and we have made it clear that any expansion of this conflict
would be the wrong thing to do and we will continue to make
that, and we are working very much on the humanitarian areas in
order to make sure that those who are trying to escape violence
have an opportunity for a safe zone and the humanitarian
assistance that is needed.
And, quite frankly, we also talked about the need for
Israel to have a confirmed ambassador. We need someone who is a
confirmed ambassador to deal with the selfless workers that we
have in our mission, both American citizens and foreign
nationals that are working on behalf of our mission in Israel.
We need someone to speak with the authority of a confirmed
Senate Ambassador as we deal with the pieces that we need to
deal with in regards to Israel's safety.
We need the gravitas of a confirmed ambassador that can
speak with authority on behalf of the United States. We need a
confirmed ambassador to deal with the 600,000 American citizens
that are in Israel today that are going to need that help from
our mission.
So a confirmed ambassador is absolutely essential.
Secretary Lew is eminently qualified to serve in this post. He
has extensive experience, political acumen, and gravitas will
be an asset as he takes on the challenges of this role.
The Senate has previously confirmed Secretary Lew for a
number of positions and was always by voice vote and once as
Treasury Secretary by an overwhelming bipartisan vote. We must
be able to overcome partisan disagreements.
So I urge my colleagues to do just that. Given the stakes
in Israel, we cannot afford any delay.
Today we will also be considering Ambassador Mustafa to be
ambassador to Egypt. We share long-standing strategic interests
with Egypt including in the context of the current war between
Israel and Hamas.
Egypt's role is important in helping to deescalate tensions
between the Israelis and Palestinians and assisting innocent
people in Gaza to find safety and receive humanitarian care.
We need a confirmed ambassador in Egypt and Ambassador
Mustafa understands the intricacies of the United States-Egypt
bilateral relations and the importance to our national security
interests.
At the same time, she will not shy away from raising human
rights violations with the Egyptian government. So I hope that
we will be able to confirm her.
Next we are considering the nominations of two important
posts in Africa, Richard Riley to be ambassador of Somalia and
Mark Toner to serve as ambassador to Liberia.
There is a lot at stake in both of these countries from
security concerns to the challenges we have in West Africa
today and I hope you will confirm those two ambassadors.
And we have two additional posts, Paul Martin to the
inspector general with the United States Agency for
International Development and David White to be the Deputy
Director of the Peace Corps. They are both well qualified and I
support both of these nominees and we have two of the FSO
lists.
With that, let me turn to Senator Risch.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. RISCH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO
Senator Risch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am like
everyone fully in tune with the remarks you have made about
things happening in Israel and what we need to do about it.
That is one of the reasons why we have moved this along as
quickly as we can.
I have deep reservations, as you know, about this
appointment but, nonetheless, I think it is important that one
way or another we move forward.
And I understand the rush to get an ambassador in
Jerusalem. We are at an important moment in history with events
going on in Israel and this makes the stakes ever so much
higher and I believe that means we should take the time to get
it right.
Things in--this appointment--this job requires a deep level
of humility and candor to navigate and demands working closely
with Congress in an open and transparent way to ensure the
right support for Israel.
That is where I am having difficulty with Mr. Lew. I have
always felt when I went to Israel and met with the prime
minister and others I was always briefed very well by the
people who were there.
When I was there earlier this year the charge met with me,
in fact, accompanied me to meet with the prime minister. I felt
good about him.
I am having real difficulty with Mr. Lew because of his
demonstrated--the kindest way to put it would be negligent
handling of the truth when dealing with us--with this actual
committee.
We heard in the hearing and it came out, and I put in the
record the bipartisan report concerning Mr. Lew's conduct in
the record and that conduct dealing directly with Israel and
dealing directly with Iran.
Iran is the problem here. Iran is the issue here and there
is no question that Republicans and Democrats have a different
view of how Iran should be handled. Indeed, as we have gone
forward we have gone around and around starting with the JCPOA
and going forward from there.
Mr. Lew's dealings when it came to the JCPOA are incredibly
troubling. He sat before the committee and he said he would not
allow the Iranians to have access to the U.S. financial system
and we all know that he did just the opposite.
The report--the bipartisan report documents that. In his
defense, of course, he was saying that, well, all he was doing
is carrying out what Obama told him to do. To me, that is no
excuse.
This committee needs and deserves to have accurate, correct
information. Mr. Lew was dealing under the table with financial
institutions attempting to get Iran into the U.S. financial
system. There has got to be somebody else for this that we can
trust more.
And by the way, I have talked with the Israelis. This is
not lost on them the view that the Obama administration had and
the dealings that Mr. Lew had. I think he is going to have some
difficulties in that regard.
As a result of that I am going to vote today to support
Israel. I am going to vote no on Mr. Lew's nomination to this
post. I think it should be someone that the Israelis will have
trust in and just as importantly that this committee can have
trust in it. I do not have the trust for Mr. Lew at this time.
As far as the other nominees that are on the agenda today--
Somalia, Liberia, Egypt, and the Peace Corps--I support the
nominations. I am going to vote for them. They are important
nominations and we definitely need people in these places.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Risch.
During the hearing, I expressed certain views that I just
want to put on the record again, and I respect greatly Senator
Risch's views in regards to this nominee.
I was the ranking member of this committee during the
consideration of the Iran nuclear agreement working with
Senator Corker, and as I think members of this committee know I
made a judgment at the end of the day not to support the
agreement.
But I want to just make it clear that the Obama
administration on transparency provided so much information to
us, including the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary
of Energy, in numerous briefings. There were no surprises
whatsoever and our input was very much felt.
So my knowledge is that Secretary Lew provided this
committee total transparency and that the--there was no
surprises in the way that the agreement was implemented. I
understand we have a difference on that but I just really want
to make the record clear.
I understand we have a reporting quorum that is present and
without objection we will now consider the six nominees that
were on the agenda as well as the two FSO lists.
Senator Risch. If we can have a roll call on Lew.
The Chairman. There is a request for a separate roll call
on Lew, which will be honored. So before us right now would be
the five nominees, not Jacob Lew, as ambassador to Israel--
without that, the two FSO lists.
Is there a motion to approve all of those five nominees and
FSO lists en bloc?
Senator Schatz. So moved.
The Chairman. Is there a second?
Senator Shaheen. Second.
The Chairman. Moved and seconded. Any debate?
Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman, I would ask anybody who wants
to be recorded no can do so with the Secretary--
The Chairman. Without objection that will be noted.
The question is on the motion to approve all the
nominations.
All in favor, say aye.
Opposed, nay.
The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. The
nominations and two FSO lists--the five nominations and two FSO
lists are now--have been approved by the committee and will be
reported as such.
Senator Coons. Mr. Chairman, at the conclusion of the vote
on Jack Lew to be nominee for the ambassador could I make some
brief comments?
The Chairman. Oh, sure. Absolutely.
With the majority of members present the vote in the
affirmative--the yeas--have it and the nominations are agreed
to.
We now have a request for an individual vote on Jacob Lew
to be Ambassador to Israel.
Is there a motion to approve the nomination?
Senator Schatz. So moved.
The Chairman. Is there a second?
Senator Coons. Second.
The Chairman. Having been moved and seconded the question
is on the approval of the Jacob Lew nomination to be ambassador
to Israel.
Is there a request for a roll call vote?
Senator Risch. I--
The Chairman. There has been a request for a roll call
vote. The Clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Menendez?
Ms. Shaheen?
Senator Shaheen. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
Senator Coons. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
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. Ms. Duckworth?
The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
Senator Risch. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Ricketts?
Senator Ricketts No.
The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Young?
Senator Young No.
The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
Senator Barrasso. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Cruz?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Hagerty?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Scott?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Aye. How is Senator Duckworth recorded?
The Clerk. I will record her as present.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 11 and the noes are
9.
The Chairman. The nomination is favorably reported to the
floor.
Senator Coons?
Senator Coons. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you--
The Chairman. Just for the members, there will be no more--
is there any more votes that we need? We are--the voting
session we will not have--need no further votes.
Senator Menendez, did you want to be reported on the--we
just took the roll call. So do you--
Senator Menendez: On who?
The Chairman. On the Lew----
Senator Menendez. Yes, I want to be reported on.
The Chairman [continuing]. Without objection. It does not
change the outcome but Senator Menendez will be reported as aye
without objection.
Will the Clerk report the total on the Lew nomination?
The Clerk. Yes. Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 12 and the noes
are 9.
The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Coons?
Senator Coons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
and the ranking member for moving so quickly to consider these
crucial nominations.
On the very specific matter of the report of the Permanent
Subcommittee for Investigations I just--my senior senator Tom
Carper was the ranking member on that subcommittee and had
urged me to convey that he did not concur in the conclusions of
the report, that it was not a bipartisan conclusion.
And for those who were troubled by the allegations around
Mr. Lew I had previously urged to them to talk to Senator
Portman who also had an active role in that.
I just wanted to leave that for the record to more
accurately reflect what was a very contentious issue and what
has been at the heart of some voting for or against the
nominee.
I know Jack Lew well. I view him as someone who will serve
us well and honorably. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Senator Risch?
Senator Risch. Let me say I have also talked to Rob
Portman. He is a friend of all of ours. He was involved in that
report and he does not shy away from the findings of the report
which found that Mr. Lew was--behind the backs of Congress--
attempting to get Iran into the financial system.
So, look, this is behind us now. We got the nominee moving
forward. We are going to have to work with him and that is
where we ought to go. But having had that, I am going to have
one eye closely focused on that.
The Chairman. Senator Schatz?
Senator Schatz. Just very briefly.
I think everyone is entitled to vote their conscience and
on politics and on preferences. That is fine. But this was not
a bipartisan report and I think there are lots of arguments at
your disposal against Jack Lew.
I do not agree with them. But there was not a bipartisan
report. It was a partisan report and I just think that, moving
forward, if you want to do whatever you want to do as we move
into the floor process and as you want to criticize him as
ambassador, fine.
But that report was not signed by our colleague and
therefore it was not bipartisan. I think it is worth moving on
on that factual basis.
Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Senator Risch?
Senator Risch. First of all, I accept that. But is there
anybody here that says that the conclusion in that report, that
Jack Lew called banks to pressure them to allow Iran to engage
in the financial system of the United States--I have not found
one person who says that that is not true.
Now, that happened and it was exactly the opposite of what
he told us and there were--there was all kinds of evidence to
that effect. That was a finding of that report.
Let us put this behind us and move on. But I am telling
you, to try to denigrate that report is just wrong. The facts
in the report are correct.
The Chairman. I agree with Senator Risch. Let us move on. I
do point out that Secretary Lew was sanctioned by Iran. He was
criticized because he did not allow the banking system to be
made available to Iran other than to carry out the obligations
under the JCPOA--under the Iran nuclear agreement.
And we can argue the nuance there and I respect Senator
Risch's view. But that is our--my recollection of what
happened. It was to carry out the agreement not to allow access
to the international banking system.
Any further discussions?
[No response.]
The Chairman. I want to just conclude by thanking Senator
Risch. This nomination was received by us maybe two weeks ago.
We processed questions for the record in a record period of
time. Any member of this committee could have held over that
nomination and they chose not to do it.
So I just really want to thank the cooperation of the
membership in the recognition of the urgency for the
consideration of the nomination.
It could not have happened without the cooperation of every
member of this committee and I thank you very much for that
cooperation.
And with that, the committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:28 a.m., the meeting was adjourned.]
----------
=======================================================================
BUSINESS MEETINGS OF THE U.S. SENATE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
DURING THE 118th CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
=======================================================================
BUSINESS MEETING
----------
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 24, 2024
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
Summary of Action Taken by the Committee
LEGISLATION
S. 2003, Rebuilding Economic Prosperity and Opportunity (REPO) for
Ukrainians Act, with an amendment in the nature of a
substitute, and an amendment--agreed to favorably by roll call
vote (20-1)
Ayes: Cardin, Menendez, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, Kaine,
Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen, Duckworth, Risch, Rubio
(proxy), Romney, Ricketts, Young (proxy), Barrasso (proxy),
Cruz (proxy), Hagerty (proxy), Scott (proxy)
Nays: Paul
Managers substitute amendment--agreed to favorably by roll call
vote (20-1)
Ayes: Cardin, Menendez, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, Kaine,
Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen, Duckworth, Risch, Rubio
(proxy), Romney, Ricketts, Young (proxy), Barrasso (proxy),
Cruz (proxy), Hagerty (proxy), Scott (proxy)
Nays: Paul
Cardin 1st Degree 4--agreed to favorably by voice vote (Risch
recorded as no)
NOMINATIONS
The Honorable Kurt Campbell, of the District of Columbia, to be
Deputy Secretary of State--agreed to favorably by voice vote
Mr. Cardell Kenneth Richardson, Sr., of Virginia, to be Inspector
General, Department of State--agreed to favorably by voice vote
Mr. Robert David Gioia, of New York, to be a Commissioner on the part
of the United States on the International Joint Commission,
United States and Canada--agreed to favorably by voice vote
(Rubio recorded as no)
Ms. Nicole Shampaine, of California, a Career Member of the Senior
Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, for the rank of
Ambassador during her tenure of service as United States
Representative to the Organization for the Prohibition of
Chemical Weapons--agreed to favorably by voice vote
The Honorable Sean Patrick Maloney, of New York, to be Representative
of the United States of America to the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development, with the rank of
Ambassador--agreed to favorably by voice vote(Rubio, Ricketts,
Paul, Barrasso recorded as no)
Mr. Jeffrey Prescott, of the District of Columbia, to be U.S.
Representative to the United Nations Agencies for Food and
Agriculture, with the rank of Ambassador--agreed to favorably
by voice vote (Risch, Rubio, Romney, Ricketts, Paul, Barrasso
recorded as no)
The Honorable Charlie Crist, of Florida, to be Representative of the
United States of America on the Council of the International
Civil Aviation Organization, with the rank of Ambassador--
agreed to favorably by voice vote (Risch, Romney, Ricketts,
Paul, Barrasso recorded as no)
Ms. Joann M. Lockard, 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 Burkina Faso--agreed to favorably by voice vote
FSO LIST
Joan Polaschik, dated January 26, 2023 (PN283-2)--agreed to favorably
by voice vote
Christopher Allen, et.al., dated November 1, 2023 (PN1129)--agreed to
favorably by voice vote
Meeting Transcript
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in S-
116, The Capitol, Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin, Chairman of the
committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Cardin [presiding], Menendez, Shaheen,
Coons, Murphy, Kaine, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen,
Duckworth, Risch, Romney, Ricketts, and Paul.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MARYLAND
The Chairman. The business meeting of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee will come to order.
This is a very important business meeting because it will
be the last that we have Brandon Yoder on our staff as he is
moving on. So first, let me just acknowledge Brandon's
extraordinary work on our committee. We put so much on staff,
and Brandon has been our principal staff person for the Western
Hemisphere, Global Economic Policy, International
Counterterrorism, and Law Enforcement. He has been with us for
10-and-a-half years. He is responsible for the drafting and the
passing of major legislation in so many different areas,
including illicit fentanyl, for implementing U.S. policies
toward Ecuador, Haiti, Nicaragua, Venezuela, and the list goes
on and on and on.
I am not surprised that he was such an effective staff
person considering his roots in Maryland. He is a Blue Jay.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. He graduated from Johns Hopkins University.
But on a personal note, Brandon helped me understand the issues
we have in Central America during the visit I was able to do
with him and be embedded with the FBI in regards to gang
activities in Central America. His expertise and help on that
trip was incredibly important to me. And then more recently,
with Senator Menendez, we had his expertise on our visit
Ecuador, Colombia, and Argentina.
He is moving on to be the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the
Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement. We know
that he will continue his public service. And, Brandon, we just
want to wish you the best. Thank you, Brandon.
[Applause.]
The Chairman. On that issue, let me yield to Senator
Menendez.
Senator Menendez. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just let
me add, one of the best choices I ever made is having Brandon
Yoder join the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I view him
as the premier individual in terms of knowledge on the Western
Hemisphere and all of its dimensions. And he is someone who
understands the intersection of policy, politics, and process.
Not everybody gets all three elements of what is necessary to
make something happen. He does. So it will be a loss for the
committee, a gain for the administration, and I want to join
you in wishing him the best of luck.
The Chairman. Today, we are considering eight nominations
and one bill and Foreign Service List. I am very pleased that
we are considering the nomination of Kurt Campbell to be deputy
secretary of State. Mr. Campbell is superbly qualified for this
position. He is currently the deputy assistant to the President
and coordinator for Indonesia-Pacific Affairs on the National
Security Council and has previously served as the assistant
secretary of State for East Asia and Pacific affairs, and
deputy assistant secretary of defense for Asia and Pacific
Affairs, among other positions. I would urge my colleagues to
support him in committee and to support his speedy
confirmation.
In addition to Mr. Campbell, we have seven other nominees,
including Sean Patrick Maloney to be U.S. Representative for
OECD; Jeff Prescott to be U.S. Representative to the U.N. Food
and Agriculture agencies; and Nicole Shampaine to represent the
United States at the Organization for the Prohibition of
Chemical Weapons, along with seven other well-qualified
nominees.
On legislation, we are considering S. 2003, the Rebuilding
Economic Prosperity and Opportunity for Ukraine Act, better
known as the REPO bill. This is an important bill, and I just
really want to acknowledge my colleague, Senator Risch, for his
not only extraordinary leadership in putting this bill together
but the manner in which he has made this bill a priority and
has been able to get us to this markup today. Along with
Senator Whitehouse, the two of them understand the importance
of this bill and what this bill really means.
Let me point out that we got to be clear what the REPO is
and what is it not as there seems to be some confusion in the
public domain. REPO would authorize the seizure of Russian
sovereign assets, immobilize the United States, reportedly
approximately $5 billion out of a total of around $300 billion
worldwide, and the repurposing of these assets is for the
restructuring of Ukraine. I want to thank Senator Shaheen for
her amendment that makes that clear in the bill, that we--that
the amount that we have here in the United States versus what
is international. There is no question that Russia has a moral
and legal responsibility to pay for Ukraine's reconstruction
given the destruction of its unlawful re-invasion of Ukraine in
2022 and the ongoing war has cost.
At the same time, REPO is not an alternative or substitute
for the supplemental appropriation bill that President Biden
requested several months ago and that would provide $60 billion
of urgently needed funding for Ukraine, including for its
immediate needs for the continued defense against Russia, along
with critical funding for Israel and Taiwan. The supplemental
remains the most urgent foreign relations priority for the
Congress. We absolutely must pass it. The consequences of not
doing so are catastrophic. Ukraine is on the verge of being
overrun by Russia if we do not give them the help that they
need in order to defend the front line of democracy, and we all
know it will not end with Ukraine. Russia will go beyond if it
is successful, and we know that the alternatives for us helping
Ukraine today with dollars is American troops potentially being
in Europe.
Second, REPO's main contribution lies in its importance
from a diplomatic perspective. It will directly unlock only a
very small fraction of the hundreds of billions of dollars and
mobilize Russian assets worldwide. Enactment of REPO will
hopefully spur other countries, including European partners and
allies, which hold the vast bulk of immobilized Russian
sovereign assets, to seize and repurpose those assets.
And let me point out that, finally, REPO is incredibly
consequential. Central bank assets are the most protected class
of assets under international law and pursuant to our domestic
law. Confiscating central bank assets of a foreign country with
which we are not at war would be a first for the United States,
so we have to understand that this has to be done correctly.
And I want to compliment Senator Risch and Senator Whitehouse
for the manner in which they put this bill together.
They make it clear in the bill that we have to work with
our allies globally in order to get this done. And I am just
quoting from the bill: ``Any effort by the United States to
confiscate or repurpose Russian sovereign assets should be
undertaken alongside international allies and partners as part
of a coordinated and multilateral effort, including with the G7
countries, the European Union, Australia, and other countries
in which Western sovereign assets are located.''
Then second, I want to point out that this is an important
tool in our toolbox for Russia to do the right thing. Russia
can avoid the consequences of confiscated assets clearly--and
it is spelled out clearly in the bill. Russia can do that.
Withdraw your troops from Ukraine. Acknowledge your liability
either directly by compensating Ukraine or join an
international mechanism to compensate Ukraine for the damage
that you caused. You do that, there is no need to confiscate
assets. So I think it is a--it is the right message, and,
again, I want to compliment Senator Risch and Senator
Whitehouse for what they are doing in regards to that matter.
