[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING
=======================================================================
MEETING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JANUARY 24, 2017
__________
Serial No. 115-2
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
or
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
24-179 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida BRAD SHERMAN, California
DANA ROHRABACHER, California GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
JOE WILSON, South Carolina GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
TED POE, Texas KAREN BASS, California
DARRELL E. ISSA, California WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina AMI BERA, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
PAUL COOK, California TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
RON DeSANTIS, Florida ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
TED S. YOHO, Florida DINA TITUS, Nevada
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois NORMA J. TORRES, California
LEE M. ZELDIN, New York BRADLEY SCOTT SCHNEIDER, Illinois
DANIEL M. DONOVAN, Jr., New York THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
Wisconsin TED LIEU, California
ANN WAGNER, Missouri
BRIAN J. MAST, Florida
FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida
BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
THOMAS A. GARRETT, Jr., Virginia
Amy Porter, Chief of Staff Thomas Sheehy, Staff Director
Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE MEETING
Committee's Authorization and Oversight Plan, 115th Congress..... 5
The Honorable Gregory W. Meeks, a Representative in Congress from
the State of New York: Amendment to the Authorization and
Oversight Plan................................................. 16
Rules of the Committee, 115th Congress........................... 17
The Honorable David Cicilline, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Rhode Island: Amendment to the Rules of the
Committee...................................................... 37
APPENDIX
Meeting notice................................................... 52
Meeting minutes.................................................. 53
Meeting summary.................................................. 55
Record vote on amendment offered by the Honorable David Cicilline 56
ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING
----------
TUESDAY, JANUARY 24, 2017
House of Representatives,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:39 a.m., in
room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward Royce
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Chairman Royce. This committee will come to order. I will
ask everyone to take their seats.
It is an honor to convene the organizational meeting of the
Committee on Foreign Affairs for the 115th Congress and to
welcome all our new members and our returning members.
Now, for the members of the committee, this is the second
oldest committee in the House of Representatives. Ways and
Means predates us, but this committee had its origins in the
Committee of Correspondence, formed by the Continental Congress
in 1775, and was first chaired by Benjamin Franklin.
Our predecessors have struggled with the questions of war
and peace, freedom and tyranny, and diplomacy and development
now for more than two centuries.
This past Congress, we too tackled a number of difficult
issues, including threats from Iran, Russia, North Korea, and
ISIS. And we did this work together, which is reflected in the
fact that this committee was responsible for 24 pieces of
legislation becoming public law. All in all, we held 280
hearings, briefings, and meetings. And I am confident that our
committee will continue to rise to the occasion in this new
Congress.
Of the major initiatives awaiting us, one of the most
significant will be to authorize the Department of State, whose
accounts have not been authorized for nearly a decade and a
half, despite our efforts of authorizing these in the past and
sending them to the Senate. Thankfully, this past year, we
succeeded in working with the Senate to enact critical Embassy
security and personnel reforms. I am hopeful that this will be
the year that we succeed in fulfilling our budget-authorizing
role, one of our most basic and important mandates.
We will accomplish this and other critical tasks by working
together. One of the things I enjoy most about this committee
is seeing us cooperate, harnessing the dedication and ingenuity
on both sides of the aisle to address the serious challenges
our Nation faces.
What I will share with you is that Mr. Engel and myself 4
years ago, when we became chairman and ranking member, agreed
we would run this committee in a bipartisan way, that our
members would travel together, that we would split the time
equally, that we would enforce the rules. Actually, the rules
originally were written by Thomas Jefferson in terms of the
decorum that we are supposed to express.
It is my observation that the reason we had 24 pieces of
legislation passed is because members got to know each other,
listen to each other, work together. That is the only way
forward for the United States, as challenging as this world is
today, is if we all speak with one voice. And we won't always
agree, but Ranking Member Engel and I work hard to conduct the
business in a way befitting the history of this great
committee.
I strongly believe that our country's protection and
prosperity depends upon our willingness to engage each other in
this room as colleagues who can work together, despite our
philosophical differences. So, again, I really urge you to get
to know each other. And I really urge you to benefit from the
time spent trying to understand our varied backgrounds and
interests. You can learn an awful lot by listening to people.
And before asking Ranking Member Engel for his comments and
member introductions, I would like to briefly introduce the new
Republican members to the Foreign Affairs Committee.
After 2 years away, we are glad to have Congressman Adam
Kinzinger of Illinois returning to the committee. Thank you,
Adam.
Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner from Wisconsin's Fifth
District brings decades of congressional experience and
expertise to the committee.
We have Congresswoman Ann Wagner of Missouri's Second
District. She served as U.S. Ambassador to Luxembourg and has
focused on human trafficking, among other issues.
Congressman Brian Mast comes from Florida's Eighth
District. We thank this father of three for his extraordinary
service to our country, having served in Afghanistan as a bomb
disposal expert.
We have Congressman Francis Rooney of Florida's 19th
District, a former Ambassador to the Holy See and successful
businessman, owner of a construction company that dates to
1856.
Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick from Bucks County,
Pennsylvania, a former FBI Investigator of the Year, not to
mention a C.P.A., J.D., M.B.A., EMT, and, of course, Eagle
Scout. You would have to be an Eagle Scout to have that as a
career followup. His FBI service took him also overseas to Iraq
and Ukraine.
