[Senate Hearing 116-273]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 116-273
NOMINATIONS OF THE 116th CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION, PART II
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
----------
PART II
SEPTEMBER 19, 2019 TO DECEMBER 17, 2019
----------
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web:
http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
41-448 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho, Chairman
MARCO RUBIO, Florida ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
CORY GARDNER, Colorado JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
MITT ROMNEY, Utah CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina TOM UDALL, New Mexico
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming TIM KAINE, Virginia
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
RAND PAUL, Kentucky JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
TODD YOUNG, Indiana CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
TED CRUZ, Texas
Christopher M. Socha, Staff Director
Jessica Lewis, Democratic Staff Director
John Dutton, Chief Clerk
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Responses to additional questions from the committee and any
additional material submitted for the record are located at the
end of each hearing transcript.
----------
Part I
March 6, 2019.................................................... 1
Abizaid, General John P., to be Ambassador Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia..................................................... 6
Tueller, Hon. Matthew H., of Utah, to be Ambassador to the
Republic of Iraq........................................... 10
March 12, 2019................................................... 65
Johnson, Ronald Douglas, of Florida, to be Ambassador to the
Republic of El Salvador.................................... 69
Fitzpatrick, Michael J., of Virginia, to be Ambassador to the
Republic of Ecuador........................................ 72
March 27, 2019................................................... 113
Destro, Robert A., of Virginia, to be Assistant Secretary of
State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor............... 121
Krach, Keith, of California, to be Under Secretary of State
for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment; U.S.
Alternate Governor of the European Bank for Reconstruction
and Development; U.S. Alternate Governor of the
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development; and
U.S. Alternate Governor of the Inter-American Development
Bank....................................................... 123
Stilwell, Brigadier General David, USAF (Ret.), of Hawaii, to
be Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific
Affairs.................................................... 128
April 9, 2019.................................................... 207
Eberhardt, Jeffrey L., of Wisconsin, to be Special
Representative of the President for Nuclear Non-
Proliferation.............................................. 211
Gilmore, Hon. James S., of Virginia, to be U.S.
Representative to the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe...................................... 214
Swendiman, Alan R., of North Carolina, to be Deputy Director
of the Peace Corps......................................... 217
April 11, 2019................................................... 251
Crawford, Edward F., of Ohio, to be Ambassador to Ireland.... 254
Byrnes, Kate Marie, of Florida, to be Ambassador to the
Republic of North Macedonia................................ 257
Satterfield, Hon. David Michael, of Missouri, to be
Ambassador to the Republic of Turkey....................... 260
(iii)
May 16, 2019..................................................... 303
Brink, Bridget A., of Michigan, to be Ambassador to the
Slovak Republic............................................ 305
Howery, Kenneth A., of Texas, to be Ambassador to the Kingdom
of Sweden.................................................. 307
Klimow, Colonel Matthew S., USA (Ret.), of New York, to be
Ambassador to Turkmenistan................................. 310
Daigle, John Jefferson, of Louisiana, to be Ambassador to the
Republic of Cabo Verde..................................... 313
May 21, 2019..................................................... 343
Bates, Pamela, of Virginia, to be U.S. Representative to the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development...... 347
Landau, Christopher, of Maryland, to be Ambassador to the
United Mexican States...................................... 350
Nordquist, Jennifer D., of Virginia, to U.S. Executive
Director of the International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development................................................ 353
Pedrosa, Eliot, of Florida, to be U.S. Executive Director of
the Inter-American Development Bank........................ 356
June 20, 2019.................................................... 393
Bremberg, Andrew P., of Virginia, to be U.S. Representative
to the Office of the United Nations and other International
Organizations in Geneva.................................... 397
Goldberg, Hon. Philip S., of the District of Columbia, to be
Ambassador to the Republic of Colombia..................... 400
Manchester, Doug, of California, to be Ambassador to the
Commonwealth of the Bahamas................................ 402
Zuckerman, Adrian, of New Jersey, to be Ambassador to Romania 405
Norland, Hon. Richard B., of Iowa, to be Ambassador to Libya. 430
Cohen, Jonathan R., of California, to be Ambassador to the