With all this in mind, we have to ensure that the product
we move out of this committee and the precedent we set reflects
our interest and our values obviously as they relate to Ukraine
but also in regards to U.S. national and economic security, the
stability of the international financial system, and to the
commitment of the rule of law. And then last, let me once again
thank Senator Risch and our staffs for putting together a
manager's package which will resolve most of the issues, and we
will talk about the manager's package a little bit later.
With that, let me yield to Senator Risch.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. RISCH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO
Senator Risch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, thank
you for those kind remarks. You know, of all the things I have
done around here in the years I have been here, this was
surprising to me when I unveiled this, the enthusiasm, not just
here in the United States but around the globe. I mean, I had a
path beaten to my door by the Europeans and others talking
about what a good idea this was and how we ought to really
pursue it. But as usual, this is a poster child for nothing
around here is easy, and we always wind up arguing about many
angels can dance at the head of the pin on some aspects of the
bill, but, look, we do have that behind us.
You are going to offer Amendment Number 4. One of the last
unresolved issues that we have, which we have now resolved, has
to do with the jurisdiction that the United States--that Russia
will have in the courts of the United States of America, and we
all agree the courts are going to do what they are going to do
when we talk about jurisdiction. Nonetheless, the language in
the bill right now indicates that they will not have
jurisdiction. I have conceded to your Amendment Number 4, which
provides an expedited process for that.
I am going to record a no vote on that because I want the
record to reflect that as the author of this bill, I do not
believe that Russia has jurisdiction--has jurisdiction to raise
constitutional questions in the United States' court because
they do not have the constitutional protections that they claim
they are going to have. So I am going to record the no vote for
that. Having said that, the provision that is in there that
provides an expedited provision I think is probably better than
just letting it hang in the wind.
So anyway, I want to thank staff for how hard they worked
on this. It is just amazing to me, like I said, the people that
have grabbed onto this. Believe it or not, the Canadians have
actually beat us to the punch and have the thing in place. This
is going to take coordination obviously with allies. Your
comments about the sacred temple we are entering here are
absolutely appropriate. I have no hesitation about it because
of the current circumstances.
This is a really unique thing. Nobody thought--when the
Iron Curtin came down, we all thought Russia was going to take
the international stage with most others; and, eh, they poison
people once in a while, but others do. They interfere with
elections sometimes. Others do. But nonetheless, who would have
guessed they were going to start an evil war in the 21st
century, and something has got to be done about that.
This is a--this is intended to be a big hammer. It is
intended to be a very new way of attacking a country that does
not behave itself, and I really appreciate everybody's support
on it. So that is where we are.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Risch. I appreciate those
comments.
Without objection, we will now consider en bloc eight
nominations and two FSO lists. The lists are PN-283-2, PN-1129,
Kurt Campbell to be deputy secretary of State; Cardell Kenneth
Richardson to be inspector general of the Department of State;
Robert David Gioia to be U.S. Commissioner on the International
Joint Commission; Nicole Shampaine to be the U.S.
Representative to the Organization for the Prohibition of
Chemical Weapons; Sean Patrick Maloney to be U.S.
Representative to the Organization for Economic and
Cooperation--Economic Cooperation and Development; Jeffrey
Prescott to be U.S. representative to the United Nations
Agencies for Food and Agriculture; Charlie Christ to be the
U.S. Representative to the Council of International Civil
Aviation; and Joann Lockard to be Ambassador to Burkina Faso.
Senator Risch. I think that is nine.
The Chairman. No. It is eight nominations plus two FSO
lists.
Senator Risch. Oh, OK. Mr. Chairman, I would just ask--I
have no objection to voting en bloc. I would ask that anybody
who wants to be recorded on those be allowed to be recorded.
The Chairman. Without objection, we will consider the
nominations and the FSO Lists en bloc.
Is there--there is a motion to report them favorably. Is
there a second?
Senator Menendez. So moved, yes.
Senator Shaheen. Second.
The Chairman. We have a motion and a second. The question
is on the motion to approve all the nominations and the FSO
Lists noticed for this business meeting en bloc.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
The Chairman. Opposed, nay.
[Chorus of noes.]
The Chairman. The ayes have it. With a majority of members
present having voted in the affirmative, the ayes have it, and
the items are agreed to.
Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be recorded as
``no'' on Prescott and Crist, please, for the record.
The Chairman. That will be so noted.
Senator Romney. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to be
recorded as a ``no'' on Prescott and Crist.
The Chairman. So noted.
Senator Paul. Mr. Chair--oh, go ahead.
The Chairman. Senator Ricketts?
Senator Ricketts. I would also like to be recorded ``no''
on Maloney, Prescott, and Crist, please.
The Chairman. So noted. Senator Paul?
Senator Paul. I would like to be recorded as a ``no'' on
Maloney, Prescott, and Crist as well.
Senator Kaine. Mr. Chair, just an inquiry.
The Chairman. Senator Kaine?
Senator Kaine. The FSO List, I have three on mine: PN-283-
2, PN-587, PN-1129. Were those all part of the motion offered?
The Chairman. I think there are two: PN-283-2 and PN-1129.
That is two lists.
Senator Kaine. OK. Not PN-587? That one is not part----
The Chairman. That is not part of the list.
Senator Kaine. OK. Thank you.
The Chairman. I think at this moment, we are ready to go on
to S. 2003, the Rebuilding Economic Prosperity and Opportunity
for Ukraine Act. Without objection, we will now consider S.
2003, the REPO for Ukraine--Ukrainians Act. I am pleased that
we have a manager's amendment that incorporates a number of
amendments that were filed. I believe the changes made here
will make the bill stronger.
Let me just point out that this manager's package includes
technical edits from an amendment that I filed that reflects a
compromise on the G7 certifications. It would extend the
reporting requirements for the Elie Wiesel Genocide and
Atrocities Prevention Act. It would recognize Russia's action
in the Ukraine as constituting genocide, and it acknowledges
that Russia's invasion of the Ukraine dates back to 2014,
extends the Global Engagement Center. And I want to thank my
colleagues who were responsible for these changes--Senator
Risch, Senator Shaheen, Senator Hagerty, and Senator Murphy--
along with other members of the committee that helped us in
regards to resolving some of the open issues.
Any senator wish to be heard in regards to the manager's
package? Senator Shaheen?
Senator Shaheen. Well, I want to thank you and Senator
Risch for incorporating my amendments into the manager's
package and also for all the good work that has been done to
compromise in addressing some of the thorny issues that are in
this legislation. I share the comments that both you and
Senator Risch made, Mr. Chairman, about the importance of this
legislation and the message that it sends. And so I hope we
will pass it out of committee today with a strong vote and that
we can get it through the floor very soon.
The Chairman. I do also want to acknowledge that it
includes the Forfeited Oligarchs Assets that Senator Risch
introduced with Senator Manchin. I want to thank them in
regards to that particular issue as well.
Senator Paul. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Senator Paul.
Senator Paul. I just want to make a brief comment on the
bill and on the manager's package. I think, you know, without
question, the argument whether or not Russia deserves to be
punished for instigating this war in violating another country
is an easy argument. I mean, it is hard to argue against that.
The same arguments could be made, you know, for many wars.
World War I was the same. You know, Germany was responsible,
Germany invaded, there would not have been a war without
Germany. And at the conclusion, everybody agreed Germany should
be punished, and then they were, and they were thoroughly
punished in the Treaty of Versailles. Some say that was
basically the beginning of World War II.
And so when you punish people, it is not just about
punishment. It is about thinking about what happens, you know.
What will their response be to this? One of the responses that
Russia has indicated is they are going to take foreign
investments in their country and confiscate them. It is said
that there is somewhere between $250 and $300 billion in
foreign investments, not necessarily sovereign accounts. They
are just going to take private accounts, too, but that is
probably going to be their response to this.
There is a question whether or not we lose or those who
will ultimately be negotiating peace lose their negotiating
chip, too, here if we get to a point where there is a threat of
this happening and it could be traded as part of a--one of the
negotiating items in a peace deal, that once you take this off
the table, it is very difficult. Some people say that once the
money is taken, well, some money could be given in a trade at a
negotiating point.
As we have seen with Iran, the problem is that people
confuse the situation and demagogue the situation. So for
example, we have taken money from Iran that they got for
trading--South Korea bought oil from Iran. South Korea's money
was then confiscated, did not go to Iran, and when it is
released back to Iran--it was their money. When it is released
back to them in negotiation for some sort of resolution of
things, it is derided as, oh, you are giving Iran money, which,
in reality, is not true. You are giving them back the money you
took from them; but it is mis-reported all the time, and that
will happen here, too.
So if you take Russia's money, and then at some point in
time, you say, well, part in resolving this piece, Russia wants
some of their money back and so we will give it to them, then
people will howl to high Heaven and say, oh my goodness, you
are giving money to the enemy, even though you are letting them
get their money. So there are dangers that this sort of blocks
off exit ramps that could be possible in negotiations, and so I
worry what the ramifications will be to this, that it will
satiate the desire to punish in some ways, in some ways may not
be effective either since Belgium has got most of the money and
since Belgium will not--you know, is not really interested in
releasing the money at this point. We have a very small amount.
But there is also the overall pushing of all of our sort of
adversaries into sort of a block of people who don't want to
use the dollar or buy the dollar, and because this body spends
an enormous amount--more than we take in--we have a debt that
just costs more than we purchase. We actually do--you know, if
we eventually push so far that, you know, Russia does not buy
as much but China still has about a trillion dollars' worth of
our debt, are we going to push so much, you know, disengaging
from other countries and disengaging from the rest of the world
that we have an adversarial relationship, but it, ultimately,
is being able to finance the debt.
So for all of these reasons, I think this is a misguided
effort, and it will satiate the desire to punish, but in the
end, I think it may allow the war to go on longer and allow the
carnage to go on longer, and I don't think anything about this
bill brings the war to a quicker resolution. I think it will
delay resolution and takes an offramp away from Russia as a
possibility to end the war. Thank you.
The Chairman. Any other comments on the manager's package?
Senator Murphy?
Senator Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
you and Senator Risch for including in the manager's package an
important extension of the Global Engagement Center. We have
long complained about the fact that Russia engages in what we
call asymmetric warfare, right? It is not just their use of the
military, but it is also their use of information warfare,
bribery, graft, old-fashioned intimidation. We have just long
decided to allow for that asymmetric warfare to continue. We
fight often with one hand tied behind our back.
The Global Engagement Center is one of the most successful
means that we have to work with our allies, in particular,
Ukraine, to push against the kind of misinformation and
propaganda that goes hand-in-hand with successful on-the-ground
conventional military efforts. So obviously, this is something
that has been a bipartisan effort here in the Senate over the
course of the years, and I appreciate the extension being
included in the manager's package.
The Chairman. I applaud your leadership on this issue, and
thank you for bringing that to our attention.
Senator Risch. Mr. Chair?
The Chairman. Senator Risch?
Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent
to be able to put a statement in the record regarding your
amendment, Number 4, that I am going to vote ``no'' on, but I
want an explanation.
The Chairman. I am not going to object as long as you let
me write the statement.
[Laughter.]
Senator Risch. Well, we can do like we always do and
negotiate.
The Chairman. Without objection.
[The information referred to is located at the end of this
transcript.]
Senator Risch. Are you ready for a motion to adopt?
The Chairman. I think we have--yes. Ready for a motion to
adopt.
Senator Menendez. I will so move.
The Chairman. Is there a second?
Voices: Second.
The Chairman. All in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Senator Risch. I would like a roll call vote, please, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. Certainly. The Clerk will call the roll, and
this on the substitute amendment, and then it will be
amendments to the substitute, and then final resolution.
The Clerk. Mr. Menendez?
Senator Menendez. 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. 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. Ms. Duckworth?
Senator Duckworth. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
Senator Risch. Aye, with the exception of the----
The Chairman. It is not in there yet. You are----
Senator Risch. Oh. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
Senator Romney. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Ricketts?
Senator Ricketts. Aye.
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 Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Hagerty?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Scott?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 20. The noes are 1.
The Chairman. The substitute is adopted.
Now it is open to amendments to the substitute. Let me call
up Cardin Number 4, which is what Senator Risch has been
referring to.
Cardin Number 4 would establish an expedited process for
any claims brought against the constitutionality of this bill.
It is--it is a friendly amendment. It allows for us to handle
this is an expedited process. We cannot foreclose
constitutional challenges. Marbury v. Madison said there is
always a potential for a constitutional challenge to be raised.
What this amendment does expedite the process so that we can
have it cleared quickly and more effectively in carrying out
the statute itself. And second, it is a clear message to our
European partners about a process that we are using here that
is fair and hopefully that allow them more comfort in joining
us in dealing with seizures of international finance assets of
Russia.
Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Senator Risch.
Senator Risch. I do not want any roll call vote, but I do
want to be recorded ``no'' on this, and the reason I want to be
recorded ``no'' is as the author of the bill, I want the record
to reflect that I do not concede the fact that Russia has
jurisdiction to raise constitutional questions in the United
States, district appeals or Supreme Court. And so for that
reason, I am voting ``no'' on this. Having said that, I
understand the arguments for the expedited process.
The Chairman. And I appreciate your comments. Let me be
clear. I do not concede that Russia has a constitutional claim
either. I am not--I do not want to----
Senator Risch. I hope you----
[Cross talking.]
The Chairman. Give that record. I would move that
amendment. Is there a second?
Senator Menendez. Second.
Senator Kaine. Second.
The Chairman. You are a second.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
[A chorus of ayes.]
The Chairman. Opposed, nay?
[Chorus of noes.]
The Chairman. The ayes have it, and the amendment is
adopted.
Are there any other amendments?
[No response.]
The Chairman. If not, is there a motion----
Senator Risch. I would move.
The Chairman. There is a motion that we report the bill
favorably, as amended. Is there a second?
Senator Menendez. Second.
The Chairman. Do you want a roll call vote?
Senator Risch. Let us take a roll call vote.
The Chairman. The Clerk--Senator Shaheen----
Senator Shaheen. For the----
The Chairman. Are there any comments on the--on the--before
we vote?
Senator Shaheen. Yes. I would like to be added as a co-
sponsor.
The Chairman. Without objection. Senator Coons?
Senator Coons. I also would like to be added as a co-
sponsor and simply State that this is an important step forward
for this committee. We have a number of nominees to serve as
Ambassadors to critical multinational organizations and to the
country, Burkina Faso, that I hope, having been reported, will
get through the floor because we continue to be
underrepresented in critical global settings.
The Chairman. The Clerk will call the roll on final
passage.
The Clerk. Mr. Menendez?
Senator Menendez. 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. 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. Ms. Duckworth?
Senator Duckworth. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
Senator Risch. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
Senator Romney. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Ricketts?
Senator Ricketts. Aye.
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 Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Hagerty?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Scott?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 20. The noes are 1.
Senator Romney. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. One second. With a majority of members
present having voted in the affirmative, the legislation, as
amended, is agreed to.
Senator Romney?
Senator Romney. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether I
have a perspective on how to adjust this, but I am concerned
about the process of us being educated on something as
important as this. We did not have any hearing on this
legislation, and we did not hear from Treasury to come in and
describe--some of the concerns that Senator Paul raised I think
are legitimate concerns. What is the impact of this on the
international monetary system, what does this do to countries
deciding to buy American debt, what is going to happen to
assets that are held by American enterprises in Russia, those
kinds of considerations?
We have--we have not heard about those, and I endeavored to
study them as thoroughly as I could in the time that I had when
this was brought forward. But it strikes me that as opposed to
just staff--majority and minority staff working on these things
at great length, that members of the committee ought to
actually be educated and informed of these things so that when
we vote, we have had that discussion. We never had a hearing on
this. I mean, have not heard from the administration, have not
had a classified hearing, have not had a thorough discussion of
the kinds of objections that Senator Paul raised.
And, you know, so I have one member of my staff who is
helping me on foreign relations issues, and she has done a
wonderful job bringing me up to speed, but my goodness, this is
kind of an important topic with great significance. I
understand there is a piece of legislation, for instance, on
China that--again, that the two leaders have been working on.
Should we not have a discussion about that and hearings and
hear what the State Department thinks about it, as opposed to
bringing it forward and having a markup?
So I just am a little frustrated by the process. I got to
``yes'' last night on this, but I just wish that there were a
more thorough evaluation of something so significant. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Let me respond. I think Senator Risch wants
to respond. But first, let me ask unanimous consent that staff
be authorized to make technical and conforming changes.
Without objection, so ordered.
The Chairman. Your comments are well taken. It is
frustrating here when we try to get legislation ready and we
want to give the members the maximum amount of time. I can
assure you that we have already talked about that in regards to
the potential China legislation that you are referring to. Both
Senator Risch and I want to make sure that all of our members
have adequate opportunity to understand what is in the bill and
opportunities to be able to offer amendments. So we fully
appreciate what you are saying.
I do think this bill has been debated quite a bit. I can
tell you that our offices have--well, I think all of our
offices have been engaged in the REPO legislation. There have
been numerous discussions that we have had with individual
members as well as with the administration, National Security
Council, has been engaged in. This is basically language that
gives the administration an additional tool. They have the
discretion to use this tool or not to use it, and we have
instructed them to work with our allies in using the tool.
So I recognize the points that you are raising, and in an
ideal world, we would like to have hearings and more time in
our committee. With the circumstances on the ground in Ukraine
and what is happening around the world, sometimes we do not
have as much time as we would like to give our members, but I
take your comments and agree with you that we have to do
better. Thank you. Senator Risch?
Senator Risch. Well, first of all, I concur in Senator
Romney's remarks. You know, I spent 28 years in the State
Senate, I led it for 2 decades, and people always complain
about their State legislature. And I tell them now, after
spending 28 years and now 15 here, the State legislature runs
like a fine-tuned Swiss watch----
[Laughter.]
Senator Risch. And in the State legislature, exactly what
you say happens. The problems here that--and when I first got
here, I was as frustrated as you were. It seemed like we always
on the outside of this, and leadership was doing it, and what
have you.
The difficulty here is we are all--our time is so short
individually. I mean, we have all got so much stuff going on
trying to--even trying to set a hearing. When we have these
hearings, it always amazes me the--how few people show up for
our hearings on the things. And then to compensate for that,
what I have done since I have been in--as chairman and now
ranking member, is to engage our side. Now, I do not how the
minority does it, but my staff, I have got them by the throat
saying they have got to include your staffs step by step in
what we are doing. When we do that, we find various members
will say, yes, that is a good subject, I want blah, blah, blah.
Others say, hey, guys, handle this, OK? But we do not try to
deal any cards off the bottom of the deck, especially on
something like this.
But your remarks are well taken. I mean, look, on something
like this, I mean, really, we have been involved in it for
weeks and months of getting where we are. A lot of that should
have been done in a committee where we go back and forth, what
have you. We just did not have the time for it, but your
remarks are well taken.
I can say this. I do not think I have ever worked on a
piece of legislation that has had as much input from all
members, and that is true on both sides of the--of the aisle,
and from the outside. We had a tremendous amount of help from
NGO's and that sort of thing. So we do have--in fact, staff
just reminded me. I would like to have--add one of the
supporting materials we have from the outside groups about
this, and a lot of it came from your staffs and came from your
staffs and came from other conversations that were had. So I
agree a hundred percent. In a perfect world, it would sure be
nice to do that.
Senator Romney. I think I may find a home, therefore, in
the Idaho State Senate.
[Laughter.]
Senator Kaine. Mr. Chair? Mr. Chair?
Senator Risch. You said it. We understand your reputation
in Idaho. I do not think you would have any trouble getting a
seat----
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Senator Kaine?
Senator Kaine. Not to prolong it but just to pickup on
Mitt's point. We could all get to comfort in our own space. I
have a great staff, too, and I have concerns and I ask them,
and they give me, you know, answers to my questions, and I get
to my own comfort level. But this is a really smart committee,
and the number of times I have been in hearings where, well, I
asked the questions I needed to ask, and I thought I had all
the answers that I needed, but then somebody else asks a
question, and it is like, yes, what is the answer to that
question. So the group process, it is one thing to get to a
comfort level on your own, but sometimes hearing what others'
questions are open up dimensions to an issue that you had not
really thought of, and that is why, you know, it is good to do
this when we can.
