U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

24–179PDF 2017

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

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ or

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

DANIEL M. DONOVAN, JR., New York 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

ANN WAGNER, Missouri 

BRIAN J. MAST, Florida 

FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida 

BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

THOMAS A. GARRETT, JR., Virginia 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

AMI BERA, California 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

NORMA J. TORRES, California 

BRADLEY SCOTT SCHNEIDER, Illinois 

THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York 

ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York 

TED LIEU, California

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

(III)

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

(1)

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. 

2

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 

3

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. 

4

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:]

5


24179a-1.eps
6


24179a-2.eps
7


24179a-3.eps
8


24179a-4.eps
9


24179a-5.eps
10


24179a-6.eps
11


24179a-7.eps
12


24179a-8.eps
13


24179a-9.eps
14


24179a-10.eps
15


24179a-11.eps
16

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:]


24179d.eps
17


24179b-1.eps
18


24179b-2.eps
19


24179b-3.eps
20


24179b-4.eps
21


24179b-5.eps
22


24179b-6.eps
23


24179b-7.eps
24


24179b-8.eps
25


24179b-9.eps
26


24179b-10.eps
27


24179b-11.eps
28


24179b-12.eps
29


24179b-13.eps
30


24179b-14.eps
31


24179b-15.eps
32


24179b-16.eps
33


24179b-17.eps
34


24179b-18.eps
35


24179b-19.eps
36


24179b-20.eps
37

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:]

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 


24179c.eps
38

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. 

39

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 

40

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 

41

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. 

42

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 

43

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. 

44

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. 

45

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 limVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:55 Mar 01, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Z:\WORK\_FULL\012417\24179 SHIRL
46

ited 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. 

47

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. 

48

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. 

49

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. 

50

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.] 

(51)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

52

f


24179n.eps
53


24179m-1.eps
54

f


24179m-2.eps
55

f


24179s.eps
56

Æ


24179r.eps