And, last but not least, Congressman Tom Garrett of the
Commonwealth of Virginia's Fifth District brings both military
and legislative expertise to this committee. And I would also
like to congratulate him on his recent marriage.
So, once again, a big welcome to our new members. The
committee will benefit from all of your years of service to
this country.
And I would now like to yield to the ranking member for his
opening comments and the introduction of our Democratic
members.
Mr. Engel. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I look
forward to working with you in the coming Congress, as we have
worked together so well during the past 4 years. I am hopeful
that we will continue this committee's longstanding tradition
of bipartisan cooperation in promoting our national interests.
Chairman Royce and I like to say that, when it comes to
promoting national interest, politics stops at the water's
edge.
And I am very proud of the members on this committee, on
both sides of the aisle, who have fulfilled that over the past
4 years that Chairman Royce and I have been ranking member and
chairman, respectively. And so I think it is very important
that we try to continue that. It doesn't mean we are not going
to have disagreements from time to time, but I do believe,
respectfully, that disagreements can be respectful, not
disagreeable.
During the last 8 years, my colleagues on the majority side
called the administration to task when it made a foreign policy
decision which they objected to or they thought put our
interests abroad at risk, and even did I. I think everyone
knows that I am not afraid to speak my mind when I disagree
with a policy, even if my own party is behind that policy. So I
think all the members on this side certainly feel the same way.
And I hope, going forward, we keep up that tradition of
speaking truth to power, putting our country's interests before
our parties. That is what it means to leave politics at the
water's edge.
Speaking of leaving politics at the water's edge, I want to
just take a moment to talk about a great friend who was
chairman of this committee for many years who recently passed
away, and that is Congressman Ben Gilman of New York. His
portrait is to my right over there on the wall. Parts of my
district are the same as Ben's district. Those of you who were
on the committee while Ben was the chairman of this committee
know that Ben was a wonderful person who was fair, kind,
sensible. And I think Ed Royce continues in that fine tradition
of bipartisanship and working through both sides.
So I would just ask my colleagues very quickly for a moment
of silence for Chairman Gilman.
[Moment of silence.]
Mr. Engel. Thank you. I would now like to take this
opportunity to briefly introduce the new Democratic members of
this committee.
First, I am very happy to welcome Dina Titus, who is now
serving her third term representing the First Congressional
District of Nevada, previously served one term representing
Nevada's Third District. I know Dina wanted very much to get
onto this committee, and I am delighted to have her, and I
think we will all benefit from her expertise. So, Dina,
welcome. Welcome to the committee.
Next, I am pleased to welcome Norma Torres from California.
She is now serving her second term, representing the Golden
State's 35th Congressional District, and has expressed to me a
desire for a long, long time to be on this committee, has a
particular knowledge of Central American affairs. That is where
she was born. And I look forward to her expertise in teaching
us some of the things that are important. As we know, that
region of the world and our country are really bound up and
intertwined, and it is really so important to have someone of
her expertise on the committee. So, Norma, glad to have you.
Next, we are very happy to welcome back Brad Schneider, who
served on the committee in the 113th Congress during his first
term, representing the 10th Congressional District of Illinois
and was recently elected again to serve that district. Those of
you who remember Brad know how smart he is and what a hard
worker he is, and we are just delighted to have him back on the
committee. So, welcome, Brad.
I am also very happy to welcome Tom Suozzi, a newly elected
member representing the Third District of New York out on Long
Island, replacing Steve Israel in Congress. Tom has extensive
knowledge, was the county executive of Nassau County for many
years, and the minute he was elected came to me and said: I
really want to serve on the Foreign Affairs Committee. So I
know we are going to look forward to his expertise. Tom Suozzi.
Next, I am delighted to welcome Adriano Espaillat, also a
New Yorker, who represents the 13th Congressional District, my
neighbor to the south. Our districts abut each other. Adriano
is the first Dominican American to serve in Congress. So he is
a trailblazer, and I know he is very, very popular. He replaces
Charley Rangel in Congress.
Last but certainly not least, I would like to welcome Ted
Lieu, now serving his second term, representing the 33rd
Congressional District of California. When we are all retired,
he will have us out to Malibu, and we will have a very good
time.
So, Ted, we are really delighted to have you and your
expertise as well. I know we talked about Taiwan and some of
the other things that are near and dear to your heart, and I
look forward to working with you.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman, and we move on and looking
forward to a good year.
Chairman Royce. As am I, Mr. Engel. Thank you.
And congratulations to all the new members of the
committee, and thank you in advance for your service to this
committee.
So, moving on to the organizational items on the agenda, we
will begin with the adoption of the committee's authorization
and oversight plan for the 115th Congress. This is required by
House Rule X, which was sent to your offices last week, and it
is included in your folders.
Without objection, we will consider it en bloc with the
noncontroversial one-sentence amendment received late yesterday
from Mr. Meeks on press freedom in the Western Hemisphere,
which members also have in their packets.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Chairman Royce. And this plan sets out the general
intentions of the full committee, subject as always to world
events, and reflects input from both sides of the aisle. This
committee has oversight responsibility over the State
Department and several other government agencies, and it is our
job to ensure that they are operating effectively. So I would
ask if the ranking member has any comments on the oversight
plan.