Senator Risch. Senator Kaine, you are absolutely right on
that, and the other thing that happens, though, too, is I had
no idea when I uncorked this thing what a monumental thing this
was going to be. And I think if I had, you could put it on a
different track than the run-of-the-mill stuff that we--that we
do here. So I think that is, again, excusing ourselves, I think
that a lot of times we head down a track and we do not know
really how big or how small really the thing is.
Senator Coons. If I might, Mr. Chairman, it is my hope that
we will get back to the run-of-the-mill----
The Chairman. Senator Coons?
Senator Coons [continuing]. Usual things that we will have
in other business meetings.
The Chairman. Without objection, members will be able to
submit materials for the record with Senator Risch's request.
Senator Risch. Thank you.
The Chairman. I just want to somewhat give a different view
than Senator Risch on attendance in our hearings. I am pleased
by the number of members that attend our hearings. Some stay
for a lengthy period of time. Thank you, Senator Ricketts.
Senator Risch. That is true.
The Chairman. You have set the--for a new member a--the
importance of the hearings themselves, and I agree with Senator
Kaine. I learn a lot at these hearings, and I learn a lot from
other people's questions. Normally, the questions I ask, you
know, I am trying to get information, but I am also trying to
make a point. When other members are asking questions, we all
learn from that, so it is valuable, and Senator Risch is
absolutely right. Our schedules are horribly here. We serve on
too many committees. We have too many--it is--there is too much
conflict with time here. It is not that we do not want to be on
the committee. It is other obligations that we have that take
us from our committee work.
So, Senator Romney, I am committed to working with every
member of this committee to get as much information in advance
time when we take up materials. If there are particular bills
you are interested in, please let us know because there are
times that, like now, when we have an opportunity to move
legislation, and we try to attach other bills to it to get them
moving. But your comments are right on target, and we will do
our best to try to accommodate your reasonable needs, our
committee's reasonable needs.
Senator Risch. Without dragging this out any further, I--
the best example I can give for that, I think I am--Senator
Rubio and I are the only two on Intel. Intel meets, I do not
know, 2, 3 times a week.
The Chairman. Yes. Yes.
Senator Risch. And I go in there and I sit in there, and it
is a tremendous commitment of time, but when you sit in those
committee meetings and listen to those people, the intel
committees--the intel agencies that come through--we have got
17 of them--you just get this tremendous amount of information.
But the time is just--is just a killer as far as pulling away
from the other committee assignments that I have.
The Chairman. Yes.
Senator Risch. So it is--it is--it is just the nature of
this job, I think, the overload of information we have. Without
staff, this would really be impossible. It really would be.
The Chairman. And, of course, we have so many international
guests that are here and Ambassadors that want to meet with us
all the time.
Senator Risch. Yes.
The Chairman. So it is a--managing our time is difficult.
If there is no further business, the committee will stand
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:43 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Appendix I
Submitted for the Record by Senator Benjamin L. Cardin
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Appendix II
Submitted for the Record by Senator James E. Risch
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Appendix III
Submitted for the Record by Senator James E. Risch
legal memorandum on proposed countermeasures against russia to
compensate injured states for losses caused by russia's war of
aggression against ukraine
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Appendix IV
Submitted for the Record by Senator James E. Risch
remarks by u.s. senator richard e. risch to the hudson institute on the
rebuilding economic prosperity and opportunity for ukrainians act (repo
)
by Hon. James E. Risch, U.S. Senator from Idaho, November 16, 2023
Thank you very much, it's good to be back here again. Let me say
that the remarks I made in April about why victory in Ukraine is
critically important to American national security interests, actually
for the planet's national security interests. Nothing has changed since
then other than there is even a clearer understanding that it is
important, that there be a victory there, and that Putin is defeated
and that he is restrained from further ambitions on the planet.
Today marks the 631st day since the illegal Russian invasion of
Ukraine. Over the last year and a half, Putin has single-handedly
brought war back to Europe. We've seen Russian troops commit
unspeakable crimes against the Ukrainian people, including
indiscriminate targeting of civilian areas, indeed at times deliberate
targeting of civilian areas, and infrastructure, mass graves, sexual
violence, kidnappings, and countless other horrors.
Putin is making every effort to eliminate the Ukrainian people by
committing atrocities that amount to serious war crimes, including
genocide. Russia has to pay for the devastation it has caused, and that
is what we are here to talk about today. Indeed, it is rare I get the
chance to stand up here and tell you that the effort that we are making
here is an effort that is bipartisan, it is bicameral, and we
occasionally see issues like that. But more importantly, there is
enthusiasm for this particular issue on all parts. So in that regard,
it's fun to be doing one of these instead of fighting over something.
In Kyiv and Irpin last year, I saw firsthand some of the
destruction that Russia has rained down on Ukrainian infrastructure,
homes, schools, businesses, and manufacturing. The scale of the damage,
as you all know, is immense. This devastation has decimated Ukraine's
economy, with experts placing current estimates to rebuild at over $400
billion dollars. That number will only increase more the longer this
war drags on.
This harsh reality presents the United States and its allies with a
problem. How do we hold Russia-- a major economy with significant
resources and veto powers at major international institutions--
accountable for its invasion of Ukraine, the destruction it has
created, and the lives it has cost? And how can we best help Ukraine
rebuild its country, save its economy, and become integrated more into
the West?
This really is a simple process, a simple matter. Russia broke it,
they ought to pay for it. That's really, really simple. We understand
it, the world understands that.
The international community has overwhelmingly condemned Russia for
its war of aggression. Indeed, the International Court of Justice ruled
that Russia's invasion has violated international law, and the UN
General Assembly adopted a resolution establishing Russia's duty to
provide reparations to Ukraine. The G7 has also issued multiple
statements asserting that Russia must pay for Ukraine's reconstruction.
That's what we are talking about today, and that's what this effort
that we are pursuing here is very clearly targeted at.
The problem, of course, is that Russia has ignored all of this--
why? Because it can. Putin has refused to discuss compensation for
damages of course, let alone agree to pay for the reconstruction of
Ukraine, and worse, inflicts continual destruction. Russia also
continues to use its veto powers at the UN and other international
institutions which house traditional mechanisms for compensation,
effectively rendering these mechanisms useless.
So, we knew we need to do more. Thus, the REPO Act.
Meanwhile, public reporting indicates there is more than $300
billion in Russian sovereign assets currently frozen around the world,
with most of that held in Europe. We have some here in the United
States. While like-minded countries agree that Russia should pay to
rebuild Ukraine, no country has yet been willing to take a first step
to make that happen. As with all key decision points on assistance to
Ukraine thus far, U.S. leadership is absolutely essential. We're here
to provide that leadership.
European countries have hidden behind traditional, theoretical
principles that protect sovereign state assets. However, Ukraine's
situation is not a theoretical one. It is very real, and has very real
consequences.
Sadly, the truth is that Russia will never agree to its obligations
to compensate Ukraine, and Russia's veto powers have taken
international compensation mechanisms off the table. Thus, the need for
REPO.
Given this reality, the international community is left with a
choice: will law abiding nations stand by and allow Russia to skirt its
international obligations? Or will we acknowledge that both domestic
and international law must evolve in order to meet this relatively new
problem, and unique problem? Make no mistake-- this situation presents
the international legal system with one of its greatest test since
World War II.
The entire international system is based on the premise of
international peace and security through respect of territorial
sovereignty. If international law cannot evolve and hold Russia
accountable for violating not only a foundational principal of the UN
but also this most basic tenet of the international system in the
modern age, we stand no chance of deterring China from invading Taiwan,
or other authoritarian countries from future aggression.
The stakes are simply too high for us to let arcane legal theories
keep us from doing what needs to be done. Over the course of this
conflict, we have seen that U.S. leadership on key assistance to
Ukraine-- from critical munitions, to tanks, to fighter aircraft and
fighter pilot training, to long range missiles-- almost invariably led
other countries to follow suit. This multiplies the amount of
assistance many times over.
Now I do not want to, in any way, denigrate or take away from what
the Europeans have done. They have stepped up, we have pushed and
shoved back in forth arguing about who has done more, it's not
particularly relevant. The fact is that both sides of the Atlantic are
working on this issue, and should, and it's really been a thing that's
brought our partnerships on NATO together and our NATO countries
together--and stronger, more so than it's ever been in years.
If Russia refuses to honor its moral and legal obligations to
compensate Ukraine to help them rebuild, other countries can-- and
should-- seize Russia's sovereign assets and transfer them to Ukraine.
Additionally, the United States can and should lead on this issue by
passing legislation granting domestic legal authority to seize and
transfer Russian sovereign assets to Ukraine and work with our allies
to do the same.
We are going through a legal process, a lawful process and a due
process.
That is why I introduced the Rebuilding Economic Prosperity and
Opportunity for Ukrainians Act. The REPO Act is actually a pretty
simple piece of legislation. It does 4 things:
First and foremost, the REPO Act grants the
President authority to seize Russian sovereign assets frozen in
the United States. It also gives the President the authority to
transfer those assets to Ukraine for reconstruction. Under
current U.S. law, there is no clear-cut way to seize sovereign
assets of another country unless the United States is
effectively at war with that country. The bill also makes clear
that this would be a one-time authority that applies only to
Russia in this unique circumstance.
Second, because the President may not transfer all
of Russia's frozen assets, the bill creates a prohibition that
the President cannot return any Russian frozen assets until
Russia has withdrawn its troops from Ukraine and agreed to
fully compensate the Ukrainians. The bill also provides
congressional oversight over any proposal to return Russia's
assets to ensure that conditions have, in fact, been met.
Third, the bill ensures these funds can get to
Ukraine quickly by limiting Russia's ability to challenge a
seizure in U.S. courts. Ukraine needs this money now if it has
a hope of beginning to rebuild before the damage to its economy
becomes irreparable. Russia would like nothing more than to tie
these funds up over a decades-long time period with complex
litigation in order to keep from having to pay up.
Interestingly, our court system is designed that this is
possible if we don't have this legislation to make things
happen otherwise. This provision would provide congressional
intent to U.S. courts in this unique and extraordinary
situation that Russia should not be able to use the U.S. legal
system to skirt its obligations and to lay justice for Ukraine.
Finally, the bill directs the President to engage
with other like-minded allies and partners to establish an
international compensation mechanism. While I believe the
United States should have the authority to unilaterally seize
Russian assets and send them to Ukraine, I do not believe we
should act alone. Indeed, we should have our partners with us.
According to public reports, most of Russia's frozen assets are
located in Europe. For us to make a dent in what Russia owes Ukraine,
Europe will need to participate in this effort. But because this is an
extraordinary situation, collective action in concert with our allies
and partners will send the strongest possible message to Putin and any
other authoritarian state contemplating illegal military action. And,
importantly, U.S. leadership here will be critical in encouraging our
European allies.
While the REPO Act is focused on U.S. domestic law, it sends a
strong message to our European partners that seizing Russia's sovereign
assets would also be legal and appropriate under international law.
Under the international law of ``countermeasures,'' third-party
countries have the right to take proportionate, temporary action aimed
at compelling another state to comply with its legal obligations.
Therefore, it is legal and appropriate for nations to terminate
Russia's sovereign immunity and transfer Russian assets to Ukraine for
reconstruction.
Some critics argue that this bill would limit the President's
ability to negotiate an end to the war in Ukraine. Those with this view
argue that the president should have total flexibility to use Russia's
frozen assets as a carrot to entice Russia to the negotiating table and
that placing pre-conditions on the return of those assets, as well as
congressional oversight, hinders that ability. However, this
legislation actually gives the president more tools to compel Russia to
negotiate.
By giving the president the discretion to use this authority, he
will have added credibility in negotiations up to and until this
authority is exercised. By making seizure a real possibility, Putin
will be under greater pressure to make a deal and meet meaningful
conditions of withdrawal and compensation. If Putin refuses, then this
creates the pathway to make Ukraine whole.
Additionally, if Russia were to attempt to challenge seizure in
U.S. federal courts, the bill would give Department of Justice lawyers
the ammunition they need to rebuff challenges.
The argument I probably hear most often is that seizing Russia's
sovereign assets will set a new precedent that undermines sovereign
immunity. The principle, by the way, one of a number which have grown
up over a period of time and are there for a reason, and in general and
normal circumstances, could be good propositions. The principle that
states are immune from having their property expropriated by other
states to settle debts is an incredibly important principle. And the
fact that the law of countermeasures has never been used to suspend
sovereign immunity with regard to seizure of state assets is important.
However, like most legal precedents, there are rare and extreme cases
where exceptions are necessary as long are there are appropriate
guardrails to keep the exception limited.
Indeed there is precedent for seizing sovereign assets of an
aggressor state. In 1991, the international community collectively
seized Iraqi sovereign assets following Saddam Hussein's invasion of
Kuwait. I believe Russia's war in Ukraine is another unique but rare
situation that warrants such similar action and is both legal,
appropriate and very much in line with the single president that's out
there, and that is the Iraq and Kuwait situation.
Still others argue that if countries take Russia's assets, Russia
will retaliate by seizing those countries' assets located inside
Russia. Putin is already seizing Western assets. In April, Russia
announced a new presidential decree which, ironically, cited the
doctrine of countermeasures as justification to seize private companies
if they are based in countries deemed ``unfriendly'' by the Kremlin. So
the Russians themselves have provided a clear legal precedent for this
legal action. So they've already done this, and it is appropriate that
we follow suit. Unfriendly countries are an interesting proposition by
the Kremlin. That's probably everybody, with the exception of all the
bad actors out there like North Korea, China, Iran and Cuba and
Venezuela. But only a handful amongst the nearly two hundred countries
on the planet fit this description.
Some critics have also expressed concern that if the United States
were to take Russia's assets, we might seize other countries' assets.
They also fear that countries would move their sovereign investments
outside of the United States or finance their investments in other
currencies. The fear is that confiscation could weaken the value of the
dollar globally.
This argument doesn't hold water. Some countries have already tried
to shift transactions away from the dollar-- like China demanding that
Saudi Arabia pay them for their oil using the Yuan. There is a reason
these efforts have failed and been rebuffed. The dollar is the clear
and safe global standard for international investment-- period. It is
highly unlikely, at least for the foreseeable future, that another
currency could overtake the dollar. It is also clear this bill targets
a very specific and unique case.
The approach in the REPO Act does not just represent my view. In
crafting this legislation, I have worked closely with constitutional
law professors, international law experts, policy practitioners,
European partners, Ukrainian legal advocates, and Ukrainian government
officials. This effort to bring so many stakeholders to the table is
why this bill is THE bill on Russian sovereign assets that has
bipartisan, bicameral support. It is also why the REPO Act is Ukraine's
top legislative request of Capitol Hill.
In the Senate, I've partnered with Senator Sheldon Whitehouse-- a
strong advocate for anti-money laundering and a key architect of
legislation enabling the seizure of private Russian assets in the
United States. Other Senate cosponsors include Sen. Wicker, ranking
member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Sen. Graham, ranking
member of the Senate Defense Appropriations subcommittee.
In the House, the Foreign Affairs committee just passed its version
of the bill by an overwhelming bipartisan majority of 40-2. The REPO
Act has also been endorsed by legal and policy scholars from all parts
of the political spectrum outside of government.
We are entering a new phase of strategic competition that is
growing more fierce with each passing day. We need to develop and use
new and more creative tools to not only seek justice for those who are
wronged, but to deter bad actors from doing things like Russia has done
in Ukraine.
The countries that want to undermine and change the international
system-- Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea-- don't care about the
rule of law and never have. And they don't care about our precedents.
We must be willing to put them on notice that they will not act with
impunity--that they will not be allowed to act with impunity. They will
be made to pay. The REPO Act will show them that is true-- and I thank
all of you who share this enthusiasm and support this effort, and I
commit to you that we will move as diligently as we can to get this
legislation across the finish line. So, with that, I'll take a question
or two, whatever you like.
__________
Appendix V
Submitted for the Record by Senator James E. Risch
transcript of a hearing held before the
commission on security and cooperation
in europe--u.s. helsinki commission
December 6, 2023
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Appendix VI
Submitted for the Record by Senator James E. Risch
letter in support of the rebuilding economic prosperity
and opportunity for ukranians (repo) act
----------
Appendix VII
Submitted for the Record by Senator James E. Risch
letter in support of the rebuilding economic prosperity and opportunity
for ukranians (repo) act--renew democracy initiative, garry kasparov,
chairman
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Appendix VIII
Submitted for the Record by Senator James E. Risch
why russian reserves should be used to help ukraine \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This article was converted from its original format. The
original can be found at: https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2023/
07/27/lawrence-summers-philip-zelikow-and-robert-zoellick-on-why-
russian-reserves-should-be-used-to-help-ukraine
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Lawrence Summers, Philip Zelikow, and Robert Zoellick
The Economist, July 27, 2023
Last week The Economist cautioned about how to use Russian assets
to help Ukraine. We appreciate the invitation to make the case for what
we believe can and should be done. Two of us are lawyers. Each of us
has worked on problems of international law and knows the arguments in
this case. We know that, as the Ukraine war wears on, the outcome may
be determined by the balance of hope or despair as well as on the
battle!eld. The Ukrainian economy is in the intensive-care unit. But we
face a unique circumstance. As Russia launched the largest act of
international aggression since the second world war, it left enormous
sums, at least $300bn-worth of dollars, euros, sterling and yen, in the
law-abiding states that oppose this aggression.
Public international law has always combined ``black letter'' law
with customs established as state practice adapts to new challenges. As
international law confronts its most severe test since the founding of
the United Nations, states can wring their hands, baffled, while
Ukraine burns. Or they can strengthen international law.
The international law of state countermeasures differs from law or
EU directives which govern ``sanctions.'' Countermeasures have long
been recognised as extra-judicial state measures of self-help. As the
UN's International Law Commission explained back in 2001,
``traditionally the term `reprisals' was used to cover otherwise
unlawful action, including forcible action, taken by way of self-help
in response to a breach.'' Now international lawyers use the term
``countermeasures'' for non-violent reprisals, with the law limiting
collective countermeasures to the most serious cases.
We have proposed that, as one such countermeasure, relevant states
should transfer frozen Russian assets into escrow to give Ukraine hope
that it can rebuild, perhaps also help others injured by Russia's
aggression, and assist in a future settlement. The countermeasure would
induce Russia to perform its legal duty to compensate, voluntarily or
involuntarily, the victims of its aggression. Though some worry that
the move might make some countries more reluctant to hold dollars or
euros, it poses no added risk to the stability of reserve currencies.
The Economist worried that state assets are ordinarily protected
from transfer or seizure under a doctrine of sovereign immunity. But
this doctrine applies to judgments by foreign courts. State assets, in
contrast to private assets, are protected from other sovereigns only by
customary obligations of reciprocal regard (or in bilateral investment
treaties). Court action is unnecessary or quite limited in the case of
an international act of state. State assets have been seized or
transferred before. In 1992, in the lesser case of Iraq's invasion of
Kuwait, America and European countries placed Iraqi state assets into
escrow to compensate Iraq's victims (including mainly claims from
Kuwait but also from 42 other states) without Iraq's voluntary consent.
Ordinarily Russia could claim repayment for lost assets. In this
case Russia's own serious breach of the inviolable norms of
international law permits a legal suspension of that obligation. The
Economist called for ``patient, relentless work to expand the legal
case against Russia.'' But a ruling by the International Court of
Justice (ICJ), handed down in March 2022, has already demanded that
Russia end its aggression, and Russia has ignored this obligation for
16 months. In November 2022 the UN General Assembly established
Russia's duty to provide reparations under the very procedure--``a
stand-in for the Security Council''--that The Economist recommended.
Russia has ignored that notice and duty for nine months.
Calls for years of litigation in the ICJ--which even then could end
fruitlessly, just as Georgia's case against Russia fizzled for
jurisdictional reasons more than ten years ago--seem, as former
American secretary of state George Marshall put it, like allowing the
patient to die while the doctors deliberate. The Russian assets sit
idle while damages grow, rewarding the aggressor. There is indeed much
more work to do in preparing the way for the transfer of funds, and
more work to design international mechanisms for timely reconstruction
assistance and sifting claims. But the legal prerequisites for the
enabling countermeasure have been met.