Arab Republic of Egypt..................................... 433
Rakolta, John, Jr. to be Ambassador to the United Arab
Emirates................................................... 436
July 17, 2019.................................................... 605
Marks, Lana, of Florida, to be Ambassador to the Republic of
South Africa............................................... 606
Lapenn, Jessica, of New York, to be U.S. Representative to
the African Union.......................................... 609
Bell, Richard K., of Pennsylvania, to be Ambassador to the
Republic of Cote D' Ivoire................................. 612
Leonard, Hon. Mary Beth, of Massachusetts, to be Ambassador
to the Federal Republic of Nigeria......................... 615
Bekkering, Michelle, of the District of Columbia, to be an
Assistant Administrator of the U.S. Agency for
International Development, Economic Policy, Economic
Growth, Education, and Environment......................... 618
July 30, 2019.................................................... 701
Carwile, John Leslie, of Maryland, to be Ambassador to the
Republic of Latvia......................................... 703
McKee, Erin Elizabeth, of California, to be Ambassador to
Papua New Guinea, Ambassador to the Solomon Islands, and
Ambassador to the Republic of Vanuatu...................... 706
Godfrey, Anthony F., of Virginia, to be Ambassador to the
Republic of Serbia......................................... 710
Mustafa, Herro, of California, to be Ambassador to the
Republic of Bulgaria....................................... 714
Part II
September 19, 2019............................................... 759
Billingslea, Hon. Marshall, of Virginia, to an Under
Secretary of State for Civilian Security, Democracy, and
Human Rights............................................... 772
Boehler, Adam Seth, of Louisiana, to be Executive Officer of
the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation..... 776
Pack, Michael, of Maryland, to be Chief Executive Officer of
the Broadcasting Board of Governors........................ 778
October 16, 2019................................................. 897
Cantor, Carmen G., of Puerto Rico, to be Ambassador to the
Federated States of Micronesia............................. 899
DeSombre, Michael George, of Illinois, to be Ambassador to
Thailand................................................... 902
Kim, Hon. Sung Y., to be Ambassador to the Republic of
Indonesia.................................................. 906
Tan, Morse H., of Illinois, to be Ambassador at Large for
Global Criminal Justice.................................... 908
Currie, Hon. Kelley Eckels, of Georgia, to be Ambassador at
Large for Global Women's Issues............................ 911
October 29, 2019................................................. 965
Cabral, Roxanne, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to the
Republic of the Marshall Islands........................... 966
Degnan, Kelly C., of California, to be Ambassador to Georgia. 969
Gilchrist, Robert S., of Florida, to be Ambassador to the
Republic of Lithuania...................................... 972
Kim, Yuri, of Guam, to be Ambassador to the Republic of
Albania.................................................... 975
October 30, 2019................................................. 1017
Sullivan, Hon. John Joseph, of Maryland, to be Ambassador to
the Russian Federation..................................... 1025
October 31, 2019................................................. 1167
Castillo, Andeliz N., of New York, to be U.S. Alternate
Executive Director of the Inter-American Development Bank.. 1170
Golden, Dr. Alma L., of Texas, to be an Assistant
Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International
Development................................................ 1172
Haymond, Peter M., of Virginia, to be Ambassador to the Lao
People's Democratic Republic............................... 1176
Romanowski, Alina L., of Illinois, to be Ambassador to the
State of Kuwait............................................ 1179
Tsou, Leslie Meredith, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to the
Sultanate of Oman.......................................... 1182
November 20, 2019................................................ 1255
Biegun, Stephen E., of Michigan, to be Deputy Secretary of
State...................................................... 1260
December 17, 2019................................................ 1393
Chapman, Hon. Todd C., of Texas, to be Ambassador to the
Federative Republic of Brazil.............................. 1396
Hennessey-Niland, John, of Illinois, to Ambassador to the
Republic of Palau.......................................... 1399
Shea, Dorothy, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to the Lebanese
Republic................................................... 1403
Wright, Dr. Donald, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to the
United Republic of Tanzania................................ 1406
NOMINATIONS
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2019
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:33 a.m., in
Room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. James E.
Risch, chairman of the committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Risch [presiding], Johnson, Gardner,
Romney, Barrasso, Paul, Young, Cruz, Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen,
Coons, Murphy, Kaine, and Merkley.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. RISCH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO
The Chairman. The committee will come to order.