Mr. Engel. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me thank
your staff for working with us on the oversight plan. It
identifies many of the key foreign policy challenges that the
committee will examine over the next 2 years, and it is a good
document. I certainly support its adoption.
Chairman Royce. Then, without objection, the authorization
and oversight plan is considered as read and adopted.
The next order of business is approving the list of
committee professional staff for the 115th Congress, as
required by clause 9 of House Rule X. So I want to recognize
the committee chief of staff, Amy Porter; the majority staff
director, Tom Sheehy; Mr. Engel's minority staff director,
Jason Steinbaum; and their colleagues for their service to the
committee.
[Applause.]
Chairman Royce. Our new members will soon learn how
fortunate we are to have a dedicated professional staff of such
a high caliber.
And, without objection, the staff list that all the members
have before them is approved.
And, finally, we will turn to the adoption of committee
rules for the 115th Congress, which were circulated to your
offices last week.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Chairman Royce. Now, these rules are identical to those
that governed committee operations during the last Congress,
with one minor addition agreed between the ranking member and
myself: To ensure that the minority is consulted and that
witnesses receive notice of any change to the title of a
previously noticed hearing.
Before entertaining a motion on the committee rules, I am
pleased to yield to the ranking member if he has any comments
on the rules.
Mr. Engel. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The rules we have
here are generally the rules we have used with both Republican
and Democratic majorities in this House. That is not to say
they cannot be improved. I understand Mr. Cicilline has an
amendment. But I certainly support them and am glad that we are
again continuing the traditions that you and I talked about
earlier.
Chairman Royce. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Engel.
Are there any amendments?
Mr. Cicilline, there is an amendment at the desk?
Mr. Cicilline. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an
amendment at the desk.
Chairman Royce. So we are going to ask our staff now to
distribute the amendment to the members so that they can all
read the amendment. And then we will ask the clerk, clerk, will
you report the amendment?
Ms. Marter. Cicilline amendment to House Foreign Affairs
Committee rules for the 115th Congress. Section 6(b)(4) is
amended by inserting at the end: A witness invited to testify,
as appointed by the President from civilian life, shall include
a disclosure form identifying any arrangement, affiliation,
relationship, or substantial financial interest the witness has
with any organization, company, or entity directly related to
the subject of the hearing as well as the nature of the
relationship disclosed, unless the committee Chairman and the
Ranking Member determine that there is good cause for
noncompliance. A witness must further disclose every instance
in which he or she has registered as a foreign agent under the
Foreign Agents Registration Act.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Chairman Royce. The Chair reserves a point of order and
recognizes the author to explain the amendment.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I thank you and Ranking Member Engel for your
leadership on this committee. It has been a great pleasure to
serve on the Foreign Affairs Committee and offer this
amendment, which is quite simple. As we already require from
nongovernmental witnesses, it would require a basic disclosure
from witnesses representing our Government before this
committee so that we know whether they have any significant
ties to organizations or entities that are the subject of our
hearings.
Furthermore, it requires government witnesses to disclose
all instances in which they have ever represented a foreign
government, as required under the Foreign Agents Registration
Act.
These two disclosures will allow the members of our
committee to have a thorough understanding of any interests or
previous connections which may play a role in a witness'
perspective on the issues on which he or she is testifying.
This is not to suggest that the fine men and women who
serve as appointees in any administration would be unduly
influenced by outside relationships. I have the greatest
respect for all of the public servants who choose to represent
our country. But I believe that it is wise to require full
disclosure and transparency on the part of all witnesses so
that members may have a full understanding of a witness'
history and background in relation to the topics on which they
are being called to testify.
It is true that government appointees are required to
certify by law that they do not have competing interests with
foreign governments, but those certifications are not public
and are not disclosed to this committee. And government
witnesses are not required to disclose to this committee
whether they have ever represented a foreign government under
FARA, information which I believe would be extremely useful to
committee members.
So I urge my colleagues to support this very
straightforward amendment in the name of transparency and urge
all members of the committee to recognize the value of learning
this information before we hear from witnesses in the coming
Congress.
And, with that, I yield back.
Chairman Royce. The Chair recognizes himself.
I think, just on reflection of this, this is a regrettable
amendment. I have served on this committee for many, many
years, and I can't recall there ever, ever being a time when we
had an amendment to the Rules Committee package. And the reason
for that is because we get together a week before and we share
this package, so we don't have amendments come at the last
minute. We work out before the organizational meeting that
language. And that was the case long before Mr. Engel and I
chaired this committee.
If there is a problem that needs to be addressed, I am
pleased to do so. But of the hundreds of administration
witnesses that appeared before this committee last Congress--
and I think, last Congress, we had 120--I am not aware of any
claims of conflict of interest, nor of the hundreds that
preceded that in former sessions of Congress. And I think the
reason it is not an issue is because it is amply covered in
existing law. Every Presidential appointee who requires Senate
confirmation and every Assistant Secretary, every schedule C
appointee, every policymaking employee that you have at State
who appears here before us has to go through the public
financial disclosure requirements under the law. And all public
employees are subject to criminal conflict-of-interest laws.