Why does The Economist seem to offer such conflicted advice? Its
article candidly revealed the core of the opposing position: Russia's
assets, it said, can only be used if Russia consents.
Why? Because, we are told, the opponents fear that such
countermeasures might be abused by powerful states. Any law enforcement
can be abused. But reflect on the paradox. In this argument to restrain
the powerful, it is Russia, the powerful aggressor, whose rights take
precedence over the rights of those it has injured. And this will
reinforce the rule of law?
The solicitude for Russia's rights is particularly ironic. We
advocate targeting only Russian state assets. Anything else, such as
moves against oligarchs, would indeed require due process to establish
an association between that person and the target state.
Russia is not so considerate. In April it announced a presidential
decree using the doctrine of state countermeasures to declare that it
can seize private companies if they are domiciled in countries deemed
``unfriendly.'' It then seized German and Finnish companies and has
since grabbed the Russian operations of Danone, a French food company,
and Carlsberg, a Danish brewer, turning them over to Vladimir Putin's
cronies. To this patently unlawful use of state countermeasures,
Western governments have offered no coherent reply.
Some of those who disagree with us fall back to a position that a
countermeasure must be reversible. They presume Russia might have to be
paid back. But the well-established codification of this principle,
adopted more than 20 years ago by the U.N.'s International Law
Commission, says that the suspended obligations need only be restored
``as far as possible.''
In 1949 Robert Jackson, a justice on the United States Supreme
Court, warned: ``There is a danger that, if the court does not temper
its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert
the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.''
At this moment in history, those who want to defend the rule of law
should not take positions that would cut out its heart.
__________
Appendix IX
Submitted for the Record by Senator James E. Risch
the legal, practical, and moral case for
transferring russian sovereign assets to ukraine
New Lines Institute, June 2023
by Laurence H. Tribe, Raymond P. Tolentino,
Kate M. Harris, Jackson Erpenbach, and Jeremy Lewin
https://rdi.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/2023.09.17-MPP-
Report.pdf
__________
BUSINESS MEETING
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 20, 2024
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
Summary of Action Taken by the Committee
NOMINATIONS
Ms. Margaret L. Taylor, of Maryland, to be Legal Adviser of the
Department of State--agreed to favorably by roll call vote (11-
10)
Ayes: Cardin, Menendez, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, Kaine,
Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen, Duckworth
Nays: Risch, Rubio (proxy), Romney (proxy), Ricketts, Paul
(proxy), Young (proxy), Barrasso (proxy), Cruz (proxy), Hagerty
(proxy), Scott (proxy)
Mr. Robert William Forden, 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 Kingdom of Cambodia--agreed to
favorably by roll call vote (11-10)
Ayes: Cardin, Menendez, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, Kaine,
Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen, Duckworth
Nays: Risch, Rubio (proxy), Romney (proxy), Ricketts, Paul
(proxy), Young (proxy), Barrasso (proxy), Cruz (proxy), Hagerty
(proxy), Scott (proxy)
Mr. Erik John Woodhouse, of Virginia, to be Head of the Office of
Sanctions Coordination, with the rank of Ambassador--agreed to
favorably by roll call vote (12-9)
Ayes: Cardin, Menendez, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, Kaine,
Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen, Duckworth, Paul (proxy)
Nays: Risch, Rubio (proxy), Romney (proxy), Ricketts, Young
(proxy), Barrasso (proxy), Cruz (proxy), Hagerty (proxy), Scott
(proxy)
Dr. Michael Sfraga, of Alaska, to be Ambassador-at-Large for Arctic
Affairs--agreed to favorably by roll call vote (11-10)
Ayes: Cardin, Menendez, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, Kaine,
Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen, Duckworth
Nays: Risch, Rubio (proxy), Romney (proxy), Ricketts, Paul
(proxy), Young (proxy), Barrasso (proxy), Cruz (proxy), Hagerty
(proxy), Scott (proxy)
Meeting Transcript
Members Present: Cardin, Menendez, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy,
Kaine, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen, Duckworth, Risch,
and Ricketts
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:36 a.m., in S-
116, The Capitol, Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin, chairman of the
committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Cardin [presiding], Menendez, Shaheen,
Coons, Murphy, Kaine, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen,
Duckworth, Risch, and Ricketts.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MARYLAND
The Chairman. The business meeting of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee will come to order. We have a quorum for
debate, we do not yet have a quorum for voting, but I know
people's schedules are always tight. So I think we will get
started, and we at least can get involved in some of our
discussion.
Today, we are considering four nominations on the agenda.
After a very long wait period, almost 400 days, I am pleased
that we are finally voting on these nominees. They are superb.
Each one of the four that are under consideration are highly
qualified. They are the type of people we need representing us
in the field.
Margaret Taylor is one of the most qualified individuals
ever nominated to be legal advisor. She has been the general
counsel of USAID for almost 3 years, served as a career
attorney in the Office of the Legal Advisor for 10 years, and
served as a distinguished member of the staff here on the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee. She has the support of all
the living former legal advisors, from the Reagan
administration to the Trump administration, who have written to
Senator Risch and me strongly endorsing her qualifications and
speedy confirmation. While there will always be certain
disagreements between the committee and State Department, I can
tell you two things with absolute confidence. Ms. Taylor will
faithfully implement the law, and she will deal with the
committee with respect and with the willingness to work with us
to find productive solutions to difficult problems.
Mr. Woodhouse is superbly qualified to serve as sanctions
coordinator, having worked on and implemented sanctions up
close from multiple angles at the Treasury Department as an
attorney in private practice and his current position as deputy
assistant secretary for sanctions. His background, his record,
his current position make him the perfect candidate to be the
sanctions coordinator, an office that Senator Risch had a
strong hand in creating.
Mr. Forden is a career diplomat who has worked for decades
at the State Department on matters related to Asia. His
experience and expertise will be critical to advancing U.S.
interests in Cambodia, including our efforts to combat China's
malign influence in the region. I was not surprised to get the
resounding endorsement from former Ambassador Branstad to China
during the Trump administration, under which Mr. Forden served
as deputy chief of mission.
And finally, there is Mr. Sfraga, who is one of the world's
foremost experts on the Arctic, its environment, its resources,
its people, its nations, making him an excellent choice to be
Ambassador-at-Large for the Arctic Affairs. He enjoys the
strong support from the co-chairs of the Arctic Caucus, Senator
Murkowski and King, as well as Senator Sullivan.
Our system of government and our national security depend
on incentivizing the best and most qualified individuals who
choose government service. This committee has been sending the
opposite message. Nominations are languishing, and our national
security suffers as a result, so let me just give you the
numbers. We currently have pending in this committee 33
nominees from the State Department, 20 of which are
Ambassadors. Twenty-six are awaiting a business meeting, means
they have already been completed, their hearings, and all the--
all the paperwork is in. I am pleased that we are able to start
today and moving forward on four, but we need to conduct
business meetings to deal with those that are ready for voting.
Senator Rich and I have been working on that. We have been
exchanging lists. I am very hopeful that our next business
meeting, we will be able to consider a significant number of
nominees for recommendation to the floor. It is our
responsibility to vote on these nominees, and I hope that we
will have the cooperation to schedule that meeting as soon as
we get back from this pending recess. With that, let me
recognize Senator Risch.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. RISCH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO
Senator Risch. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all,
as everyone here knows, I have a strong objection to the
nominees on the agenda today, and this business meeting was
noticed over my objection. That is what it is. While a majority
of career nominees are vetted and passed out quickly, the four
nominees before us, out of more than a hundred nominees
referred to our committee, were not properly vetted, in my
opinion. It is important to fill positions at State, but we
also do not blindly support nominees with serious vetting
concerns. When these nominees were sent back last year, I asked
the President to nominate other well-vetted nominees. That did
not happen, so here we are today.
These four make up less than 5 percent of the submissions
of the hundred submissions of nominees to this committee. I do
not think it is unreasonable for us to find that there are
problems with less than 5 percent. I think it is appropriate
that we do the strict vetting that we do, and these do not pass
muster.
Mr. Forden, this is a clear case of performance failure. He
did not uphold the most basic and important responsibilities.
He was a senior leader entrusted with defending the rights of
his diplomats in Embassy Beijing, but he failed. The initial
waiver the Department agreed to in September 2020 was extremely
limited, allowing only one testing before arrival in China, two
testing upon arrival, and at day 13 in China, and three
quarantined for up to 14 days. Mr. Forden was supposed to
enforce the conditions listed. He did not. China forced our
diplomats to comply with increasingly outrageous requirements
and lengthy quarantines, and Mr. Forden gave in every time.
During his tenure, things got worse. The Chinese subjected
our diplomats to fever hospitals with abhorrent conditions,
separated children from their families, denied medical care,
and conducted round the clock surveillance. We know because
multiple whistleblowers provided evidence that directly refutes
Mr. Forden's testimony. Whistleblowers actually attended our
hearing when we had the public hearing on this recently and
wanted to tell this committee face to face the problems that
they saw, but they were denied being able to do that.
Nonetheless, it can't be swept under the carpet. We put their
observations in the record.
Instead of drawing lines to stop Chinese overreach, Mr.
Forden fostered a culture of compliance with China's
violations. The majority said it was unaware of these
allegations until the hearing. However, whistleblowers
approached both sides, the Republican and the Democrats' side,
in January of 2022. The majority has had this information for
years, but they did not investigate. Since the hearing, we have
received even more whistleblower information, and I ask
unanimous consent to add this additional evidence to the
record.
The Chairman. Without objection.
[The information referred to can be found as attachments to
the March 7, 2024 hearing on nominations (S. Hrg. 624).]
Senator Risch. Next, I would like to address the nomination
of Ms. Taylor. While I have concerns about her performance as
general counsel at USAID, my objection is simple. This is about
State's refusal to share information regarding Mr. Rob Malley's
suspended security clearance, a very serious matter. For 8
months, I asked for information on the suspension. I know every
member of this committee takes our oversight responsibility
seriously, but we need the facts to make the judgments we are
called on to make. The Chairman and I, as two of the four
corners, have got to be--make judgements on, particularly
foreign military sales, allowing or denying the same, and we
can't do it without the information. What are the underlying
allegations against Mr. Malley? Are the allegations related to
his work on Iran? Was his information he provided this
committee compromised?
During the hearing, we were told State doesn't have this
information. This is not true. The Assistant Secretary of State
for Diplomatic Security, Mr. Smith, briefed myself and the
Chairman, and he did admit that he has it, but he refused to
give it to us. State has failed to provide any legal basis for
withholding the information. It hides behind the Privacy Act,
despite a clear exception in the Privacy Act for requests from
congressional committees, which I believe we are, an exception
the nominee has acknowledged. Before Ms. Taylor moves forward
for this legal position, we should have the facts on this
important matter.
Turning to Dr. Sfraga, this position is focused on national
security challenges, economic opportunities, and the
implications of U.S. foreign policy in the Arctic. Due to its
importance, this position is a target from malign influence,
especially from Russia and China. Dr. Sfraga has traveled
extensively to Russia and China, negotiated MOUs with the
Chinese institutions tied to defense and intelligence services,
and spoke at a conference sponsored by sanctioned Russians. He
failed to disclose any of this, but had to admit it and changed
his file 3 times after being confronted with this information.
I am very concerned about the national security questions
raised by this behavior, and I will continue to oppose his
nomination.
On the nomination of Mr. Woodhouse, I will reiterate, I
care deeply about this office. I wrote the legislation to
create it, and I want to see it succeed. This job requires
someone who will voice opposition when the law and the
political will of an administration do not align.
Unfortunately, Mr. Woodhouse has not robustly defended the law
in key sanctions issues. Based on my experience, I lack
confidence in Mr. Woodhouse. I hope he will prove me wrong, but
I will be voting ``no'' on this nomination.
I would like to request a roll call vote on each of the
nominees, and the chairman and I have talked about other
avenues that we can seek to get the information we want from
State regarding Rob Malley, and I hope to continue with the
chairman in that regard. Regarding the nominees, I strongly
disagree with the accusations that well-qualified career
nominees have faced unprecedented scrutiny in this committee.
We should robustly vet these. Over the last 3 years, State
nominees averaged roughly 90 days in committee. During the
Trump administration, the average, 94 days in committee. The
four nominees on the agenda today, with which I continue to
have serious concerns, represent roughly 3 percent of the
nominees referred to this committee in this Congress. I do not
think three--looking closely and finding 3 percent having
problems is out of line.
We asked to move over 17 other nominations today, along
with a robust legislative agenda, but were denied. Instead, we
have insisted on moving these four nominations that have
serious vetting concerns over those who would have far more
bipartisan support, including nominations to positions like the
USAID, assistant administrator for Middle East, the Ambassador
of Somalia, and the nominee to lead DRL. In addition to that,
these are going to have problems on the floor. As I have
indicated, it is going to be done the hard way on the floor,
and the others could move through much more quickly, and we
could fill a lot more. Anyway, enough of that. Back to you, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. Well, one area I just want to totally
disagree, and that is on being able to get an agenda--a robust
agenda with the nominees and legislation. We have been working
back and forth. I have tried to give you the options in about a
half a dozen different ways that we could at least get a
hearing scheduled and a business meeting scheduled, get the
agreed-to legislation on the agenda, get the nominations on the
agenda, continue to work to get more on the agenda, and each
one of the different variations always had a problem of
something is not on it that you want on it, or something that
we want on it you do not want on it. But I hope that within the
next day, we can work those out, and we can note a business
meeting the first week we are back in which we will be able to
bring those nominations forward, and the two of us have
committed to meet during this week to try to resolve that. I
hope that that is the case so that we can note a business
meeting.
The second point I just want to bring out, this committee
is unique in comity. We do work together, and we have worked
together in scheduling both the hearings and in the business
meetings. That is, I think, to the advantage of our national
interest. We have not been able to work together on these four
nominees, that is correct, but as I have reminded the committee
during the hearing, Chairman Risch did a similar circumstance
on more than four nominees. I do not know the exact numbers
right now, but there were more than four. So this is a rare use
of the prerogatives of the chair, but it is my view that these
four positions need to be filled, and these individuals have
been fully vetted. And we have gotten letters from Secretary
Verma from the State Department that outlined in detail the
vetting that has gone forward in responding to the questions.
So at this point, I am following the advice of Senator Risch,
which said hearings have purpose, and committees have to vote
on nominees.
Now, in regards to the specific issues that you raised, Mr.
Forden, he responded to every one of those allegations on the
testing for COVID, and, in fact, all the waivers that were
given for testing were not made by the mission in Beijing. It
was made at State Department by Secretary Pompeo. If you have a
problem, it is with Secretary Pompeo, not with the individual
that you are referring to. And he specifically indicated that
he never participated in any of the activities that you were
referring to.
Number two, in regards to Margaret Taylor, you and I agree,
we should be getting more information, but it is not from the
State Department. It is from the investigators of the
Department of Justice. I have pledged to you that I will
continue to work with you to try to find a way so that we can
get relevant information that is appropriate for us to be able
to review, so we are going to continue to work on that issue,
and I--but it has nothing to do with State Department, and it
should not hold up Margaret Taylor's, nomination.
In regards to Michael Sfraga, his contact--he is a--he is
an academic professor and knows the Arctic better than any
person I think we could ever imagine. He attended conferences
for the Arctic as a professional, well before the Ukraine War.
And he has said and he has committed to us that now that we are
engaged in this conflict with Russia, there will be no further
engagements, so he has--he has answered our questions. All of
his contacts with Russia and China were in a professional
capacity in his role in the Arctic because they happen to be
Arctic countries. So and he has, of course, the strong support
of Senator Murkowski and Senator King, the co-chairs of the
Arctic Conference, and Senator Sullivan, so I would hope that
we would pass that.
Eric Woodhouse, I am not exactly sure of your concerns
there. I really do not understand. He has been the person
responsible for coordinating the sanctions in regards to Russia
and Iran and its proxies, including the Houthis, and by any
objective account, we have been as aggressive as possible in
opposing sanctions in regards to those areas. So I think in all
these areas, the questions have been answered, they have been
fully vetted, and I would urge my colleagues to support all the
nominations.
At this point, we will have individual votes on all four of
the nominees, but I will open it up for comments on any one of
the four. Senator Shaheen.
Senator Shaheen. Well, Mr. Chairman, you have been very
eloquent in talking about the qualifications of each of these
four nominees, so I do not really want to speak to that, but I
do want to speak to the number of Ambassador openings that we
still have.
Two weeks ago, Senators Duckworth, Kaine, and I all serve
on the Armed Services Committee. We had our annual hearings
with the commanders of CENTCOM and Africa. And one of the
questions that I asked them, we showed a map of the eight
country--eight Ambassador openings that we have in Africa right
now in places like Djibouti, where the Chinese have their own--
only military base in Africa; the African Union where we do not
have an Ambassador; a number--Nigeria, the most populous
country in Africa, where we do not have an Ambassador. We still
do not have an Ambassador in one of the CENTCOM countries. And
I asked the two generals what that meant for their ability to
address national security issues in those regions, and they
were both very eloquent in talking about how important it is
that we have Ambassadors so that we have a whole-of-government
to what we are doing in these countries.
China has an Ambassador in every one of these countries
where we do not, they outnumber us in terms of their diplomatic
personnel, and if we are going to compete with China, we got to
have people on the ground. And the fact that we are still here
with so many Ambassador positions unfilled is just an impact on
our national security, not to mention the citizens of the
United States who depend on those Ambassadors and embassies in
those countries.
So it is a disgrace, Mr. Chairman. I am glad to hear that
you and Senator Risch are working hard to try and fill these
positions. We need to make the point that this is not
frivolous. This is about national security. It is about our
competition with China and Russia and our other adversaries,
and if we do not have people on the ground, then we are not
competing.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Coons. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Senator Coons.
Senator Coons. If I could briefly from Africa to the
Arctic, I just spent last weekend under the polar ice cap with
a bipartisan delegation, and having long conversations about
our Arctic role and our Arctic policy. There are eight nations
that border the Arctic. We are the only one without an Arctic
Ambassador. Mike Sfraga has the very strong support of Senators
Sullivan and Murkowski. As you said, he is an academic who has
been cleared after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the full-
spectrum invasion in 2022. The previous participation in
conferences and conversations with Russians about the Arctic
should not be viewed as any endorsement or support by him of
the idea that we can or should cooperate with Russia in the
current setting. I think the criticisms that have been raised
of him should not be a bar to his confirmation.
I think as Senator Shaheen just said, I have been all over
the world in places where, in the absence of an Ambassador, we
are not well served or well represented. The Arctic had not
been on my map as one of those places. Now it is. We should
advance this nominee.
Senator Kaine. Senator?
The Chairman. Senator Kaine?
Senator Kaine. I will come at this from a different angle.
So I have been vetted twice to be vice president, first by
Barack Obama in 2008 and by Hillary Clinton, 2016, painful.
Everything I have ever said, everything I have ever written,
interviews with my family, but easier than being up for a
Senate confirmable position, easier than being up for a Senate
confirmable position because a decision had to be made. At some
point there is going to be a convention, and the nominee has to
say who their running mate is going to be, and so as painful as
it is, a decision has to be made.
I worry that the way we turn Senate confirmation, and not
just in this committee more generally, is a massive
disincentive to anybody who would want to come to public
service. So I agree with Senator Shaheen. This has an effect on
our ability to do diplomacy in Africa or other places, but it
also has a chilling effect on good people wanting to be in
public service when they feel that the process to get nominated
takes forever, and then the process to get to a hearing takes
forever, and the process to get to a markup after a hearing
takes forever, and the process to get your moment in the sun on
the floor takes forever.
We are we are rapidly approaching a point where the very
kind of people that we would want to serve the Article II
branch of this country would be the kind of people who will
say, why even bother? And that is why I think--advise and
consent does not mean you have to vote yes. For any reason, you
can vote no, but just to keep these things open for so very
long, it is really, really hurting the willingness of people to
come into these positions, and I intend to vote for all these
nominations.
The Chairman. If there is no further debate, the question
first will be on the nomination of Mrs. Margaret L. Taylor to
be legal advisor of the Department of State. Is there a motion
to approve her nomination?
Senator Menendez. So moved.
The Chairman. Is there a second?
