Datasets:

gtfintechlab
/

CoCoHD_transcripts

	<html>
	<title> - ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING</title>
	<body><pre>
	[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]
	</pre></body></html>