So what does that mean? That means that, prior to their
appearance here before this committee, we have their executive
branch public financial disclosure report with all of that
information on it.
It also means that we have at our disposal the information
publicly available, in terms of whether they were ever--
yielding back to Mr. Cicilline, what was the terminology that
you used in your amendment? If I could have a copy of your
amendment here. Here it is: A foreign agent under the Foreign
Agents Registration Act. We likewise have, under the
registration laws, all of that information going back over 25
years.
So the executive branch personnel, public financial
disclosure report, I have this here for Rex Tillerson, the new
Secretary of State, for General Mattis. And we are happy to
show you how to have at your disposal that disclosure 9 days
before or a week before the committee hearings. So, if there
are questions and you want to raise those questions, you will
have a copy of any registration as a foreign agent going back
over 25 years that you can bring up. And the witness will be
seated right there at that desk. You can raise those issues.
Any conflict of interest that you perceive out of the financial
report, you can raise that.
From my standpoint, when you have 120 government officials
in front of the committee and there are disclosures in place
and no one has raised a single case of concern over
administration witnesses being unduly conflicted and presenting
false testimony, I don't know what the problem is we are trying
to solve. But what I am sharing with you is that we have the
information here, and I will share that information with you on
these points you raise.
In terms of bringing up the amendment, unfortunately, it
looks like a double standard from where I sit. I am just going
to share that. No U.S. Government witness from any
administration, Republican or Democratic, has ever been
subjected to such a requirement. And, again, when you are
already subject under the law to conflict-of-interest and
financial disclosure requirements and it has to be made public
and we have it prior to the hearing, you have it at your
disposal. You have it under the Ethics in Government Act, under
the STOCK Act, and under the other criminal and civil statutes.
Criminal law prohibits administration officials from
participating in official matters in which that official or
those whose acts may be imputed to that official has any
financial interest. So senior administration officials also
have this legal obligation, as I say, to file these public
reports on their finances.
And in regards to Mr. Tillerson, who, if confirmed, will
appear before this committee, he told the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee this, and I will just give you his
testimony before Senator Corker's Foreign Relations Committee
the other day, when questioned: ``That part of my life is over
. . . the first step I took was to retain my own outside
counsel, and the only guidance I gave them is I must have a
complete and clear, clean break from all of my connections to
ExxonMobil, not even the appearance. And whatever is required
for us to achieve that, get that in place.''
Precisely. And that is what we expect.
So, again, the issues being raised are already covered
under the law. If this situation changes and we need to revisit
the committee's rules, then I commit to the members to do so,
but we are not in the practice of changing the committee rules
absent a real demonstrated need.
Do any other members----
Mr. Kinzinger. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Royce. Mr. Kinzinger.
Mr. Kinzinger. Since I wasn't here, as I am going over the
merits of this amendment--I wasn't here, obviously, the last
years--I wanted to pose a question to the author, if I could.
You know, did you attempt to do this 2 years ago, and what was
the result, or is this the first time?
Mr. Cicilline. If the gentleman is yielding, I am happy to
answer.
This amendment was not offered last time we were here. Had
it been offered, I would have, of course, supported it. This is
something that I developed in relation to a series of events
that I think demand that we be particularly transparent. And if
this information is, in fact, available, as the chairman has
suggested, this would be very simple disclosure. It is also
important to recognize that the disclosure that this amendment
seeks is not limited to financial disclosure, which the
chairman is talking about. Those disclosures are financial.
This also includes nonfinancial conflicts of interest.
Mr. Kinzinger. If I can, I will just retain my time and
just say, you know, I think it is obvious that this is, in
essence, a partisan play. And this is a very bipartisan
committee, and that is why I love it so much.
And so I would agree with the chairman: This stuff is very
open, very accessible. And I hope we all take that into account
when trying to decide whether or not we are going to play, in
essence, partisanship on a committee where we believe politics
should end at the water's edge.
I thank the chairman for yielding.
Chairman Royce. Let me recognize the gentleman from
California.
Mr. Bera. I will yield my time to Mr. Cicilline.
Mr. Cicilline. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I wanted to first say I regret that anyone has seen this as
a partisan issue. We, I think in a bipartisan way, 2 years ago
strengthened disclosure requirements for nongovernmental
organizations.
Chairman Royce. We did.
Mr. Cicilline. And in the same way we strengthened that, I
think we can do the same thing for government witnesses. So I
implore my colleagues not to see this as a partisan issue, but
as I hope an issue that both Democrats and Republicans can
agree that our constituents deserve the right to know as we
assess testimony and assess the perspective of witnesses that
we have good information and thorough information as to whether
or not any arrangement, affiliation, or prior relationship
might color in any way their testimony or their perception.
And while the chairman has made reference to financial
disclosures, this amendment is more than financial. These are
nonfinancial conflicts that might arise as a result of
arrangements, affiliations, or relationships. The notion that,
because this is available in some limited context as it relates
to finances, that we shouldn't have this information in a broad
range of potential conflicts, there is no harm in knowing that.
If there are no conflicts, and I presume most witnesses will
say there are none, we will accept that. But if there are, we
ought to know that.