Senator Shaheen. Second.
The Chairman. It has been moved and second.
The Clerk will call the role on the nomination.
The Clerk. Mr. Menendez?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Menendez?
Senator Menendez. Oh. Yes.
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. 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. Mrs. Duckworth?
Senator Duckworth. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
Senator Risch. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Ricketts?
Senator Ricketts. No.
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. Hagerty?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Scott?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 11. The noes are 10.
The Chairman. A majority of members present having voted in
the affirmative, the nomination is agreed to.
We will now consider the nomination of Erik Woodhouse to be
the head of the Office of Sanctions Coordinator, with the rank
of Ambassador.
Is there a motion to approve the nomination?
Senator Menendez. So move.
The Chairman. Is there a second?
Senator Shaheen. Second.
The Chairman. It has been moved and second.
The Clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Menendez?
Senator Menendez. 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. 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. Mrs. Duckworth?
Senator Duckworth. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
Senator Risch. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Ricketts?
Senator Ricketts. No.
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. Hagerty?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Scott?
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 9.
The Chairman. A majority having voted in the affirmative,
the nomination is approved.
We will now consider the nomination of Dr. Michael Sfraga
to be the--let me see the title here.
Senator Shaheen. Ambassador-at-Large.
The Chairman. Ambassador-at-Large for the Arctic.
The Clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Menendez?
Senator Menendez. 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. 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. Mrs. Duckworth?
Senator Duckworth. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
Senator Risch. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Ricketts?
Senator Ricketts. No.
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. Hagerty?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Scott?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Aye.
Senator Shaheen. Mr. Chairman, could I just ask a
procedural question?
The Chairman. Senator Shaheen?
Senator Shaheen. We did not request a motion on that.
The Chairman. Oh.
Senator Shaheen. Do we need to --
The Chairman. I was in the wrong part of my script. Good
point. Why do we not do this again, if we might.
Is there a motion to affirmatively report Dr. Michael
Sfraga to be Ambassador-at-Large for Arctic Affairs?
Senator Menendez. So move.
The Chairman. Is there a second?
Senator Shaheen. Second.
The Chairman. The Clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Menendez?
Senator Menendez. 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. 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. Mrs. Duckworth?
Senator Duckworth. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
Senator Risch. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Ricketts?
Senator Ricketts. No.
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. Hagerty?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Scott?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Aye.
Now the Clerk will report.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 11. The noes are 10.
The Chairman. A majority having voted in the affirmative,
the nomination is approved.
We will now consider the nomination of Mr. Robert Forden to
be Ambassador to Cambodia.
Is there a motion to approve his nomination?
Senator Menendez. So move.
The Chairman. Is there a second?
Senator Shaheen. Second.
The Chairman. It has been moved and second.
The Clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Menendez?
Senator Menendez. 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. 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. Mrs. Duckworth?
Senator Duckworth. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
Senator Risch. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Ricketts?
Senator Ricketts. No.
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. Hagerty?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Scott?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Aye.
The Clerk will report.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 11. The noes are 10.
The Chairman. A majority having voted in the affirmative,
the nomination is approved.
That completes our business meeting. I want to thank all
the members of the committee, including Senator Risch and
Ricketts for being here and participating in the markup. And I
recognize that we are always stronger when we work together, so
let us get back to agreeing on an agenda, and let us move
forward on the agenda of this committee, in the normal manner
that we do, working together.
With that, the hearing--the business meeting will stand
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:02 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
----------
BUSINESS MEETING
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2024
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
Summary of Action Taken by the Committee
LEGISLATION
S. 3854, International Freedom Protection Act, with an amendment in
the nature of a substitute--agreed to favorably by voice vote
Managers substitute amendment--agreed to favorably by voice vote
S. 3235, End Iranian Terrorism Act of 2023, with an amendment in the
nature of a substitute--agreed to favorably by voice vote
Managers substitute amendment--agreed to favorably by voice vote
Schatz 1st Degree 1--agreed to favorably by voice vote
S. 1651, Western Balkans Democracy and Prosperity Act, with an
amendment in the nature of a substitute--agreed to favorably by
voice vote
Managers substitute amendment--agreed to favorably by voice vote
S. 138, Promoting a Resolution to the Tibet-China Conflict Act, with
an amendment in the nature of a substitute agreed to favorably
by voice vote
Managers substitute amendment--agreed to favorably by voice vote
S. 1829, Stop Harboring Iranian Petroleum Act of 2023, with an
amendment in the nature of a substitute--agreed to favorably by
voice vote (Murphy, Schatz recorded as no)
Managers substitute amendment--agreed to favorably by voice vote
Cruz 1st Degree 1--agreed to favorably by voice vote
Cardin 2nd Degree 1 to Cruz 1st Degree 1--agreed to
favorably by roll call vote (11-9)
Ayes: Cardin, Menendez, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, Kaine,
Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen, Duckworth
Nays: Risch, Rubio, Romney, Ricketts, Young (proxy), Barrasso
(proxy), Cruz, Hagerty (proxy), Scott
Schatz 1st Degree 1--agreed to favorably by voice vote (Rubio
recorded as no)
S. 3874, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad International Terrorism
Support Prevention Act of 2024, with an amendment in the nature
of a substitute--agreed to favorably by roll call vote (12-8)
Ayes: Cardin, Menendez, Shaheen (proxy), Coons (proxy),
Murphy, Kaine, Merkley, Booker, Schatz (proxy), Van Hollen,
Duckworth, Rubio
Nays: Risch, Romney (proxy), Ricketts, Young (proxy),
Barrasso (proxy), Cruz, Hagerty (proxy), Scott
Managers substitute amendment--agreed to favorably by voice vote
Cruz 1st Degree 1--Not Agreed To by Roll Call Vote (9-11)
Ayes: Risch, Rubio, Romney (proxy), Ricketts, Young (proxy),
Barrasso (proxy), Cruz, Hagerty (proxy), Scott
Nays: Cardin, Menendez, Shaheen (proxy), Coons (proxy),
Murphy, Kaine, Merkley, Booker, Schatz (proxy), Van Hollen,
Duckworth
Cardin 2nd Degree 1 to Cruz 1st Degree--agreed to
favorably by roll call vote (11-7)
Ayes: Cardin, Menendez, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, Kaine,
Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen, Duckworth
Nays: Risch, Rubio, Romney, Ricketts, Cruz, Hagerty (proxy),
Scott
Van Hollen 2nd Degree 1 to Cruz 1st Degree 1--not
agreed to by roll call vote (8-12)
Ayes: Coons (proxy), Murphy, Kaine, Merkley, Booker, Schatz
(proxy), Van Hollen, Duckworth
Nays: Cardin, Menendez, Shaheen (proxy), Risch, Rubio, Romney
(proxy), Ricketts, Young (proxy), Barrasso (proxy), Cruz,
Hagerty (proxy), Scott
Merkley 1st Degree 2--agreed to favorably by voice vote (Hagerty
recorded as no)
Schatz 1st Degree 1--agreed to favorably by voice vote
S. 2626, MAHSA Act, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute--
agreed to favorably by voice vote
Managers substitute amendment--agreed to favorably by voice vote
Schatz 1st Degree 1--agreed to favorably by voice vote (Rubio
recorded as no)
S. 2336, Making Iran Sanctions Stick In Lieu of Expiration of
Sanctions Act, with an amendment in the nature of a
substitute--agreed to favorably by voice vote
Managers substitute amendment--agreed to favorably by voice vote
Schatz 1st Degree 1--agreed to favorably by voice vote
S.Res. 505, A resolution condemning the use of sexual violence and
rape as a weapon of war by the terrorist group Hamas against
the people of Israel, without amendments--agreed to favorably
by voice vote
S. 618, United States Foundation for International Conservation Act
of 2023, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute--
agreed to favorably by voice vote (Romney, Barrasso recorded as
no)
Substitute amendment--agreed to favorably by voice vote
S. 1881, Restoring Sovereignty and Human Rights in Nicaragua Act of
2023, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute--agreed
to favorably by voice vote
Managers substitute amendment--agreed to favorably by voice vote
S.Res. 357, A resolution recognizing the formation of the Alliance
for Development in Democracy and urging the United States to
pursue deeper ties with its member countries, without
amendments--agreed to favorably by voice vote
S.Con.Res. 18, A concurrent resolution calling for the immediate
release of Marc Fogel, a United States citizen and teacher, who
was given an unjust and disproportionate criminal sentence by
the Government of the Russian Federation in June 2022, with an
amendment in the nature of a substitute--agreed to favorably by
voice vote
Managers substitute amendment--agreed to favorably by voice vote
S.Res. 385, A resolution calling for the immediate release of Evan
Gershkovich, a United States citizen and journalist, who was
wrongfully detained by the Government of the Russian Federation
in March 2023, without amendments--agreed to favorably by voice
vote
NOMINATIONS
The Honorable Stephanie Sanders Sullivan, of Maryland, a Career
Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Career Minister,
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 favorably by voice
vote (Rubio, Ricketts, Barrasso recorded as no)
Ms. Pamela M. Tremont, 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 Zimbabwe--agreed to favorably by
voice vote
Ms. Elizabeth Rood, 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 Turkmenistan agreed to favorably by voice vote
(Barrasso recorded as no)
Mr. Richard H. Riley IV, 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 Federal Republic of Somalia agreed to favorably
by voice vote
Mr. David J. Kostelancik, of Illinois, a Career Member of the Senior
Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of
America to the Republic of Albania agreed to favorably by voice
vote (Rubio recorded as no)
The Honorable Kamala Shirin Lakhdhir, of Connecticut, a Career Member
of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to
be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United
States of America to the Republic of Indonesia agreed to
favorably by voice vote
Mr. Stephan A. Lang, of Virginia, a Career Member of the Senior
Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be U.S.
Coordinator for International Communications and Information
Policy, with the rank of Ambassador agreed to favorably by
voice vote
Dr. Jennifer M. Adams, 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 Cabo Verde--agreed to favorably by
voice vote
Ms. Courtney Diesel O'Donnell, of California, to be United States
Permanent Representative to the United Nations Educational,
Scientific, and Cultural Organization, with the rank of
Ambassador agreed to favorably by voice vote(Rubio, Ricketts,
Barrasso, Cruz recorded as no)
The Honorable Dorothy Camille Shea, of North Carolina, a Career
Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-
Counselor, to be Representative of the United States of America
to the Sessions of the General Assembly of the United Nations,
during her tenure of service as Deputy Representative of the
United States of America to the United Nations agreed to
favorably by voice vote (Rubio, Barrasso, Cruz recorded as no)
The Honorable Dorothy Camille Shea, of North Carolina, a Career
Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-
Counselor, to be the Deputy Representative of the United States
of America to the United Nations, with the rank and status of
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary and the Deputy
Representative of the United States of America in the Security
Council of the United Nations--agreed to favorably by voice
vote (Rubio, Barrasso, Cruz) recorded as no)
Dr. Dafna Hochman Rand, of Maryland, to be Assistant Secretary of
State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor--agreed to
favorably by voice vote (Rubio, Barrasso, Cruz recorded as no)
Mr. Andrew William Plitt, of Maryland, to be an Assistant
Administrator of the United States Agency for International
Development (Bureau for Middle Eastern Affairs)--agreed to
favorably by voice vote (Rubio, Ricketts, Cruz recorded as no)
Mr. Richard L.A. Weiner, of the District of Columbia, to be United
States Director of the European Bank for Reconstruction and
Development--agreed to favorably by voice vote (Rubio,
Ricketts, Barrasso recorded as no)
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 favorably by voice vote
(Rubio, Barrasso recorded as no)
Mr. Arthur W. Brown, 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 Ecuador--agreed to favorably by
voice vote
The Honorable Richard Mills, Jr., of Georgia, a Career Member of the
Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United
States of America to the Federal Republic of Nigeria--agreed to
favorably by voice vote
Mr. Mark Toner, 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 Liberia--agreed to favorably by
voice vote
Ms. Laura Stone, of Utah, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign
Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of
America to the Republic of the Marshall Islands--agreed to
favorably by voice vote (Rubio, Barrasso recorded as no)
The Honorable Lisa Peterson, 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 Burundi--agreed to
favorably by voice vote (Rubio, Ricketts, Barrasso, Cruz
recorded as no)
Ms. Donna Ann Welton, 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 Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste--agreed to
favorably by voice vote (Rubio recorded as no)
FSO LISTS
John C. Brewer, et.al., dated November 1, 2023 (PN1128)--agreed to
favorably by voice vote
William Czajkowski, et. al., dated March 30. 2023 (PN497)--agreed to
favorably by voice vote
Laura E. Williams, dated January 26, 2023--agreed to favorably by
voice vote
Jean E. Akers, et. al., dated January 25, 2024 (PN1396)--agreed to
favorably by voice vote
Donald A. Blome et.al., dated January 25, 2024 (PN1397)--agreed to
favorably by voice vote
Eliza F. Al-Laham, et. al., dated January 25, 2024 (PN1398)--agreed
to favorably by voice vote
John R. Bass II, et. al., dated May 2, 2023 (PN587)--agreed to
favorably by voice vote (Risch recorded as no)
Meeting Transcript
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in
Room 116, Hon. Benjamin K. Cardin, chairman of the committee,
presiding.
Present: Senators Cardin [presiding], Menendez, Shaheen,
Coons, Murphy, Kaine, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen,
Duckworth, Risch, Rubio, Romney, Ricketts, Cruz, and Scott.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MARYLAND
The Chairman. The business meeting of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee will come to order.
We do have nine present. We need one more for actually
reporting but at this stage we can start the preliminary work.
I just want to start off by thanking Senator Risch. I want
to thank every member of this committee and I particularly want
to thank our staffs.
This was extraordinary work to get this agenda together and
it took a lot of cooperation and, yes, we will probably have
some votes here in the committee that may be without agreement
and without consensus.
But, we have narrowed it considerably thanks to the hard
work of our members and your staffs. I particularly want to
acknowledge the staff of the committee, both the Democratic and
Republican staff who worked throughout this whole weekend and
through the night in order to try to get us to a point where we
can not only pass legislation, but we can see it enacted into
law.
We do have 21 nominations that we will be taking up today,
seven FSO lists and 14 bills and resolutions. So, it has been a
very, very aggressive agenda and I thank everyone for their
cooperation.
The events of this weekend in the Middle East are on the
forefront of our minds so I will start with a few words about
Iran's attack on Israel.
The attack was brazen, almost 300 drones and missiles
primarily launched from Iranian territory. There is no escaping
the fact that the intention was to cause harm by including
targeting areas that could have hit the holy sites in
Jerusalem, risking injury and death to many innocent civilians.
Second, the attack from Iran was a complete failure. The
United States led an international coalition of European allies
and Arab partners to make sure we demonstrated with action our
ironclad support for Israel's defense. President Biden showed
that support in no uncertain terms.
Third, it is important as ever that we do not see a
spiraling escalation in the region that leads to widespread
violence and conflict. It is as important now as it was since
October 7, and I support President Biden's effort to keep a
strategic eye on protecting U.S. interests, personnel, and
assets in the region as well as containing any escalation of
the conflict.
That brings me to the Middle East bills that we are taking
up today. Ideally, we would have sought to craft a bipartisan
comprehensive bill in regard to what is happening in the Middle
East with Iran and Hamas. Senator Risch wanted us to take up
the individual bills, which is perfectly acceptable. So, we are
taking up several independent bills that deal with this threat.
We will be taking up the SHIP Act and the MAHSA Act, Hamas
Palestinian Islamic Jihad Support Prevention Act. I would like
to thank Senator Rubio for his work on these bills along with
Senator Hassan, Padilla, and Rosen.
We are also taking up Senator Risch's bill on Iranian
Terrorism Act, Senator Menendez and Senator Hagerty with his
help in making sure that the Iran sanctions stick. So, we have
a significant agenda in regard to the challenges of Iran and
Hamas.
In the interest of time, I will not go into details on each
of these bills, but I will make a few quick points.
While the bills we are taking up today long predate the
events of this weekend and predate October 7, they do seek to
strengthen U.S. tools to cut off any international support to
Hamas and also call for greater enforcement of sanctions on
Iran, a country for which there are more U.S. sanction
authorities on the books than virtually any others.
This is totally consistent with what we heard at the
hearings that we held in regard to the Iranian sanctions, that
we need to deal with the secondary issues.
These bills do deal with these issues and strengthen the
tools that we have available to counter Iran's nefarious
activities.
Through my substitute amendment we will be making each of
these bills stronger and smarter--in light of the key
additional sanctions I have added including in relation to
Iranian threats concerning current and former U.S. officials.
This is becoming a bigger target--for the terrorists to go
after our officials. We specifically allow for sanctions to be
imposed for such activities. And smarter than that, we are
preserving flexibility for the United States to implement our
sanctions in a way that are most effective in furthering our
objectives of constraining Iran, incentivizing the Iranian
regime and its malign activities.
We also provide authority for resources so that we can
actually have in place the capacity to enforce these sanctions.
I want to take a minute to mention the International
Freedom Protection Act which I introduced along with Senator
Wicker, and which has benefitted from thoughtful engagement. I
want to thank Senator Merkley and Senator Rubio for their help.
For years, authoritarianism has been on the rise. Autocrats
in nations like China, Russia, and Iran and beyond are
increasingly undermining democracy in every region of the
world.
This bill provides a framework for the United States to
combat authoritarianism, modernizing our strategies, policies,
and tools.
I am also pleased that we have so many other important
bipartisan items on the agenda including bills and resolutions:
Senators Shaheen and Senator Wicker in regards to the
Western Balkans, a comprehensive bill that I strongly support;
Senators Rubio and Kaine in regards to the Nicaragua from
their work on the Western Hemisphere;
Senators Coons and Graham on the U.S. Foundation for
International Conservation Center, working on this for a long
time. I congratulate him on getting the bill to a point where
we will be able to act on it today.
Senators Merkley and Young in regard to Tibet. I thank
Senator Merkley for his leadership on this very important human
rights issue.
Senators Cruz and Kaine in regard to democracy, Alliance
for Democracy dealing with the D.R., dealing with Panama,
dealing with Costa Rica and also Ecuador.
Among the issues we are going be taking up are two
resolutions regarding Americans detained in Russia. Marc
Fogel--thank you to Senator Casey and Daines--and Evan
Gershkovich. Evan has now--and I want to thank Senator Risch
for his work in regard to that resolution.
Evan has now been in a Russian prison for over a year. He
is imprisoned because he was a reporter. We know how important
independent reporting is to accountability and public
knowledge, and to advance human rights.
It is outrageous that he has been held by Russia for what
he is reporting. He has missed a year of his life and his
family for merely reporting the truth, and I am proud to join
the ranking member in introducing this resolution calling for
his immediate release along with other Americans wrongfully
detained in Russia, including Paul Whelan.
I also applaud Senator Shaheen, along with Senator Britt,
for her important resolution condemning Hamas' use of sexual
violence as a weapon of war against the people of Israel.
Sexual violence is one of the many ways Hamas has
terrorized Israelis and we must call it out and hold the
perpetrators accountable.
This is the type of robust markup I have sought since
becoming Chairman and I look forward to more in the coming
weeks. In addition, we worked very closely with Senator Risch,
and we have a very robust agenda in regard to nominations. I
would still like us to do more.
I think we have to act as promptly as we can on the
nominations with hearings and committee actions. I am pleased
that today's agenda includes such a robust number of nominees
in a Foreign Service officers list.
With that, let me turn it over to Senator Risch for his
opening comments.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. RISCH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO
Senator Risch. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I am glad we have gotten to a robust agenda
including the Middle East legislation to push back on Iran's
aggression against Israel and the United States. It would be
nice if we had gotten to it sooner, but it is more important
that we get it right as opposed to an overly aggressive time
schedule.
The conflict in the Middle East has significant, very
significant implications, for American national security. This
conflict cries out for our attention because of the U.S.
national interests arising from the region.
Almost everyone refers to the situation as a regional
conflict. That is a very bad mislabeling. It suggests
widespread misbehavior by a number of countries in the region.
There is conflict in a number of areas in the region, but
all of it, all of it, every single bit of it, is instigated and
caused by one entity, and that is the regime that is governing
Iran.