Today, the committee will hold a nominations hearing for
four very important positions, some of which have been pending
for a long period of time. Our nominees today are: The
Honorable Marshall Billingslea, to be Under Secretary of State
for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human rights; Mr. Adam
Seth Boehler, to be Chief Executive Officer of the United
States International Development Finance Corporation; The
Honorable Darrell Issa, to be Director of the U.S. Trade and
Development Agency; and Mr. Michael Pack, to be Chief Executive
Officer of the U.S. Agency for Global Media, also known as the
Broadcasting Board of Governors.
Before we take that on, we have the honor and privilege of
having two of our distinguished colleagues present with us
today who would like to make an introduction.
So, with that, Senator Whitehouse and Senator Cassidy, I
will give you the floor to make some. If you--I--who is the
chairman of your delegation, Senator Whitehouse?
Senator Whitehouse. I think----
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Never----
Senator Whitehouse [continuing]. Senator----
The Chairman. You do not have to answer that question.
Senator Whitehouse [continuing]. Cassidy said that he
would--he will bat cleanup, and I can be his leadoff batter.
[Laughter.]
STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM RHODE ISLAND
Senator Whitehouse. Chairman, thank you very much, and
Ranking Member Menendez, members of the committee, for having
me here today to be part of the bipartisan Cassidy-Whitehouse
tag team introducing Adam Boehler.
The President has called on Adam to run an entirely new
institution in the U.S. International Development Finance
Corporation. This bank will combine several functions and
capabilities from existing Federal agencies to perform the
vital role of fostering economic development and prosperity. As
someone who grew up in the Foreign Service, I know well the
importance of that mission. Ensuring this agency's success will
take more than a steady hand, it will take vision and
innovation and determination. Others can testify to Adam's
background in finance, which will serve him well in this
position.
I am here as a result of our work together when Adam served
at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation. As Rhode
Island's Attorney General, I helped to found the Rhode Island
Quality Institute, an organization aimed at bringing people
together to improve the quality and performance of our
healthcare system. So, CMMI's work is very close to my heart,
and it was that work that brought me and Adam together.
Adam has led CMMI in the move towards value-based
healthcare, a shift that helps innovative States like mine
lower healthcare costs while improving quality. Adam and CMMI
developed new models to pay primary care physicians for high-
quality, coordinated care, and to encourage physicians to care
for high-need, seriously-ill patients, who often lack effective
care coordination. These new models can help remove red tape
for providers, and can help patients and their families access
the care that they need.
Adam's work at CMMI also focused on reining in drug prices
and led a important charge to improve care to patients with
kidney disease, and to expand access to medication-assisted
treatment, which has been a pivotal weapon in the battle in the
opioid crisis.
Adam comes before this committee with experience in
healthcare, finance, and global investment. He has been, in all
of my dealings with him, a consummate professional who has
always been honorable, responsive, innovative, determined, and
smart. I have been very impressed with my dealings with him at
CMMI.
I wish him great success in his new role. And I am happy to
be Senator Cassidy's leadoff batter.
The Chairman. Thank you so much.
Senator Cassidy.
STATEMENT OF HON. BILL CASSIDY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA
Senator Cassidy. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, it is a
privilege to introduce fellow Louisianan Adam Boehler as he
seeks confirmation to head the Overseas Private Investment
Corporation.
Adam has, just, a really innovative mind. And problems that
stymie others, he develops solutions which benefit all. And I
think the country will be well-served by his ability as he
brings this ability to international development.
Now, sustainable prosperity depends upon developing market
forces, which create and distribute wealth to the broadest part
of society. And sustainable development can be started, if you
will, by public investment. This will be Adam's task and
challenge, and it is a--the additional challenge to do it in
places which have underperformed relative to their potential.
So, if I am going to enthusiastically nominate somebody for
such a position with such a task, it would behoove me to kind
of review that and his resume that would support this
enthusiastic endorsement.
Adam graduated from Wharton Business School at the
University of Pennsylvania. He served in the private sector as
a partner in an international investment firm, and worked in
several high-level positions in equity and analytics,
conducting business around the world.
But, I actually know of him through his last role, before
he joined this administration. He founded Landmark Health, in
which they--Landmark Health took the sickest of the sick in
Medicare and Medicaid patients, optimized their health, and, at
the same time, saved dollars for the
American taxpayer. Now, if you want to talk about a system
that is underperforming its potential in caring for those who
have needs, the Medicare/Medicaid patient are among those.