I don't think the sharing of that information, the
disclosing of it, impugns anyone. It just says we should have
this information so that, when we are making determinations on
how to weigh testimony, that we know what might contribute to
certain perspectives, certain viewpoints, and what prior
relationships might exist. I think, you know, we talk a lot
around here about transparency and making sure that we are
operating free from conflicts of interest. I think those are
important values. This amendment simply requires a very simple
disclosure. As the chairman said, my guess is that most of the
witnesses will say there are none. But in the event there are,
we ought to know that.
Chairman Royce. In one sense, Mr. Cicilline, I think there
is a valuable contribution in raising the argument in the sense
that many of the members probably did not know that, under the
registration with regard to foreign agents under Foreign Agents
Registration Act, that you can go back and get this information
that is objective--that is objective--back over 25 years and
find out what people have ever had.
Mr. Cicilline. For financial.
Chairman Royce [continuing]. That financial tie or that you
can go through these statements and get them a week before and
pore through them and find any financial tie.
So the question is, if things become so vague, how could a
witness know, you know, on the question of a tie that is not
financial, the subjectivity here, the lack of objectivity? What
I am sharing with you is, we will make available and you have
at your disposal the tools I think to get to the crux of this
problem without getting into an area so vague--and I would just
add one other thing.
Let me let you make your point. I yield back.
Mr. Cicilline. I just want to say finally, Mr. Chairman,
that the question may be one of burden. It seems to me that the
burden properly rests on the testifying witness to make these
disclosures, and it shouldn't rest on the members of the
committee to conduct their own independent investigation,
particularly with limited resources. We have financial reports
that will show conflicts as it relates to financial conflicts,
but we don't have the ability to develop or research or
investigate any other potential conflicts as a result of an
affiliation, a relationship, or other arrangement.
And so I think the question really is, if we all agree this
information is important, the committee has a right to know it,
then it seems to me simpler to put the burden on the party that
has the knowledge, that is the witness, rather than put that
burden on members of the committee to search this out. So I
urge my colleagues to support what I think is a very simple
amendment that will not be burdensome to witnesses. They will
presumably know this about themselves. But I think the American
people and we as individuals who have to evaluate that
testimony ought to have a sense and a clear understanding of
any of these potential conflicts.
Chairman Royce. Mr. Issa, I think, was seeking recognition.
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to inquire a little detail on the amendment. Is
this amendment intended to be for as many years back or only
current relationships? It appears as though it would be open-
ended, that if I traveled to my grandfather's birthplace in
Lebanon and sold 10 square meters of land 30 years ago, I might
have to disclose it. Is that the intent?
I would yield.
Mr. Cicilline. Yes. The amendment I believe uses the
language ``has.'' So it means current arrangements,
affiliations, relationships, or substantial financial
interests. A relationship that has concluded or an affiliation
or an arrangement that has concluded would not be covered. It
would be for current arrangements, affiliations, relationships,
or substantial financial interests the witness has in the
present tense.
Mr. Issa. Reclaiming my time.
If I could make, perhaps, a constructive suggestion. We are
going to have many, many witnesses under the committee rules.
Of course, we get notice of who those witnesses are. If the
chairman were to commit to have questions like this made
available to any and all witnesses in which we had supplemental
questions like, ``do you have that,'' with the witness prepared
to answer it, then we might serve both purposes, which is put
them on notice that this question may be asked but, at the same
time, not require an extensive addition to a form that would
be, if you will, nonstandard to the many other committees.
Would that be of interest to the gentleman, in order to
essentially be able to query a witness, knowing that this
question is before them?
And I would yield.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you. I thank the gentleman for the
question. I think if this question were posed to witnesses
before the hearing, because, obviously, an answer to this
question can have an impact on the questions you ask or the
perspective that we may take in our line of questioning, that
is the whole point of putting it in the rules, so it happens
ahead of time. To find out after the hearing or to use your 5
minutes to get this question answered seems to me unfair.
Let's get this information ahead of time. If it is in a
written form from the chairman and the ranking member that we
then get a written response to, that is fine. I think it could
be satisfied in a number of different ways, but just getting
the information to the members of the committee before the
witness actually testifies. I am certainly open to the process
by which that happens.
Mr. Issa. If I could yield to the chairman for just one
more question.
In my prior committee work, we often did allow both sides
to provide, if you will, interrogatories to witnesses, with an
expectation that they often would answer them in writing, but
they often would not answer them in writing, but they were on
notice that those questions might be before them.
Is this consistent with what the chairman would envision to
resolve this ambiguity?
Chairman Royce. I think the gentleman from California, Mr.
Issa, raises a point here. The committee members here can offer
whatever questions you would like to have answered. I have
suggested that, in this particular case, this particular
amendment is so vague, but we have at our disposal first the
ways for you to facilitate now any objective past connection,
and you have at your disposal the way to submit those
questions.
So, that being the case, I would also just point out that
no U.S. Government witness from any administration has ever
been subjected to such a requirement as you have added here.
And no other committee has this requirement in its rules.
So I think the suggestion Mr. Issa makes is a good one that
allows you to follow up with whatever questions you would like
to submit in advance without us burdening every single 120----
Anyway, I see another member seeks recognition. The
gentleman from Florida.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would just like to speak in support of this amendment.
And I would just make a couple observations. First of all, the
fact that no other committees require this doesn't mean that it
is not a good idea and doesn't mean that, perhaps, they should.