It is not the Iranian people. There are 88 million Iranians
who do not want this any more than the world does. If they had
a First and Second Amendment like we do, the regime would be
gone. The regime up until this weekend used proxies made up of
idiots like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis who were
persuaded to fight the regime's battle for them.
This weekend, the regime has entered uncharted waters, and
they are about to discover that is a really bad idea.
It is clear that the Biden administration's assumptions
about the Iranian regime were wrong. In reality they have
always been wrong. The Iran regime does not want peace. It
wants to impose its radical agenda on the region and, indeed,
the world.
Let us be clear. Iran is, and the sole cause of, the
upheaval in the Middle East, although challenging because the
regime is using these proxies.
In many respects there are up sides because there is only
one central actor and that makes it easier to deal with. So let
us get on with it.
Many of the bills on the agenda focus on Iran and several
have passed the House. We have a real opportunity to get them
across the finish line and signed into law.
My End IT Act and SHIP Act target Chinese purchases of
Iranian oil, which are their highest--at the highest level
since 2018. Cutting off funding is one of the best and most
effective ways to end all of this in the Middle East.
I am also offering an amendment to increase regional
cooperation to counter Iranian drones. Given the deaths of
three Americans in January this is urgent.
I also seek a vote to permanently freeze Iranian assets
that were transferred from South Korea to Qatar at the
administration's request. We have got to deny the regime the
resources it requires to spread terror abroad.
On Senate Res. 385, I am pleased we are finally marking up
this resolution calling for the release of Evan. He has been
wrongfully detained over a year and has been held in a Russian
prison since.
It is imperative this administration bring Evan, Paul
Whelan, Marc Fogel, and other Americans home from Putin's
prisons.
Unfortunately, today's agenda does not include two critical
resolutions on Sudan. It is particularly unfortunate as
yesterday marked one year into Sudan's dreadful conflict. The
committee's failure to act misses a critical opportunity to
denounce the violence, prioritize the Sudan crisis and meet the
dire humanitarian needs.
We could have voted to label Darfur's ongoing genocide,
echoing Congress' stance from 20 years ago. Today's conflict is
being done by the same actors targeting the same ethnic groups.
We should call it what it is.
Finally, I plan to support each of the nominees on the
agenda. With that, I ask that the committee be permitted to
submit requests to the Clerk in writing to be recorded on any
item on today's agenda.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Without objection, that is the process we
will follow. I just want to comment.
I strongly support your concerns in regard to the crisis in
Sudan, the one-year anniversary of the conflict, and the
horrible humanitarian crisis that currently exists in Sudan.
So, I look forward to working with you as to how our committee
can be constructed in trying to bring an end to that crisis.
We will now proceed with the business agenda. I am going to
try to make this easy so everyone understands exactly how we
are proceeding. We are going to do as many agenda items en bloc
to the extent that we can do it. We will start with
nominations.
If any member wishes to have a separate consideration of
any of the issues en bloc, I will pause for you to be able to
remove any of the items from the en bloc consideration. We will
then have any member who wishes to talk about any of the issues
that are in the en bloc considerations before we take a vote.
We will then take a vote, and as Senator Risch has
indicated, if any member wishes to be recorded in the negative
in regard to any issue that is in the en bloc, they will have
that opportunity to do that.
So, with that understanding, the first issue without
objection which we will now consider is en bloc several
nominations. There are actually, I believe, 21 that are listed
in today's agenda.
On the list that has been distributed, there are 21
nominations that we would consider en bloc. In addition, we
would consider the FSO lists that are listed on the agenda
items 22 through 28. All those issues will be considered en
bloc.
Is there any request that any of these matters, nominees,
or lists be separated from the en bloc for consideration?
[No response.]
The Chairman. Is there any member who wishes to be heard in
regards to this agenda item?
[No response.]
The Chairman. Is there a motion to approve these
nominations en bloc?
Senator Coons. So moved.
The Chairman. Is there a second?
Senator Menendez. Second.
The Chairman. Moved and second. Questions on the motion to
approve all the nominations and the FSO list notice for this
business meeting.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed, nay.
The ayes have it. A majority of members present have voted
in the affirmative. The ayes have it and the items are agreed
to.
Once again, any member who wishes to be recorded in the
negative on any of the nominations will have the right to.
Senator Cruz, do you want to----
Senator Cruz. Mr. Chairman, I ask that I be recorded as a
no on Dorothy Shea, Courtney O'Donnell, on Dafna Hochman Rand,
on Andrew Plitt, and on Lisa Peterson.
The Chairman. So noted.
Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman, I want to be recorded as no on
Bass.
The Chairman. So noted. Again, the record--Senator Shaheen?
Senator Shaheen. I do not know if this comment is in order
at this time, but I hope that you and Senator Risch will go to
leadership on both sides of the aisle and urge that these move
to the floor as quickly as possible.
It is, I think, unacceptable that we are almost four years
into the administration and we are still trying to approve some
of these positions to ambassador at a time when we have the
competition that we have around the world.
The Chairman. It is my intention to do exactly that. I will
work with Senator Risch. The backup on the floor in regard to
nominations coming out of our committee has almost been piddly
handled. So, this will now put a lot of matters on the floor
and we will work to see whether we cannot get them to the floor
as quickly as possible.
Senator Shaheen. If I can be helpful in that, and I am sure
most of us feel that way, please let us know.
The Chairman. We are now going to move to the legislative
agenda, leaving for last the Middle East bills. So, without
objection, we will consider en bloc including any substitute
and Manager's Amendments the following bills: S. 3854,
International Freedom Protection Act; S. 1651, the Western
Balkans Democracy and Prosperity Act; S. 138, Promoting a
Resolution to the Tibet-China Conflict Act; S. 618, United
States Foundation for International Conservation Act of 2023;
S. 1881, Restoring Sovereignty and Human Rights in Nicaragua
Act of 2023; S. Res. 357, a resolution recognizing the
formation of the Alliance for Development in Democracy and
urging the United States to pursue deeper ties with its member
countries; S. Con. Res. 18, a concurrent resolution calling for
the immediate release of Marc Fogel, a United States citizen
and teacher, who was given an unjust and disproportionate
criminal sentence by the Government of the Russia Federation in
June 2022; S. Res. 385, a resolution calling for the immediate
release of Evan Gershkovich, a United States citizen and
journalist, who was wrongfully detained by the Government of
the Russian Federation in March 2023.
In regard to this en bloc agenda is there any request that
we separate out for a separate vote any item that is included
in the list?
If not, are there any discussions in regard to any of these
issues? Any member wish to be heard?
Senator Coons. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Senator Coons?
Senator Coons. Just briefly, I am grateful that we finally
are getting to a vote on the U.S. Foundation for International
Conservation.
I am grateful to Senator Ricketts and Senator Kaine to be
co-sponsors along with Senator Graham and me. It passed House
Foreign Affairs by a vote of 42 to 7. I am hopeful that we will
get a voice vote here and we can proceed to enactment.
It will make a significant difference in the world in
conservation. I am happy to work through details with anyone
who has an unresolved question, concern, or issue. But I am
just grateful we have finally gotten to this point.
The Chairman. Senator Coons, I appreciate your patience.
Senator Merkley?
Senator Merkley. Mr. Chair, I just want to thank you very
much for--transnational repression we worked on and others
worked on with Senator Rubio, to be part of this. I thank you
very much. And I know there are other elements that involve
domestic security and I appreciate the conversations that we
have had about seeking ways to address this in the Defense
Authorization Act.
The Chairman. Senator Merkley, I very much appreciate your
leadership on this issue. You have certainly improved this
legislation and I look forward to moving this legislation
forward and working with you on the other issues. So, thank you
very much for your leadership on this.
Is there a motion to approve en bloc all of the agenda
items I included in the en bloc request?
Senator Menendez. So moved.
The Chairman. Is there a second?
Senator Shaheen. Second.
The Chairman. Moved and second. A quorum being present the
question is on the motion to approve en bloc all of the agenda
items, the non-Middle East agenda items I previously listed?
All in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed, nay.
The ayes have it. The en bloc legislation will be reported
favorably.
Senator Romney. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Senator Romney? I see you down there.
Senator Romney. I would like to be recorded as a no on S.
618.
The Chairman. The majority of members present having voted
in the affirmative the items are agreed to.
Now, let us see which one is coming up first.
The first item we will take up will be agenda item number
nine, S. Res. 505, a resolution condemning the use of sexual
violence and rape as a weapon of war by the terrorist group
Hamas against the people of Israel.
Does any member wish to speak in regard to this resolution?
If not, is there a motion to approve the resolution?
Senator Shaheen. So moved.
The Chairman. Is there a second?
Senator Menendez. Second.
The Chairman. All in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed, nay.
The ayes have it. A quorum being present the resolution is
reported favorably.
We will now move to S. 1829, the Stop Harboring Iranian
Petroleum Act of 2023, affectionately known as the SHIP Act.
Any member wish to be heard in regard to S. 1829?
We do have a Manager's Package--so, the first issue will be
the approval of the Manager's Package. Then if there are other
additional amendments, we will consider that. Any member will
have a chance to speak.
So, the question is the motion to approve the Manager's
Amendment in the nature of a substitute of S. 1829, the Stop
Harboring Iranian Petroleum Act of 2023.
Does any member want to speak in regard to this action
before we vote?
Senator Cruz?
I am sorry--Senator Rubio?
Senator Cruz. Cubans all look alike.
[Laughter.]
Senator Rubio. Although I am suspicious of Cubans with
beards but----
[Laughter.]
Senator Rubio. Mr. Chair, just briefly.
I mean, this bill sanctions the illicit purchase of Iranian
oil and holds their enablers accountable. As we can see, what
had happened 72 hours ago was the largest drone attack in
history. Never have we seen that many drones launched at one
time against one target.
All that is paid for by a combination of sanctions relief
and oil proceeds and so this goes right to the heart of it.
Obviously, this bill was filed before that attack, but Iran is
the major source of instability in that region, and it is paid
for somehow, and that is through the illicit purchase of
Iranian oil.
And so that is the aim here and, obviously, we have got a
pretty good Manager's Amendment that you have just referenced
that takes into account some changes that I think improve the
bill and can get us all on the same page, and I urge everyone
to support it. I thank Senator Hassan, who has been a critical
component of that.
The Chairman. Senator Rubio, I really want to thank you for
your leadership on this. We have been working for a way to try
to make sure that those that are able to escape the sanctions
that should be sanctioned are sanctioned. So, I thank you for
your leadership on this and it was a pleasure to work with you
on this.
The question is on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute. Is there a motion to approve?
Senator Coons. So moved.
The Chairman. Second?
Senator Shaheen. Second.
The Chairman. It has been moved and seconded.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
[A chorus of ayes.]
The Chairman. Opposed, nay.
[No response.]
The Chairman. The ayes have it. The majority having voted
in the affirmative, the Manager's Amendment is agreed to.
I have received a request for a roll call vote.
No, I have not. Sorry.
Are there any further amendments in regard to the SHIP Act?
Senator Cruz now?
Senator Cruz. You can call me Rubio.
[Laughter.]
Senator Cruz. I want to call up Cruz First Degree 1
amendment to this bill, and what this does is, it directly
targets Iran's ghost fleet of oil tankers, including its owners
and operators.
Iran has used this fleet to evade existing oil sanctions
and to raise over $80 billion since President Biden took
office. Iran then uses that oil money to finance terrorist
operations across the Middle East.
While the SHIP Act rightly goes after foreign vessels
involved in Iran's illicit oil trade, my amendment goes a step
further by directly impacting the Iranian regime.
The regime relies on revenue from its ghost fleet to keep
its economy running and to sponsor terrorism. I will say I
think everyone here is horrified with Iran firing over 300
drones and missiles at Israel. Everyone is likewise horrified
at Iran funding over 90 percent of Hamas' budget, over 90
percent of Hezbollah's budget, and paying for the October 7
massacre.
I would suggest if we really are horrified, our actions
should reflect that horror and nothing would have a greater
impact than limiting Iran's ability to fund acts of terror
against Israel and against America, and we all know that Iran
has also launched over 100 attacks against U.S. servicemen and
women, including murdering three servicemen and women in recent
months.
Nothing would have a greater impact than cutting off their
cash, and as long as we do not target the ghost fleet, their
regime will continue to be funded by oil.
I will point out also that for my colleagues on the
Democrat side of the aisle there is often skepticism when it
comes to oil production in the United States. I disagree with
that skepticism, but I would encourage you to channel every bit
of it towards production by Iran because I do not know that my
mind is nimble enough to explain why oil from Iran is good but
oil from America is bad.
At a minimum, it seems cutting off the Ayatollah and
understand the volume of what we are talking about. During the
Trump administration right after we pulled out of the Iran deal
there was still in place an oil waiver that allowed Iran to
sell oil on the international market.
At the time Iran was selling, roughly, 1 million barrels of
oil a day. It was funding the regime. There was a big argument
in the Trump administration about whether to end that oil
waiver. I leaned in vigorously in support of ending the oil
waiver.
The State Department under Trump argued against ending the
oil waiver. They argued that if we ended the oil waiver, the
price of oil would skyrocket and it would hurt the price of gas
at the pump.
The Department of Energy disagreed with Trump's State
Department. They said there was plenty of global supply. It
would not impact the price of oil.
At the end of the day, Trump agreed and ended the oil
waiver, and we now know State was wrong and Energy was right.
We ended the oil waiver and the movement in the global price of
oil was negligible. There was essentially zero movement.
But the effect on Iran was cataclysmic. It went from a
million barrels a day down to 300,000 barrels a day. The result
was the Iranian economy was on its knees and was crippled. That
was what President Biden inherited--an Iranian economy in
freefall.
Unfortunately, when President Biden came in, he stopped
enforcing the oil sanctions, in particular on the ghost fleet,
and the exports went from 300,000 barrels a day to 2 million
barrels a day, more than double what they had been before the
oil waivers were rescinded.
This is what is funding these terror attacks, and so I
would urge everyone to speak with one voice and cut off the
revenue to the Ayatollah.
The Chairman. I have a Second Degree Amendment that I will
offer. It is to make it consistent with the other provisions we
have in all these sanction bills as it relates to waivers, as
it relates to sunsets, as it relates to humanitarian
exceptions. That is in every one of our sanction bills.
I support your amendment, but it needs to be made
consistent. So, I would urge you to accept my Second Degree
Amendment. Then I will support your amendment.
Senator Cruz. So, Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, I cannot
accept the Second Degree Amendment because the effect of it
essentially guts the amendment. It returns us to the status
quo.
It makes sanctioning the ghost fleet optional and the Biden
administration does not want to sanction the ghost fleet. I do
not know why. I cannot articulate a reason why. The difference
between your amendment and my amendment is that you make the
sanctions optional. I make them mandatory.
If they are optional, the effect of this will be that
nothing will happen. The ghost fleet will continue. Iran will
continue selling 2 million barrels a day. They will keep
getting billions of dollars. They will keep producing drones.
They will keep attacking Israel. They will keep attacking
America.
If the administration was willing to sanction it, then it
would be fine if it was optional, but they are not willing to
and the only way they will is if we pass legislation saying it
is mandatory.
The Chairman. Senator Risch?
Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I am going to
vote against your amendment. You are correct in stating that it
makes it in conformance with everything we have sent to the
administration when it comes to sanctioning because the
President always says, by golly, if you send anything up here
that I do not have the right to waiver, I am going to veto it.
Well, the problem is, is that as long as I have been here,
we have had---- and it is not just the Democrat administration,
it has been Republican administrations, too---- for whatever
reason the bankers up there just absolutely drag their feet
when you try to get sanctions.
Now, if we pass this one, as Senator Cruz has put it in
front of us, I would argue that, yes, it is different than the
other ones we have passed but this situation is so dire that we
should not give the administration the ability to say, well,
you know, we will let a little through here, a little through
there.
Let us stop the damn thing and that is what Senator Cruz's
bill does. So, with all due respect--and I say that honestly--
with all due respect, I understand you want to make it conform
to the other things we have but this is a different situation
than the kind of sanctions we do in other circumstances.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman. I would just point out--I do not know if
anyone else wants to speak--the amendment does provide for
mandatory sanctions. My amendment does not delete that. They
are mandatory sanctions.
It just puts it in context to the respect for the branches
of government and for humanitarian exceptions with a sunset,
which we have on all the other sanctions.
So, I would just urge my colleagues to accept my Second
Degree Amendment. Does anyone else wish to be heard?
If not, are you wanting the roll call vote?
Senator Cruz. Please.
The Chairman. The question is on the adoption of the Cardin
Second Degree Amendment to the Cruz Amendment.
Senator Romney. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question?
The Chairman. Sure.
Senator Romney. I am sorry.
Which is, clearly you have had some communication with the
administration on this. Will they put in place sanctions on the
ghost fleet? If your amendment passes, will they put in place
sanctions on the ghost fleet or will they continue the current
status quo?
The Chairman. Senator Romney, I think this administration
is prepared to impose the toughest possible sanctions on Iran.
They have already done that. The number of sanctions----
Senator Romney. But they have not done that so far.
The Chairman. Well, this gives them the authority and
requires them to do it. So yes, I am convinced it will happen.
Senator Romney. But have you had any commitment from them?
The Chairman. I do not think I have had a conversation with
them one way or the other. I know that they have been reviewing
the legislation that we have before us, and I think they are
satisfied with the language that we have here, and they are
prepared to take action to impose sanctions.
Senator Cruz. For what it is worth, Senator Romney, they
had the authority under existing law to sanction the ghost
fleet and they have not done it for three and a half years,
which is why Iran's oil exports have exploded.
I mean, they have known this. We have had hearing after
hearing where I asked the administration, why do we not
sanction the ghost fleet? And they just dig in and say no.
The Chairman. There is a question as to whether it is
primary or secondary. It is one of the issues in regard to the
ghost fleet.
Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman, I would only throw in here----
The Chairman. That is--they may not have had the authority.
Senator Risch [continuing]. This is not a partisan matter.
I mean, it is turning into a partisan matter, but this is not a
partisan matter. There is not a person at this table that does
not want to turn the screw on Iran's oil, and this does it
without your amendment. I would say let us give it a shot and
see if we cannot do something that will really help the
situation.
The Chairman. In response to Senator Romney, the current
authority is primarily for primary sanctions, not secondary.
The SHIP Act is now moving towards secondary sanctions.
The ghost fleet is I would consider in the secondary
sanction area. Therefore, the authorities were not clear. I
disagree with Senator Cruz's comments on that.
I think this administration will use this authority. It is
mandatory. They have to do it, unless they find---- they comply
with the exceptions that are in law. If they do that, they will
have to explain why.
So, I am confident they will use this authority. Let us
give them a chance. I hope you will accept my amendment. You
can ask for----
Senator Cruz. Can I ask a question, Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman [continuing]. Sure.
Senator Cruz. In describing your amendment, you listed two
things that were in it that I understood: number one, providing
a sunset and, number two, giving the President the ability to
waive.
Would you be open to a compromise? I would accept in a
friendly amendment a sunset on mine as long as the President
did not have the ability to waive. Would you be open to that as
a middle ground?
The Chairman. I do not believe so, but thank you for your
offer. I appreciate it.
The question will be on the Cardin Secondary Amendment. The
Clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Menendez?
Senator Menendez. 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. 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. Ms. Duckworth?
Senator Duckworth. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
Senator Risch. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
Senator Rubio. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
Senator Romney. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Ricketts?
Senator Ricketts. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
Senator Risch. Not recorded.
The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Young?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Cruz?
Senator Cruz. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Hagerty?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Scott?
Senator Scott. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Aye. The Clerk will report.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 11. The noes are
nine.
The Chairman. The question now is on the Cruz Amendment as
amended by the Cardin Amendment. Can we do this by voice?
Senator Cruz. Sure.
The Chairman. All in favor signify by saying aye.
[A chorus of ayes.]
The Chairman. Opposed, nay.
[No response.]
The Chairman. The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted as
amended.
Is there any further--Senator Schatz?
Senator Schatz. Mr. Chairman, I would like to call my
amendment Schatz 1 and it is very straightforward. It is just a
reporting requirement on how the sanctions are working.
Sanctions, of course, are an important tool but we need to
know how well they are working on the intended targets. This is
a pretty straightforward one-and-a-half-page amendment that
just says that the State Department has to get back to us on
how these are functioning in terms of the regime and also in
terms of the impact on the civil society that they are trying
to empower in Iran.