And, as a physician, seeing the innovation which he brought
made me enthusiastic when he joined this administration as the
head of the CMMI. In that role, he was creative, inclusive, and
energetic, which is why Whitehouse and Cassidy flank him as he
seeks this nomination. He will be accessible and ready to
listen as he embarks on this new role, because that is how he
was as he headed CMMI. He is ideally suited.
I urge a speedy confirmation and wish him godspeed in
fulfilling the task of heading the Overseas Private Investment
Corporation.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Cassidy, thank you so much.
Both Senator Whitehouse, Senator Cassidy, thank you for
joining us this morning. I know you have other things that you
have to attend to, and we have a lot of work to do here this
morning, so we will excuse you.
And with that, we would ask the--our other nominees to join
us at the table.
And with that, I am going to make an opening statement,
yield to Senator Menendez to do so. We will then hear from our
nominees, and then have a round of questions.
So, with that, today we are going to consider the
nomination of these four individuals to serve our Nation for
very important capabilities. Three out of the four have been
waiting long times, some over a year, for this moment, and we
are glad to have you here. We welcome you and thank you for
your willingness to serve, and, just as importantly, your
willingness--your families' willingness to allow that and
cooperate with you in your service.
First, we have The Honorable Marshall Billingslea,
nominated to serve as the Under Secretary of State for Civilian
Security, Democracy, and Human Rights. Mr. Billingslea has a
long history of public service, most recently as an Assistant
Secretary at the Department of Treasury, where he addresses
terrorist financing and the threats that illicit finance pose
to the United States. Prior to his service at Treasury, Mr.
Billingslea worked at the Department of Defense in NATO. This
Under Secretary position oversees critical bureaus and offices,
including the Bureau on Counterterrorism, Countering Violent
Extremism, the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor,
and the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons. I
look forward to hearing from you on these and many other issues
during today's hearing.
I have a number of letters in support of Mr. Billingslea's
nomination that I will enter into the record. It includes,
interestingly enough, a letter from the President of Venezuela,
the legitimate President of Venezuela, Juan Guaido.
Next, we have Adam Smith--Adam Seth Boehler, nominated to
be Chief Executive Officer of the United States International
Development Finance Corporation. Mr. Boehler is already--has
already been introduced by our distinguished colleagues, and I
wanted to highlight the importance of the position he has been
nominated for. The DFC will create new opportunities for U.S.
businesses and open pathways for private-sector-led growth in
developing countries, will also provide an alternative to the
malign development model of the Chinese and others. I am
looking forward to hearing how you plan to run this new
organization.
Next, we have Congressman Darrell Issa, who is nominated to
be Director of the Trade and Development Agency. Congressman
Issa was the Republican U.S. Representatives for California's
48th and 49th Congressional Districts. He served in Congress
from 2001 till the end of last Congress. From January 2011 to
January 2015, he served as Chairman of the House Oversight and
government Reform Committee. Prior to serving in Congress, Mr.
Issa served as CEO of Directed Electronics, which he cofounded
in 1982 and is one of the largest makers of automobile after-
market security and convenience products in the United States.
At a time where our President is focused on promoting American
companies and products around the world, the U.S. Trade and
Development Agency plays a critical role in that agenda. I look
forward to hearing more about your plans to engage with the
private sector in development projects.
Finally, we have Mr. Michael Pack, who is nominated to be
the Chief Executive Officer of the U.S. Agency for Global
Media, also known as the Broadcasting Board of Governors. Mr.
Pack is the president of Manifold Productions, Inc., an
independent film and television production company that he
founded in 1977. Mr. Pack has previously served twice at the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting, first as the co-chair of
the International TV Council in 1993, then as senior vice
president for television programming from 2003 to 2006.
Additionally, his public service includes a term on the
National Council on Humanities from 2002 to 2005, as well as
the director of Worldnet, the U.S. Information Agency's global
satellite network. It is no secret the challenges we face when
it comes to disinformation from our adversaries. USGAM plays a
critical role in our national security by ensuring that true,
factual stories about current events are available in societies
where simply reporting the reality around you can get a
reporter tossed in jail, or worse.
Thanks, to all of you, for being with us here today.
And now I will turn it over to the Ranking Member Menendez
for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I have to be honest. I wish we were not here
today. We could be holding a normal nominations hearing, where
we ask the nominees about the serious challenges facing our
country and the world, where we could spend the committee's
time wisely, discussing policy and judging the substance of the
qualifications of the witnesses for ourselves. But, today is
not a normal nominations hearing, and I think that your process
has made sure of that.