That is first.
Secondly, the suggestion was made earlier that somehow
there is some partisan intent to this, as if transparency is a
partisan issue. I don't think anyone on this committee believes
that transparency is a partisan issue. I believe that everyone
on this committee believes that providing the maximum amount of
information for this committee and for the people we serve is
the goal that we should have.
And so, to that end, to say that we don't need to ask our
witnesses to provide this information, that we can either ask
these questions at our hearing or we can dig into public
records to see what other information is out there isn't just a
problem for those of us who think that transparency should be
what guides this committee and its witnesses; it is a problem
for the people we represent. I don't want and I don't think the
people that I represent want to have us ask questions about
witnesses and their connections to the subject matter of our
hearing if there is a way to get that information beforehand.
I would think that we would have an interest and certainly
the American people would have an interest in knowing whether
those commitments or any sort of interest that they have exist
before the witnesses get here. It is going to I think affect
the way that the process works.
And I guess I would just finish with this. When it is
suggested that there is some question as to how the witnesses
can know the answer to this, I think it is fairly obvious that
there is no one who can answer these questions better than the
witnesses. Why should we have to wait until they are here to
ask them? Why should we have to conduct our own investigations?
Why not ask them, in the nature of full transparency? That is
what the American people expect.
And I would just finish where I started. I know that none
of my colleagues on the other side of this dais believe that
full transparency and seeking full transparency and the benefit
of more information rather than less is somehow a partisan
issue. I know they don't agree with that.
Chairman Royce. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Deutch. I would be happy to.
Mr. Chabot. I thank the gentleman.
I will be brief. I think the reason that many of us would
suggest that this is a partisan issue is the fact that, for the
last 8 years, an amendment like this has not been offered from
the folks on that side of the aisle.
And I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Deutch. I would respond that I am sorry that no one
thought to seek out this full transparency during the past 8
years, either from our side of the aisle or from your side of
the aisle, frankly. We would have been happy--I am sure Mr.
Cicilline would have been thrilled to have had this discussion
8 years ago instead of today. But the fact that we haven't done
this in the past doesn't mean that it is not a good idea.
Frankly, if that is the way Congress acted, that we were
stuck only doing things the way we have always done them,
things would look very different around here than they do. When
there is a good idea that will lead to greater transparency and
more information for the American people to know who is coming
to testify before this committee, I don't think this is a tough
issue. I think this is a fair amendment. It is what I think our
constituents would expect us to do here. And I know, again,
that there is broad bipartisan support on this committee for
working together, and I think working together to provide this
kind of transparency is what we ought to do.
Chairman Royce. And with respect to objectivity, what we
have is the ability now to pull up the entire history of any
financial connection--anything objective. We have the
capability today to go back with electronic form and pull up in
real time and certainly a week beforehand from the Foreign
Agents Registration Act any example of any type of conflict
like that. And, on top of that, we have the ability to question
in advance if we have some reason, but to do something maybe in
a way that is not so vague, not so subjective.
Mr. Deutch. Mr. Chairman, I think I had a minute left.
Chairman Royce. I yield back.
Mr. Deutch. And I just wanted to address that. I don't
disagree that we can do that, but I would respectfully suggest
that anyone who is watching this hearing knows that there are
two choices, two paths we can pursue here: We can pursue a path
that lets members of this committee conduct full investigations
into filings that have been made and to submit interrogatories,
that that is one path; or the other path is to simply ask our
witnesses whether there are any connections to any of the
subject matters that they are going to be talking about and
have them provide that answer.
It seems fairly obvious that the easiest path is to simply
ask the people who are going to be here to provide that
information rather than requiring us or our constituents to
start digging through records or to offering interrogatories,
which certainly none of them can do as well.
And, with that, I yield back.
Chairman Royce. Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
First, I want to strongly associate myself with your
comments about the vagueness of the language. I think my other
colleagues have pointed out that this was not offered in
previous Congresses. I would not vote for this if this were
going to lodge against a Hillary Clinton administration or
Barack Obama's administration. I think it has surface appeal
surely, but it is all-encompassingly vague.
So I would ask the sponsor, if a witness unwittingly fails
to disclose a nonfinancial relationship or a nonfinancial
arrangement, what is the penalty for noncompliance?
And, secondly, how do you define ``relationship'' or ``an
arrangement''? A contact? A meeting? Where is that in the plain
text of this amendment as to how you would define such? If I
have a conversation with Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and we do have a
longstanding good friendship, but would that conversation
constitute a relationship of some kind or an arrangement?
With financial disclosure, there is a bright line of
demarcation as to what we are talking about. And even there,
you say substantial financial interest. Perhaps all financial
interest should be part of that. But, again, unwittingly
failing to disclose doesn't put on the book that would have to
be provided in some cases about a life of contact. What is the
penalty? What happens to that witness? Do define, if you will,
``arrangement'' and ``relationship.'' What constitutes a
relationship?
Mr. Cicilline. If the gentleman is yielding, I think there
is no suggestion in the rule that an unwitting failure to
disclose carries any penalty. We expect----
Chairman Royce. Whoa, whoa, whoa. If the gentleman would
yield.
Mr. Cicilline. Oh, I am sorry. I thought he yielded to me
to answer a question.