Just for the information of the members, I have the same
reporting requirement for all four of the Iran sanctions bills,
but this is meant to just say we are, obviously, using
sanctions increasingly and it is not at all unreasonable for us
to have an ongoing assessment of how they are working.
The Chairman. Anyone wish to be heard on the reporting?
Senator Rubio?
Senator Rubio. Yes. Look, I think at the end of the day,
whether the sanctions are working or not is an important thing
to know and I think we would be able to see that by how the
money is being spent and whether they continue to spend money
on their military and on their attack capability.
I think the challenge I have with this amendment is I can
also see how it is going to be used for the purposes of arguing
that sanctions are having a brutal impact on the people of
Iran, which you could argue that about any sanctions--are
sanctions on Russia having an impact on the Russian population.
But that is not the result of the sanctions. That is the
result of the decisions made by the leaders of that country to
engage in global terrorism and attacking their neighbors and in
how they allocate their limited resources.
So, my objection to this amendment, because I can foresee
how it is going to be utilized as a tool by those who support
Iran, or at least undermine America's national interest when it
comes to Iran, is how in the future they will use this to argue
that these sanctions are hurting everyday Iranians, when in
fact it is not the sanctions that would be doing that, but the
actions of the regime there.
So that is why I vote no.
The Chairman. Senator Rubio, I think you raised a good
point. I support the amendment, though, and as you know I am
strongly in support of sanctions as the author of the Magnitsky
sanctions bill and of many of the other sanction bills.
I think having information allows us to be able to defend
why we have sanctions in place, recognizing it does affect a
country and its people. But it is for that purpose. So, I would
support the Schatz Amendment because I believe in transparency,
and we should know the facts.
Any other discussions in regard to the Schatz Amendment?
Can we take a voice vote on this or is there a motion to
adopt the Schatz Amendment?
Senator Menendez. So moved.
The Chairman. Second?
Senator Shaheen. Second.
The Chairman. All in favor signify by saying aye.
[A chorus of ayes.]
The Chairman. Opposed, nay.
[No response.]
The Chairman. The ayes have it. The Schatz Amendment is
approved.
Any further amendments in regard to the SHIP Act?
Senator Murphy. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Certainly. Senator Murphy?
Senator Murphy. I do not have an amendment, just to comment
on the----
The Chairman. Certainly. Senator Murphy?
Senator Murphy [continuing]. Let me thank the ranking
member and the Chairman for undergoing really important work
over the last few days to come to a Manager's Package that
makes this feel much more effective.
I particularly want to thank you for including a sunset
provision which I think dovetails with Senator Schatz's concern
that we need to have the ability to be able to check if our
sanctions policy is working. That can happen through reporting,
but that can also happen before these sanctions come back
before the body.
But I am going to ask for a roll call on this particular
bill. I intend to vote against it, and I just want to tell you
why, very quickly.
Listen, I am really worried that our broader foreign policy
has become a little sanctions crazy, that we have become overly
reliant on sanctions in the absence of other more efficacious
tools to try to influence friends and enemies across the globe.
Iran is a significant adversary. They are not our only
adversary. Over the next 20 years, they are not likely to be
our primary number-one adversary. That will probably be China.
But this piece of legislation contemplates a pretty
dizzying set of sanctions against ports, individuals,
companies, shipping entities in countries all around the world.
They are mandatory sanctions. The Chairman is right. Worked
into this bill is an ability to waive those mandatory
sanctions.
But I am much more comfortable with a sanctions policy that
is permissive because I think there will be all sorts of times
where it is good policy to make Iran policy the priority and
sanction that entity overseas.
But there will be many moments in which there is a
conflicting priority. Sanctioning, in particular, port
infrastructure, sanctioning a particular company may cause
damage to our work to try and build an anti-China coalition,
for instance, or an anti-North Korea coalition if you are
rubbing up against an ally in Southeast Asia.
And so, Senator Risch is right. There is not really
bipartisan disagreement on turning the screws on Iran; it is
just a question of how we do it. I do not like the fact that
these are all mandatory sanctions that have permissive
sanctions and, more broadly, I just wish we were able to have a
more holistic conversation about the kind of tools that we need
around the world to try to turn the screws on Iran. Sanctions
are not the only way you do that.
Support for human rights and democracy and anti-corruption
efforts in the Middle East, where Iranian proxies exist in a
vacuum of U.S. leadership because we do not resource the State
Department and USAID significantly enough, is part of the
problem as well.
So, I appreciate all the work that has gone into this. I do
believe that the sanctions can have an impact. I am much more
comfortable when the sanctions are permissive, and so for that
reason I will be voting against this particular piece of
legislation, which is probably the most significant package of
mandatory sanctions that we are going to consider as well.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Before us is S. 1829, the Stop Harboring Iran
Petroleum Act of 2023 as amended. Is there a motion to
favorably report it?
Voice. So moved.
The Chairman. Second?
Senator Shaheen. Second.
The Chairman. Been moved and seconded.
Does the Senator want a roll call vote on this?
Senator Murphy. I am happy taking a voice vote. That is
fine.
The Chairman. All in favor signify by saying aye.
[A chorus of ayes.]
The Chairman. Opposed, nay.
[No response.]
The Chairman. The ayes have it. It will be reported
favorably to the Senate.
Senator Schatz. Chairman, can I be recorded as a no?
The Chairman. Certainly. Senator Schatz has----
Senator Murphy. I would ask to be recorded as a no.
The Chairman. Senator Murphy.
We will now move to S. 2336, the MISSILES Act, Senator
Menendez's legislation.
Would anyone like to comment on the bill before we vote on
it?
Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Certainly. Senator Menendez?
Senator Menendez. Very, very briefly.
It is pretty self-evident. The United Nations Security
Council had sanctions on Iran as it relates to missiles and
those who worked with Iran either by supplying, providing and/
or in any way assisting in the creation of their missile
program.
Unfortunately, that lapsed, and this is why I have been
promoting this legislation for a while since it lapsed.
Obviously, the other day showed us how significant the launch
of missiles and the barrage of missiles and the scope of
missiles that Iran has to launch and that is even without its
proxies.
So, for all these reasons I think that at least having U.S.
leadership lead the way in restoring those sanctions is
incredibly important and, hopefully, as we try to engage other
countries in the world in response to Iran in a diplomatic way,
they might join with us either individually as nations or seek
an opportunity to renew it at the U.N.
The Chairman. Is there a motion to approve the Manager's
Amendment?
Senator Shaheen. So moved.
The Chairman. Second?
Senator Murphy. Second.
The Chairman. All in favor signify by saying aye.
[A chorus of ayes.]
The Chairman. Opposed, nay.
[No response.]
The Chairman. The Manager's Package is adopted.
Are there any further amendments or comments?
Senator Schatz?
Senator Schatz. Mr. Chairman, I have the same reporting
requirement----
The Chairman. You are offering that amendment?
Senator Schatz. Yes.
The Chairman. Any debate on that amendment?
If not, all in favor signify by saying aye.
[A chorus of ayes.]
The Chairman. Opposed, nay.
[No response.]
The Chairman. The ayes have it. Any further debate?
If not, is there a motion that we favorably report it as
amended?
Senator Schatz. So moved.
The Chairman. A second?
Senator Menendez. Second.
The Chairman. All in favor signify by saying aye.
[A chorus of ayes.]
The Chairman. Opposed, nay.
[No response.]
The Chairman. The ayes have it. The bill as amended will be
reported to the Senate floor.
We are now up to S. 3235, End Iranian Terrorism Act of
2023.
Senator Risch, thank you for your leadership on this bill.
Would you like to comment on it?
Senator Risch. I think the bill is pretty straightforward.
It has been kicking around for a long time. Almost everybody
has got fingerprints on this one way or another.
So, again, it falls directly in line with what we have been
saying all along and that is the problem here is Iran in the
region, period. If we cut off the head of the snake, things are
going to be a lot different in the region. This does it. I
recommend the bill.
The Chairman. Is there a motion to approve the Manager's
Amendment?
Voice. So moved.
The Chairman. Second?
Senator Merkley. Second.
The Chairman. It has been moved and seconded. All in favor
signify by saying aye.
[A chorus of ayes.]
The Chairman. Opposed, nay.
[No response.]
The Chairman. The Manager's Amendment is adopted. Are there
any further amendments?
Senator Schatz?
Senator Schatz. Reporting requirement.
The Chairman. You are offering your amendment. Any debate?
All in favor signify by saying aye.
[A chorus of ayes.]
The Chairman. Opposed, nay.
[No response.]
The Chairman. The ayes have it. S. 3235 as amended is
before us. Is there a motion to report it favorably?
Senator Risch. So moved.
The Chairman. Second? Moved and second.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
[A chorus of ayes.]
The Chairman. Opposed, nay.
[No response.]
The Chairman. The ayes have it. A quorum being present, S.
3235 will be reported favorably.
That brings us to S. 3874, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic
Jihad International Terrorism Support Prevention Act. I believe
this is yours?
Senator Rubio, any comments, Senator----
Senator Rubio. Thank you. It would impose sanctions with
respect to foreign support for terrorist organizations. So,
that would include foreign governments that provide material
support for these activities and any other affiliates.
The Chairman. Is there a motion to approve the Manager's
Amendment?
Senator Risch. So moved.
The Chairman. A second?
Senator Shaheen. Second.
The Chairman. Moved and second.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
[A chorus of ayes.]
The Chairman. Opposed, nay.
[No response.]
The Chairman. The ayes have it. The Manager's Package is
adopted. Are there any further amendments or any further
debate?
Senator Schatz. Mr. Chairman, I suggest a reporting
requirement.
The Chairman. I take Senator Schatz first.
Senator Schatz is offering his amendment on reporting.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
[A chorus of ayes.]
The Chairman. Opposed, nay.
[No response.]
The Chairman. The ayes have it.
Senator Cruz?
Senator Cruz. I call up Cruz First Degree 1.
Immediately after October 7, the Biden administration
announced sanctions on a handful of the many, many Hamas
members that it had tracked. We have every reason to believe
that there are many, many more files with known Hamas
terrorists who have not been sanctioned sitting on the shelves.
My amendment is straightforward. The administration should
report those terrorists to Congress by name and sanction them.
While this bill targets foreign persons affiliated with Hamas,
it must go further to have direct impact on Hamas terrorists
responsible for the atrocities of October 7.
The Biden administration has poured hundreds of millions of
dollars into the Gaza Strip while knowing that this would
benefit Hamas terrorists. They also allowed $100 billion to
flow to Iran, part of which was used to fund Hamas' planning
and execution of the October 7 attacks.
Time and time again, the Biden administration refuses to
enforce sanctions against Hamas for terrorism, for use of human
shields, or against those who violate terrorism sanctions and
provide Hamas with financial or material support.
Now is the time, I believe, to do it and help Israel
destroy Hamas who must never again be permitted to conduct
another October 7.
My amendment would impose immediate sanctions on every
single Hamas official and affiliate on the books within 15
days.
The Chairman. Senator Cruz, once again I agree with your
point. This is identical to the amendment you offered on the
previous bill.
I have a Second Degree Amendment with the same provisions
that makes it consistent with the sanction regimes that are
included in the bill, and I would offer my Second Degree
Amendment.
Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman?
My staff tells me that there was at least an understanding
last night to see if we could not get all this in one bill and
everybody agreed. It is yours and Senator Cruz's. Am I right or
wrong? Am I missing something here?
Senator Cruz. If your staff is telling you that, it is
different from what my staff is telling me.
Senator Risch. All right. We will just take it a step at a
time then, I guess, what we do here what we always do.
The Chairman. I might have jumped ahead. I withdraw my
Second Degree and yield to Senator Van Hollen. I think we will
get the script here right. No?
Senator Van Hollen. Well, I am not sure. My understanding
is that you have a Second Degree. I have a Second Degree that
does not trump yours.
The Chairman. Oh, okay.
Senator Van Hollen. So, I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, you
go first.
The Chairman. We were under the impression that these two
Second Degrees were going to be accepted but that it is--I
mean, it might be in there. I guess we are in there. My Second
Degree is a----
Senator Cruz. Somehow that impression did not make it to my
end.
The Chairman [continuing]. Okay. So let us take it one step
at a time. You have offered your amendment. I have offered my
Second Degree Amendment which includes the three provisions
that were on the previous amendment that you offered.
That is the sunset, the waiver, and the humanitarian
issues. It is identical to the Second Degree.
Senator Cruz. And I would say briefly, concerning the
Second Degree, I am saying in this instance, which is this
administration, for whatever reason, refuses to do this and
they are dragging their feet.
They have the names of these Hamas terrorists right now,
that they can do it today. They are not. They are busy right
now sanctioning Israelis who are settling in Judea and Samaria,
and they are not sanctioning Hamas terrorists.
I do not understand that, but that is what they are doing,
and so I would point out the waiver, at the end of the day,
decreases the chance that this administration is going to do
anything serious against Hamas.
The Chairman. Do you want a recorded vote or a voice vote
separately here?
Senator Cruz. I would like a recorded vote.
The Chairman. Is there any further debate on this Second
Degree Amendment?
Senator Risch. Oh, is this the Cardin Second Degree?
The Chairman. Cardin Second Degree amendment. The Clerk
will call the roll on the Second Degree Amendment.
The Clerk. Mr. Menendez?
Senator Menendez. 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. Merkley?
Senator Merkley. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
Senator Booker. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Schatz?
Voice. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen?
Senator Van Hollen. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Duckworth?
Senator Duckworth. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
Senator Risch. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
Senator Rubio. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
Senator Romney. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Ricketts?
Senator Ricketts. No.
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. Hagerty?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Scott?
Senator Scott. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Aye. Clerk will report.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 11. Noes are 8.
The Chairman. The Second Degree Amendment is adopted.
Senator Van Hollen?
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have a Second Degree Amendment that requires a report on
the extent to which any transfers of funds to Hamas or its
agents were made with the concurrence of the government of
Israel or its agents.
So, let me just spend a few minutes here talking about this
issue because it is well documented including in now Prime
Minister Netanyahu's own words that he and his allies
essentially wanted to allow Hamas to continue as a going
concern until, of course, the horror of October 7.
Why did he want to do it? Because he saw it as in his
interest to prevent a two-state solution. He has been very
clear. From the beginning, he was an opponent of the Oslo
Accords that created the PA back in the 1990s.
He is an opponent of the two-state solution, and it was
pretty clear so long as Hamas was a going concern that
everybody would say we cannot have a two-state solution that
includes Hamas. None of us would want to see Hamas as part of
that.
And so, it was a two-pronged strategy. One was essentially
to allow Hamas to continue where they thought they were not a
threat. Obviously, October 7th changed that.
But I am just going to quote from Benjamin Netanyahu
himself back in 2019 at a Likud Party meeting where he said,
and I quote, ``Anyone who wants to prevent the creation of a
Palestinian state needs to support strengthening Hamas. This is
part of our strategy, to divide the Palestinians between those
in Gaza and those in Judea and Samaria.'' That is Benjamin
Netanyahu.
I will just say it was not only words. He spent a lot of
time concurring to funding flowing to Hamas entities. So, I am
just going to read some headlines here.
This one is from the Jerusalem Post October 7th, ``Failure
connected to Netanyahu helping Qatar on Hamas.'' Here is
another one, Times of Israel. ``Documents show Israel sought
valued Qatari aid for Gaza in years leading to October 7th.''
Here is another one, a CNN article just from December.
Quote, headline ``Qatar sent millions to Gaza for years with
Israel's backing.''
A New York Times piece from December of last year titled
``Buying quiet: Inside the Israeli plan that propped up
Hamas,'' sub headline, and I quote, ``Prime Minister Netanyahu
gambled that a strong Hamas, but not too strong, would keep the
peace and reduce pressure for a Palestinian state,'' unquote.
So, look, I am fine imposing sanctions on Hamas and
entities related to Hamas, but I think the public deserves some
context here for at least some of those transfers and that is
all this does.
This just says please tell us in those instances where the
U.S. Government finds that any transfers made to Hamas were
done with the concurrence of the Israeli government. Seems like
a pretty straightforward transparency map.
The Chairman. Senator Risch?
Senator Risch. Senator Van Hollen, would you respond to an
inquiry?
Senator Van Hollen. Sure.
Senator Risch. It seems to me you have got this pretty well
documented and this calls for simply a report documenting what
you have indicated.
I guess the problem I have is, we all know that there is a
robust internal political debate in Israel and it looks to me
like--and I do not mean this derogatorily--but, I mean, it is
going to insult Netanyahu. I do not think that is a good idea
to do that and, I mean, I think the bill is a good bill to try
to do something. I am afraid if we stick this in there, it is
going to go a different direction.
I mean, I understand your point and I think there are some
valid points there. But do we really need it in the bill? We
have already got----
Senator Van Hollen. Well, Senator Risch----
Senator Risch. You have just given us a report.
Senator Van Hollen. Well, no. You are asking for sanctions
to be imposed by the U.S. Government. I am fine with that. So,
I want the U.S. Government to tell us what they know about
this. What I have read to you are press reports. They are very
well documented.
Also, this is not aimed only at Prime Minister Netanyahu.
This goes back to other governments of Israel that were not
headed by Netanyahu. It goes back for a period of time here,
and I just think in full transparency that as we are imposing
sanctions on Hamas, and we are asking the U.S. Government to do
that. The U.S. Government should go through this information
and just tell us what they know--I do not know why we would not
want our Government to do that.
Senator Risch. It just seems to me it is counterproductive
to the bill. I mean, it certainly lays out the facts as you
have indicated it and also, I think you have stated the reasons
why this was done. It just seems to me that it is going to be
an internal political thing.
Senator Van Hollen. Senator Risch, you are calling for
sanctions on a whole range of Hamas entities. I am for that.
But do you not think that we should know in those instances
where the funding that was provided to a Hamas entity was
cleared and okayed by the Government of Israel?
Is it not--why would you not want to know that?
Senator Risch. We already know that, do we not? You have
already laid out the----
Senator Van Hollen [continuing]. Well, no. Actually, the
U.S. Government--well, the U.S.----
Senator Risch. It seems to me putting it in a bill like
this is counterproductive.
Senator Van Hollen [continuing]. So let me ask you this,,
would it matter to you when you are applying a sanction to some
Hamas entity that the Government of Israel okayed it?
Senator Risch. It would not matter to me.
Senator Van Hollen. It would not matter?
Senator Risch. Not----
Senator Van Hollen. So even though it was not only invited
by the Government of Israel but encouraged by the Government of
Israel that would not matter to you?
Senator Risch [continuing]. It would not because I am
trying to sanction the bad guys, not the good guys.
Senator Van Hollen. But we are doing this in part,
obviously, to protect Israel's interest and our interests, and
so it is certainly relevant. It does not prohibit you from
doing the sanction. In fact, the sanctions are mandatory.
But it seems to me it would be relevant for the U.S.
Government to know when they are imposing sanctions on a Hamas
entity whether or not--for receiving funds--a person who
provided funds to a Hamas entity. It seems relevant whether it
was cleared by the Government of Israel in advance--in fact,
cleared as part of a strategy to support that entity.
Senator Risch. I understand your point.
The Chairman. Senator Cruz?
Senator Cruz. I very much agree with Ranking Member Risch.
I will say I and a number of other Senators sat in this room
with the Chairman looking at photograph after photograph of
what happened on October 7th and listening to survivors and
families of hostages who are still there.
What Hamas did was an act of grotesque evil that rivals
what the Nazis did during World War II, and I think there is
utterly no moral equivalency between Hamas and the Government
of Israel.
I think the reason Hamas is being sanctioned is not because
of where they got money from. Hamas has also gotten sanctioned
from the Biden administration.
We are not putting a report in here about how much the
Biden administration knew when it sent hundreds of millions of
dollars to Gaza that went straight to Hamas, and mind you, a
bunch of us at the time said do not send them money because it
will go to Hamas.
The Biden administration concluded in its own terms it was,
quote, ``highly likely this money will go to Hamas'' and they
sent it anyway.
I think that was a mistake but that is not why Hamas is
being sanctioned because this administration gave them money.