This hearing is occurring over my objection and the
objections of every Democrat on this committee, something I
have never witnessed during my time on this committee for 14
years, and something I never did when I served as Chairman. And
let us be clear, our objection was not over policy, although,
for as long as I am aware, members on this committee and in
this body, Democrats and Republicans alike, have objected, at
time, to specific nominees on policy grounds. Our objection is
over the administration's refusal to provide the committees
information to secure basic vetting information.
We requested that you not move forward with Mr. Billingslea
and Mr. Issa until members had the information needed to assess
whether these two nominees are fit for confirmation. Instead,
we are being asked to evaluate the two nominees without knowing
all the facts. Why do we not know all the facts? Because there
is information that the White House controls and this
administration refuses to share. I am not talking about a
nominee's favorite color or where they had dinner, I am talking
about serious issues that go to credibility and suitability for
these positions.
Mr. Chairman, my concerns about the fitness of nominees is
not hypothetical. Senior officials have been allowed to engage
in corrosive, unacceptable retaliation against career
employees, sometimes with any--without any consequences for the
offender, even despite shocking findings by the State
Department Inspector General. Another senior official forcibly
resigned after it came to light that he--and I wish I was
making this up--carried a whip around the office and harassed
employees. Another left following allegations of mismanagement.
And that is only for the State Department. If I went down the
list of issues for the administration as a whole, we would be
here all day. There are real consequences for the men and women
who work in the State Department and across the Federal
government.
So, yes, Mr. Chairman, it has taken some time to try to get
answers, but it is not for lack of trying. For Mr. Billingslea,
in particular, we have asked the same exact questions, in some
cases for almost a year, without any serious response. What is
astounding and dismaying is that, while these efforts to get
answers were ongoing, you decided to schedule this hearing
anyway. We have a constitutional duty. At a minimum, ``advise
and consent'' means that we ensure that the individuals we are
sending to serve as senior department officials, to serve at
embassies overseas, to manage career Federal employees are not
experienced and qualified, but suitable for public service.
But, if we cannot do that, if we do not--we cannot do that if
we do not have the basic facts.
Now, Mr. Chairman, you have told me and some of my
colleagues that, as a former prosecutor, you treat a
nominations hearing like a trial. We gather all the relevant
information, air it at the hearing, and let the chips fall
where they may. I hope you will help me understand this,
because, based on that, we are not even meeting your own
standard. We simply do not have the information we need to make
informed decisions.
With regard to Mr. Issa, as you know, there is information
in his FBI background investigation that concerns me greatly
and that I believe members may find problematic and potentially
disqualifying for Senate confirmation. I firmly believe that
every member on this committee should have the opportunity to
review that information. There is ample precedent for doing so.
And you joined me in requesting that the White House make good
on that request, which we appreciated. So, I am a little
confused as to why we have Mr. Issa before us today, when no
other member has been granted access.
Our joint request to the White House concerning Mr. Issa's
file has gone unanswered. So, let that sink in for a moment.
The White House simply has ignored the joint request of the
Chairman and the Ranking Member of this committee for
additional information on an executive branch nominee. Yet,
here we are, holding a hearing for that very nominee.
In the case of Mr. Billingslea, the administration has not
been forthcoming on two separate vetting-related matters. The
first is related to Mr. Billingslea's role in the development
and implementation of Bush-era detainee torture policies while
working in the Office of the Secretary of Defense under
Secretary Rumsfeld. Given that Mr. Billingslea, if confirmed,
would be the senior U.S. government official responsible for
human rights, a fulsome and accurate understanding of his
involvement in detainee torture matters is both essential and
directly relevant to his current nomination.
It took the administration months to dig up memos that Mr.
Billingslea authored or approved on torture. First, it was two,
then ten, then a few more. From the beginning, it was clear
that documents that were, quote, according to the Department,
``missing''--missing attachments, missing pages. But, each
time, the administration and the Chairman's staff said, ``That
was it, the search was complete, do not be ridiculous, stop
asking.'' And then, when we pressured, they would find more.
My staff, at my request, first asked for more information
on these, quote, ``missing'' documents in November of 2018.