Chairman Royce. Yes.
Mr. Cicilline. And I don't think there is any suggestion
that an unwitting omission is subject to any penalty. We expect
all witnesses to answer this question in good faith and to be
providing information consistent with their best memory.
I think with respect to affiliation, relationship,
arrangement, those terms have their ordinary use and their
ordinary meaning. I think certainly if this amendment passes
and we think it is important to give additional clarifications
as we ask witnesses to comply with the terms, that we can do
that, but I just return to Congressman Deutch's question.
It is really about which path we take. If the chairman is
suggesting that you will get this question answered and your
staff will provide the disclosures that relate to answering
this question prior to a witness, Democrat or Republican,
testifying before this committee, that achieves the same
objective.
But I do think the question is, what is the path by which
we collect this information and share it with the committee of
every witness, Democrat and Republican, and requiring the
person who has the best knowledge about it, who is the witness,
to disclose it, you know----
Mr. Smith. Briefly, this says a witness invited to testify
as appointed by the President from civilian life. So that is
the very limited universe of people we are talking about in
terms of the application of this amendment.
And, again, if this were being offered and Hillary Clinton
was the President of the United States, I can tell you my
opposition to it would be just as strong. It is vague, as
Chairman Royce has so eloquently said, and it also, I think,
could have a chilling effect. There is surface appeal. This
looks like transparency, but it is anything but.
So I yield back.
Chairman Royce. If the gentleman would yield.
So the concept here is that, if I could explain this, you
could have a relationship with an entity. Have you ever had a
relationship with an entity? And if your interpretation is
different--this is the vagueness I am getting to here--it is a
violation of the Federal False Statement Act.
Now, I can understand why you might want to with an
individual ask a certain number of questions. But for 120
witnesses that we are going to pull up here, to intentionally
use something that vague in your terminology, I don't know if
you are like me trying to go back through every conversation
you have ever had with any Ambassador----
Mr. Cicilline. It doesn't do that, Mr. Chairman. It is
whether you currently have. It is not have you ever had. The
language of the amendment is arrangement, affiliation,
relationship, or substantial financial interest the witness has
with any organization, company, or entity directly related to
the subject of the hearing.
So you are not required to go back on any prior
relationships. It is whether the witness currently has anything
that would involve a relationship, affiliation, or arrangement
with the current subject matter, entity, or organization that
is the subject of the hearing.
It is quite limited. There is no ambiguity. It is not to
search from your high school days. It is whether you currently
have a conflict or potential conflict.
Chairman Royce. Let me suggest that if you want to ask that
question, you can ask that question, whatever question you
would like to ask. But to take something and try to fashion it,
which is so vague that, as I am running these scenarios through
my head, it seems to me almost designed to make it impossible
to be precise in the answer to that question when we are asking
about broad subject areas.
But if we want to answer it, fine. But the bureaucracy of
putting it out there for every 120 witnesses that we have come
before us seems to me quite an impediment to the work of this
committee, especially when we have suggested ways in real time,
because it took me all of less than a minute--I think it was
probably 20 seconds--to get the Secretary of Defense's and the
Secretary of State's information and then not long to go
through it. These are questions you can ask in advance, as I
have suggested. But putting that kind of vague language into
the rules would not serve us well in terms of our interests for
the committee.
Anyway, the Chair withdraws the point of order. The
gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Duncan, was seeking time.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will call for the question.
Chairman Royce. All right. Let me first go to Mr. Engel,
who I think was requesting time.
Mr. Engel. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And very briefly, I want to repeat something that Mr.
Cicilline said which I think is very important. I support Mr.
Cicilline's amendment. And he made the point before that I
think should be made again, is that we already have a provision
in our rules that requires disclosure of conflicts of interest
for nongovernmental witnesses at our hearings. And I think it
is reasonable to apply the same standards to government
witnesses. That is all he is trying to do. So, therefore, any
of the witnesses would have the same standard, not just one
standard for nongovernmental witnesses and one for governmental
witnesses.
So I support Mr. Cicilline's amendment. I don't think it
will be difficult to implement, and I think it is always better
to have more rather than less transparency.
And I yield back.
Chairman Royce. And in conclusion, I just mention that the
criminal conflict-of-interest statutes on the books for decades
address these issues in very clear, adjudicated terms. There is
no known problem that this would solve, but we still have the
capacity to ask these questions and all other questions that
you would seek to ask of our witnesses.
With that said, hearing no further request for recognition,
the question occurs on adopting the amendment.
All those in favor, say aye.
All opposed, no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
Mr. Cicilline. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote.
Chairman Royce. A recorded vote has been requested. The
clerk will call the roll.
Ms. Marter. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Royce. No.
Ms. Marter. The chairman votes no.
Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith. No.
Ms. Marter. Mr. Smith votes no.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen?
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. No.
Ms. Marter. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen votes no.
Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
Ms. Marter. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
Mr. Chabot?
[No response.]
Ms. Marter. Mr. Wilson?
Mr. Wilson. No.
Ms. Marter. Mr. Wilson votes no.
Mr. McCaul?
Mr. McCaul. No.
Ms. Marter. Mr. McCaul votes no.
Mr. Poe?
Mr. Poe. No.
Ms. Marter. Mr. Poe votes no.