Hamas is being sanctioned because they murdered 1,200 Israelis;
they murdered 30 Americans, they raped little girls and women;
they tortured and murdered infants, and they committed
unspeakable atrocities; and I agree with Ranking Member Risch,
it is counterproductive when we are sanctioning Hamas to
include within it a provision that is designed to, and would in
fact undermine, Prime Minister Netanyahu.
I get that many of the Democrats on this committee do not
like Prime Minister Netanyahu. That is fine. The people of
Israel elected him. He is the elected leader. In my view, we
have an obligation to deal with whomever they elect. We dealt
with Naftali Bennett when he was the elected leader.
It is the people of Israel that get to elect their leaders.
That is democracy, and I think undermining the elected leader
of Israel at a time of war days after they sustained a massive
rocket and drone attack from Iran, I think that is highly
counterproductive.
Senator Van Hollen. Well, Senator Cruz, look, I agree with
everything you said about the evil of Hamas. I have supported
every effort to sanction Hamas, and I am supporting that
sanction again today.
But at some point, we have to recognize that at least part
of the funding that has flowed to Hamas, and people that you
want to sanction for sending money for Hamas did so after
getting the concurrence of members of the Israeli Government.
So, it seems to me that we are not stopping the sanctions.
But it seems to me that that is something that people should be
aware of as part of this public debate.
It is great to hear all of us talk about how bad Hamas was.
But it turns out, at least according to multiple reports, that
during this whole period of time leading up to October 7th,
people like Benjamin Netanyahu were actually working with
others to make sure that some level of funding was provided to
Hamas.
Senator Cruz. Would you--Tony Blinken?
The Chairman. I think we have to bring this to a
conclusion.
I respect deeply what Senator Van Hollen is saying and the
points he is raising, as Senator Risch has pointed out, is
historically accurate as to what happened 15 years--we go back
15 years.
The policies concerning Gaza and the West Bank have changed
over the 15-year period. This is not the Netanyahu Government.
This is the Government of Israel's decisions to have relations
with Hamas to try to maintain civil order in Gaza.
Now, those in retrospect may not have been the right
decisions, but these were decisions made in good faith to try
to deal with civility for Gazans during this period of time.
I think it does confuse the purpose of this bill, and I am
not going to support your amendment, but I certainly understand
the reasons for it.
Senator Van Hollen. If I just could, Mr. Chairman.
As I understand the amendment, you are putting this in a
sort of prospective view, right? This is where we are going
to--they may have made many mistakes in the past, but we are
going to provide these sanctions, going forward. Your amendment
looks backwards, does it not?
Senator Cruz. The people we----
Senator Van Hollen [continuing]. So, with respect, I mean,
the Government of Israel may have made mistakes in the past.
But you are going to sanction somebody potentially who provided
funding to Hamas with not just the concurrence sometimes but
with the encouragement of the Government of Israel.
So, if this were just looking forward, we would not need
this--my amendment. But your amendment, Senator Cruz, looks
back, and so you are going to be punishing people, sanctioning
people, who may have taken an action with the concurrence of
the Government of Israel.
You are going to punish them and that is the reason for
providing this information. I am not sanctioning the members of
the Israeli Government who may have said go send that money.
You are sanctioning the people who did so.
The Chairman. Before Senator Coons leaves, I just want to
announce to the committee after we complete the receiving of
the impeachment documents, we have a photo. It will take place
immediately after we are freed from the floor.
So, I would ask members to come down here once we are free
from the floor and the proceeding. I did not mean to interrupt
you, but I wanted to make sure that we are going to bring this
to a conclusion.
Senator Merkley?
Senator Merkley. I just want to give a concrete example of
this. I have read a number of articles that are attacking Qatar
for having provided funding to Hamas.
My understanding is that there were a lot of conversations
related to Israel trying to facilitate funds to Hamas. If we
are having a bill that is looking backwards and saying we are
going to sanction Qatar, it is absolutely essential that we
have the understanding of the context those funds were
provided.
Senator Cruz, if you wanted to eliminate the looking
backwards in time and look forward in time, I think it would
look different.
But you are looking backwards, and this is essential to
understanding the context in which funds might have been
supportive helping Israel out in their efforts.
The Chairman. Maybe I am misunderstanding. I am reading the
Cruz Amendment, ``shall submit to Congress a report listing all
foreign persons currently known to the United States to be
members or affiliates of Hamas.''
Where is the look back?
Senator Van Hollen. Right. But, you are going to get a name
of everybody who is currently a member of Hamas but then you
are going to look back in time to sanction, for example, to
punish the Government of Qatar or anything else that may have
provided funding to somebody who is currently a member if they
were five years ago.
So that is what it does.
The Chairman. I understand. Are we ready----
Senator Van Hollen. [Inaudible]
The Chairman. Do you want a roll call vote?
Senator Van Hollen. Yes, I do.
The Chairman. The Clerk will call the roll on the Van
Hollen Secondary Amendment to the Cruz Amendment.
The Clerk. Senator Menendez?
Senator Menendez. No.
The Chairman. Ms. Shaheen?
The Chairman. No by proxy. I am sorry.
The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
Senator Murphy. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
Senator Kaine. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
Senator Booker. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
Senator Merkley. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Schatz?
Voice. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen?
Senator Van Hollen. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Duckworth?
Senator Duckworth. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
Senator Risch. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
Senator Rubio. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Ricketts?
Senator Ricketts. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
Senator Risch. Not recorded.
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. Hagerty?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Scott?
Senator Scott. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 8 and the noes are
12.
The Chairman. The Second Degree amendment is not adopted.
Now before us is the Cruz Amendment as amended.
Senator Murphy. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. On the Cruz amendment as amended?
Senator Murphy?
Senator Murphy. Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment has
been made better by your Second Degree Amendment. But I just
want to point out how completely unworkable this is. I mean,
you are talking about submitting a list of individuals to be
censured, individuals that belong to Hamas, tens of thousands
of individuals, individuals who belong to an affiliate of
Hamas.
I am sure many would argue that any Muslim Brotherhood
political entity that exists in the Middle East would be an
affiliate of Hamas. You are talking about hundreds of thousands
of people who are now going to be sanctioned by the United
States. There is no additional appropriation in this bill to do
this, turn over the virtual entirety of our sanctions operation
to the State Department and the Department of Treasury, not
just to list these people and to sanction them but then to
understand when they come off the list.
The whole point of U.S. sanctions is to try to influence
people's behavior. I assume the point is, is that if you
renounce your affiliation with Hamas you would no longer be
sanctioned and you would not be sanctioned for the rest of your
life.
And so, the very act of just keeping this list of tens if
not hundreds of thousands of people current would be a
management nightmare. So, whatyou have to prioritize is your
sanction decisions. This is what I mean by our foreign policy
becoming sanctions crazy.
You will not be able to conduct any other meaningful
sanctions policy without additional massive appropriations if
you have to keep a running list of every individual in Hamas,
with a connection to Hamas, with an opportunity to come off the
list.
Listen, I am not saying that there should not be a
consequence for people who are members of this organization. I
am not disagreeing with anything Senator Cruz has said about
the cruel nature of this attack or about the culpability of
individuals still aligned with an organization that is engaged
in this kind of terrorism.
I just do not think this works without a significant new
set of resources for those that would. This seems to be
something that sort of looks really good on paper but is
unworkable in practice.
So, even with the amendment, I would hope that we reject
this amendment.
The Chairman. Are we ready to vote?
Let me comment. I am going to oppose the amendment. I think
it does go too far, and I want to get this bill to the finish
line. So, I will not be supporting it. I just wanted Senator
Cruz to know.
The Clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Menendez?
Senator Menendez. Pass.
The Clerk. Ms. 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. Merkley?
Senator Merkley. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
Senator Booker. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Schatz?
Senator Booker. No by proxy--Mr. Schatz.
The Chairman. Pardon?
Senator Booker. Schatz is no by proxy.
The Chairman. Thank you. No by proxy.
Senator Booker. Yes. I carry Schatz's water.
[Laughter.]
The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen?
Senator Van Hollen. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Duckworth?
Senator Duckworth. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
Senator Risch. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
Senator Rubio. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Ricketts?
Senator Ricketts. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
Senator Risch. Not recorded.
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. Hagerty?
Senator Risch. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Scott?
Senator Scott. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. No.
Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, I would ask to be recorded
as a no.
The Chairman. Menendez no.
Clerk will report.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 9. The nays are 11.
The Chairman. The amendment is not agreed to.
The issue now is S. 3874 as amended.
Senator Merkley. Mr. Chairman, I do have an amendment.
The Chairman. Senator Merkley?
Senator Merkley. Yes. I call up Merkley Second Degree to
Cardin First Degree number two and this is simply a statement
of the principles that Antony Blinken has laid out. He laid
them out for the Middle East back when he presented the message
in Tokyo in December.
He laid them out again in Israel on February 7th at the
press conference in Tel Aviv laying out the foundations for the
most durable process of peace and security following Gaza and I
think they should be included in this bill and I appreciate
everyone's support.
Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Senator Risch?
Senator Risch. I am going to vote no on this. This actually
puts in U.S. policy the prohibition of reoccupation of Gaza by
Israel. We do not know how this is going to come out.
I mean, that may be one of the terms when they sit down at
the peace table and decide how they are going to do this. It
prohibits reoccupation for any period of time by Israel.
I think this is a bad. We do not know where we are with
this. I cannot support this.
Senator Merkley. Thank you, Senator Risch.
And I will just note that this is current U.S. policy
reiterated a number of times by the Secretary of State and it
really is pretty extensive regarding how this sets a foundation
for a durable peace.
These principles involve being very clear, first and
foremost, to support the security of Israel from terrorism, to
support the security of Israel from violent attacks emanating
from Gaza, to oppose the forcible displacement of Palestinians
from Gaza, support the right of Palestinians displaced to
return to their homes, and to express concerns and opposition
to the reoccupation of Gaza by Israel, all laid out to present
the opportunity for durable peace.
The Chairman. Any further discussion?
Senator Risch. Well, Mr. Chairman, right now Israel is
occupying Gaza with a military force. If we pass this, does
that say they have to pack up and leave? I mean, I think you
have the cart in front of the donkey, to be honest with you.
Senator Merkley. It is the principle expressed that--my
belief in the importance of the cessation of hostilities for
the path going forward looking to how we interrupt this cycle
of hate and violence and we--not all of us--may agree with the
principles that Blinken has put forward, but I think many of us
do, and I think it is worth putting our stamp of yes, we want a
foundation for a durable peace in the region.
The Chairman. And let me just point out, Israel is at war
right now. It is a different situation when you are at war and
the post-war period. I think Senator Merkley is correct. Israel
has no intentions to occupy Gaza and I think this expresses not
only the U.S. policy but also the Israeli policy. So, I will
support your amendment.
Senator Merkley. This is the policy regarding reoccupation
and supported by the U.S. Ambassador from Israel to the United
States.
Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman, this puts a poison pill in
this thing. I mean, this is a difficult vote if you stick this
in there. I know what we are trying to do with the bill but man
oh man, this is tough language.
The Chairman. The question is on the Merkley Amendment.
Actually, it is a free-standing amendment now because the----
Senator Merkley. Yes, it is an amendment----
The Chairman. The Manager's Package has already been
adopted. So it is a freestanding amendment.
On the Merkley amendment, do you want a roll call vote on
this?
Senator Merkley. I am fine with a voice vote.
The Chairman. All in favor, signify by saying aye.
[A chorus of ayes.]
The Chairman. Opposed, no.
[A chorus of noes.]
The Chairman. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it.
The Merkley amendment is adopted.
Now, we are up to the S. 3874 as amended. Is there a motion
to report it favorably to the floor as amended?
Senator Menendez. So moved.
The Chairman. A second?
All in favor signify----
Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman, I----
The Chairman. Senator Risch?
Senator Risch [continuing]. I want a roll call vote for
this one.
The Chairman. The Clerk will call the roll on S. 3874 as
amended.
Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman, I want to state for the
record, and I want to put it in the record that I am voting
against this strictly because of the Merkley Amendment.
The Chairman. Understood.
The Clerk. Mr. Menendez?
Senator Menendez. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Shaheen?
The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
The Chairman. Aye by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
Senator Murphy. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
Senator Kaine. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
Senator Merkley. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
Senator Booker. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Schatz?
Senator Booker. Aye by proxy. I am the Lorax. I speak for
Brian. He has gone but I will keep trying.
[Laughter.]
The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen?
Senator Van Hollen. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Duckworth?
Senator Duckworth. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Risch?
Senator Risch. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
Senator Rubio. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Ricketts?
Senator Ricketts. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
Senator Risch. Not recorded.
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. Hagerty?
Senator Risch. No by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Scott?
Senator Scott. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Aye. The Clerk will report.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 12. The noes are 8.
The Chairman. A quorum being present the bill is reported
favorably to the floor.
S. 2626, the MAHSA Act, is now before us. I want to thank
Senator Rubio for his work on regards to this bill. Is there
any discussion on this bill?
Senator Rubio. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Senator Rubio?
Senator Rubio. It is just a determination on whether we
should impose sanctions on the Supreme Leader of Iran, on the
alleged so-called president of Iran, and their respective
offices for human rights abuses inside of Iran and for their
support for terrorism.
There is a manager's amendment.
The Chairman. There is a manager's amendment. Is there a
motion to approve the manager's amendment?
Senator Merkley. So moved.
The Chairman. Second?
Senator Menendez. Second.
The Chairman. Moved and second.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
[A chorus of ayes.]
The Chairman. Opposed, no.
[A chorus of noes.]
The Chairman. The ayes have it. The Manager's Package is
adopted. Do we have a Schatz Amendment here?
Senator Booker. We have a Schatz amendment. I speak for
Schatz.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Senator Booker?
Senator Risch. Lucky you.
Senator Booker. Yes. Yes.
Hawaii and New Jersey are perfect together.
The Chairman. Would it not be surprising if he loses the
amendment because you----
[Laughter.]
Senator Booker. I am surprised Schatz is willing to take
the risk.
But in resonance with his previous four amendments that
were adopted, this is for the same reporting requirements. I
offer the Schatz Amendment.
The Chairman. The question is--is there a second to the
motion? Moved and second?
Senator Rubio. Can I just make an observation about the
amendment?
The Chairman. Sure. Sure.
Senator Rubio. I mean, unlike the others which impose
sanctions this actually just asks for a determination as to
whether sanctions should be imposed. So, I am not sure how you
are going have a report on the impact of sanctions that they
may determine not to impose. So, unlike the other ones, I think
there is a mismatch here.
The Chairman. All in favor of the amendment signify by
saying aye.
[A chorus of ayes.]
Opposed no.
[A chorus of noes.]
The Chairman. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it.
The amendment is adopted.
Any further amendments to this bill? Any further
discussion?
Is there a motion to approve the bill as amended?
Senator Risch. So moved.
The Chairman. A second?
Senator Rubio. Second.
The Chairman. Moved and second. A quorum being present, all
in favor signify by saying aye.
[A chorus of ayes.]
Opposed, no.
[No response.]
The Chairman. The ayes have it. S. 2626 is approved as
amended and will be sent to the floor.
Without objection, the staff will have the normal----
Senator Kaine. Mr. Chair? Mr. Chair?
The Chairman [continuing]. Authorities to make technical
corrections.
Senator Kaine?
Senator Kaine. Mr. Chair, I just want to read something. I
have a friend--an American friend who lives in Jerusalem, and
this is a message to this committee and all in the Senate.
I wanted to reach out on Saturday night when I was home in
Jerusalem, but I just could not. In those very tense hours, I
was hunkered down, and I knew that my Israeli friends and
neighbors were going insane sitting, watching, waiting for what
was to unfold.
I would sneak pizza out of the window and could literally see
missiles and flashes lighting the sky under massive
[inaudible]. I did not know what we were experiencing until it
was over.
All I did was thank God for Iron Dome, Arrow, and other
lifesaving missile defense systems. Israel endured an
unprecedented attack on its soil, and the fact that it is not
alone and that the air defenses that we have long invested in
were so successful made all the difference.
That is thanks to you and your colleagues for the kind of
bipartisan support you have demonstrated over the years.
Senator Kaine. I just wanted everyone to hear that.
Senator Risch. God bless America.
The Chairman. Again, I thank you all for your cooperation.
Thank you. The business meeting will be adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:29 a.m., the meeting was adjourned.]
BUSINESS MEETING
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2024
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
Summary of Action Taken by the Committee \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Note: SFRC noticed this Business Meeting for Wednesday,
September 25th. Pursuant to an agreement with the Chairman and ranking
member, the committee did not physically meet on September 25, 2024,
and therefore did not act on any of the agenda items.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOMINATIONS
Dr. Vivek Hallegere Murthy, of Flordia, to be Representative of the
United States on the Executive Board of the World Health
Organization--held over
Ms. Kristen Sarri, of Maryland to be Assistant Secretary of State for
Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs--
held over
The Honorable John K. Nkengasong, of Georgia, to be Ambassador-At-
Large for Global Health Security and Diplomacy--held over
Ms. Elizabeth K. Horst, of Minnesota, a Career Member of the Senior
Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of
America to the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka--held
over
The Honorable Troy Fitrell, of New 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 Seychelles--held over
Ms. Kelly Adams-Smith, of New Jersey, to be 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 Moldova--held over
The Honorable Juan Carlos Iturregui, of Maryland, to be Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of
America to the Dominican Republic--held over
Ms. Jennifer D. Gavito, of Colorado, a Career Member of the Senior
Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of
America to the State of Libya--held over
The Honorable Tracey Ann Jacobsen, 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 Iraq--held over
Mr. Joshua M. Harris, of Maryland, a Career Member of the Senior
Foreign Service, Class of Counselor, to be Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of
America to the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria--held
over
Mr. Peter W. Lord, of Florida, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign
Service, Class of Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and
Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic
of Senegal, and to serve concurrently and without additional
compensation as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of
the United States of America to the Republic of Guinea-Bissau--
held over
Ms. Stephanie L. Hallett, of Florida, a Career Member of the Senior
Foreign Service, Class of Counselor, to be Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of
America to the Kingdom of Bahrain--held over
Mr. Douglas D. Jones, 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 Bosnia and Herzegovina--held over
Mr. Michael G. Heath, 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 Malawi--held over
Ms. Mary E. Daschbach, of Rhode Island, 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 Togolese Republic--held over
Mr. John W. McIntyre, 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 Kingdom of Eswatini--held over
Mr. Jeremey Neitzke, of Illinois, a Career Member of the Senior
Foreign Service, Class of Counselor, to be Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of
America to the Kingdom of Lesotho--held over
Ms. Abigail L. Dressel, of Connecticut, a Career Member of the Senior
Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of
America to the Republic of 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
Mr. James Holtsnider, of Iowa, 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
Independent State of Samoa--held over
Mr. Brian K. Stimmler, of Nebraska, a Career Member of the Senior
Foreign Service, Class of Counselor, to be Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of
America to the Kyrgyz Republic--held over
Ms. Amanda S. Jacobsen, of Washington, 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 Equatorial Guinea--held over
Mr. Keith D. Hanigan, 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 Solomon Islands--held over
Ms. Kali C. Jones, of Louisiana, 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 Benin--held over
Ms. Stephanie A. Miley, 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 The Gambia--held over
Mr. Christophe Andre Tocco, of California, a Career Member of the
Senior Foreign Service, Class of Career Minister, to be
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Islamic
Republic of Mauritania--held over
LEGISLATION
H.R. 8282, Illegitimate Court Counteraction Act--held over
S. 4425, Georgian People's Act--held over
FSO LISTS
George A. Ayache, et. al., dated June 21, 2023 (PN794)--held over
Santiago Davila, et. al., dated June 21, 2023 (PN795)--held over
Cori A. Alston, et. al., dated March 14, 2024 (PN1535)--held over
Careylou S. Arun, et. al., dated March 14, 2024 (PN1536)--held over
Stephanie Riche Boles, et. al., dated March 14, 2024 (PN1538)--held
over
Elizabeth Arleva Chambers, et. al., dated March 14, 2024, as modified
(PN1540)--held over
Meeting Transcript
Note: SFRC noticed this Business Meeting for Wednesday,
September 25th. Pursuant to an agreement with the Chairman and
ranking member, the committee did not physically meet on
September 25, 2024, and therefore did not act on any of the
agenda items.
[all]