Mr. Issa?
Mr. Issa. No.
Ms. Marter. Mr. Issa votes no.
Mr. Marino?
Mr. Marino. No.
Ms. Marter. Mr. Marino votes no.
Mr. Duncan?
Mr. Duncan. No.
Ms. Marter. Mr. Duncan votes no.
Mr. Brooks?
Mr. Brooks. No.
Ms. Marter. Mr. Brooks votes no.
Mr. Cook?
[No response.]
Ms. Marter. Mr. Perry?
Mr. Perry. No.
Ms. Marter. Mr. Perry votes no.
Mr. DeSantis?
Mr. DeSantis. No.
Ms. Marter. Mr. DeSantis votes no.
Mr. Meadows?
Mr. Meadows. No.
Ms. Marter. Mr. Meadows votes no.
Mr. Yoho?
Mr. Yoho. No.
Ms. Marter. Mr. Yoho votes no.
Mr. Kinzinger?
Mr. Kinzinger. No.
Ms. Marter. Mr. Kinzinger votes no.
Mr. Zeldin?
Mr. Zeldin. No.
Ms. Marter. Mr. Zeldin votes no.
Mr. Donovan?
Mr. Donovan. No.
Ms. Marter. Mr. Donovan votes no.
Mr. Sensenbrenner?
Mr. Sensenbrenner. No.
Ms. Marter. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes no.
Mrs. Wagner?
Mrs. Wagner. No.
Ms. Marter. Mrs. Wagner votes no.
Mr. Mast?
Mr. Mast. No.
Ms. Marter. Mr. Mast votes no.
Mr. Rooney?
[No response.]
Ms. Marter. Mr. Fitzpatrick?
Mr. Fitzpatrick. No.
Ms. Marter. Mr. Fitzpatrick votes no.
Mr. Garrett?
Mr. Garrett. No.
Ms. Marter. Mr. Garrett votes no.
Mr. Engel?
Mr. Engel. Aye.
Ms. Marter. Mr. Engel votes aye.
Mr. Sherman?
Mr. Sherman. Aye.
Ms. Marter. Mr. Sherman votes aye.
Mr. Meeks?
Mr. Meeks. Aye.
Ms. Marter. Mr. Meeks votes aye.
Mr. Sires?
Mr. Sires. Aye.
Ms. Marter. Mr. Sires votes aye.
Mr. Connolly?
Mr. Connolly. Aye.
Ms. Marter. Mr. Connolly votes aye.
Mr. Deutch?
Mr. Deutch. Aye.
Ms. Marter. Mr. Deutch votes aye.
Ms. Bass?
Ms. Bass. Aye.
Ms. Marter. Ms. Bass votes aye.
Mr. Keating?
Mr. Keating. Aye.
Ms. Marter. Mr. Keating votes aye.
Mr. Cicilline?
Mr. Cicilline. Aye.
Ms. Marter. Mr. Cicilline votes aye.
Mr. Bera?
Mr. Bera. Aye.
Ms. Marter. Mr. Bera votes aye.
Ms. Frankel?
Ms. Frankel. Aye.
Ms. Marter. Ms. Frankel votes aye.
Ms. Gabbard?
Ms. Gabbard. Aye.
Ms. Marter. Ms. Gabbard votes aye.
Mr. Castro?
[No response.]
Ms. Marter. Ms. Kelly?
Ms. Kelly. Aye.
Ms. Marter. Ms. Kelly votes aye.
Mr. Boyle?
Mr. Boyle. Aye.
Ms. Marter. Mr. Boyle votes aye.
Ms. Titus?
Ms. Titus. Aye.
Ms. Marter. Ms. Titus votes aye.
Mrs. Torres?
Mrs. Torres. Aye.
Ms. Marter. Mrs. Torres votes aye.
Mr. Schneider?
Mr. Schneider. Aye.
Ms. Marter. Mr. Schneider votes aye.
Mr. Suozzi?
Mr. Suozzi. Aye.
Ms. Marter. Mr. Suozzi votes aye.
Mr. Espaillat?
Mr. Espaillat. Aye.
Ms. Marter. Mr. Espaillat votes aye.
Mr. Lieu?
Mr. Lieu. Aye.
Ms. Marter. Mr. Lieu votes aye.
Chairman Royce. Were any members not recorded?
Ms. Marter. Mr. Chabot?
Mr. Chabot. No.
Ms. Marter. Mr. Chabot votes no.
Chairman Royce. Mr. Rooney?
Mr. Rooney. No.
Ms. Marter. Mr. Rooney votes no.
Chairman Royce. All members have been recorded?
The clerk will report the vote.
Ms. Marter. Mr. Chairman, on that vote, there are 20 ayes
and 25 noes.
Chairman Royce. The noes have it, and the amendment is not
agreed to.
Hearing no further amendments, the Chair now moves that the
committee adopt the committee rules for the 115th Congress.
All those in favor, say aye.
All opposed, no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it, and the
committee rules are agreed to.
Without objection, staff is authorized to make technical
and conforming changes to the committee rules and authorization
and oversight plan.
This completes the business required by the House rules. I
thank the members, and I look forward to working with all of
you in the weeks ahead to contribute meaningfully to the
foreign policy of the United States.
The committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:33 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]