That is almost a full year ago. Despite repeated requests, the
administration has not shared how many documents are, quote/
unquote, ``missing,'' or the titles of those documents, and
they have refused to provide any information on how they
searched for the ``missing'' documents. Instead, in effect,
they said, ``Trust us.'' Well, I am sorry, but ``trust us''
does not cut it when it comes to ``missing'' torture documents,
and it does not cut it when it comes to this administration and
its propensity for obfuscation and lies.
The second line of inquiry related to Mr. Billingslea
pertains to an incident that we have sought more clarity and
details on, but have been stonewalled. These allegations are
more appropriate for discussion in closed session, so I will
not, at the moment, go into detail on the substance. What I
will say is that the administration has refused to provide any
information related to these allegations. And it was only until
this morning, in a way that I just cannot ascertain the
veracity of it, that Mr. Billingslea came forward with some
information.
I would also add that we are talking about two nominees,
here, Mr. Chairman. Two. Despite the fact that, under this
administration, we are facing an unprecedented number of
nominees, who, in the past, never would have made it out of the
White House, let alone to a committee hearing. Democrats have
joined Republicans in agreeing to advance more than 150
nominees to this committee and to confirmation. Only a small
fraction have moved at a slower pace, largely due to concerns
of personal character or fitness.
Need I remind my colleagues of the not-so-distant past?
Need I remind them of the more than 50 ambassadorial nominees
that stalled in this body under the last administration, of
nominees who languished, some for years--for years--without
ever receiving a hearing or a vote? Need I read back to the
list of reasons that were cited for holding up nominees, which
had nothing to do with vetting concerns and everything to do
with sticking it to the administration?
So, Mr. Chairman, I think even you would agree, that is not
your quibble here. We have raised some serious, very basic
concerns. We are discussing the same concerns now that I
discussed with you at the beginning of this Congress. And it is
stunning that this is where we are.
It is no secret what is happening here. Starting with the
President, this administration seems to view Congress as a
nuisance. Unless they absolutely need to engage us, they will
not. Why would the administration bother to respond, even in a
cursory fashion, to future vetting requests as long as, at the
end of the day, they know the Chairman will move a nominee
anyhow?
So, my fellow committee members, I appreciate your
forbearance. I know that I have spoken for quite some time,
longer than I have ever felt compelled to speak at a nomination
hearing. But, I believe it is critical for us to understand
exactly how we wound up at this moment, and reflect on it.
If this White House gets away with treating the committee
with such disdain, you can bet future Presidents, regardless of
what party they come from, will do the same. Given the nature
of the outstanding vetting questions related to Mr. Billingslea
and Mr. Issa, I continue to believe that it is preferable to
discuss those matters in closed session so that, at a minimum,
Senators can have a frank discussion about what we currently
know and how best to proceed, and so we can have that
discussion without causing embarrassment or harm to any of the
nominees.
As such, Mr. Chairman, I move to go into closed session,
pursuant to committee rule III:f:3.
Senator Cardin. Second.
The Chairman. The motion has been made, and duly seconded,
that we go into closed session. And the Chairman will oppose
the rule so we can have an open hearing and people can hear
what everyone has to say. I think these nominees have subjected
themselves to that and are going to have to tolerate whatever
embarrassing things that you wish to bring up. But, the public
should be able to see this, so I am going to oppose a motion--
the motion to go into closed session.
So, with that----
Senator Paul. Mr. Chairman, may I speak to the motion?
The Chairman. You may.
Senator Paul. You know, as much as I am for public scrutiny
of things, I think it is actually a courtesy to people, if you
are going to talk about things that may go to their character
that may or may not be true, that we hear about them in
private. And it is not that I have drawn a conclusion on any of
this, but, frankly, if it is very emotional, I would rather not
speak about it in front of people's kids and everybody else if
it is not true, or may or may not be true. So, I think there is
a role for committees like ours--you know, I think, you know,
during the Supreme Court hearings, I kind of wished some of
that had been done a little more in closed hearing. But, I will
support this, not because I have prejudged it, but I will
support the motion, because I think there are times when we
should have some discussions. Not that we are not going to have
a public hearing. We would have a public hearing after we have
a private discussion of some of the things that, hopefully, if
true or untrue, might be damaging to people and to their
public, you know, and to their family. So, I am in favor of, if
this is sensitive material, to discussing it in private.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
Any other Senators wishing to speak to the motion?
[No response.]
The Chairman. If not, could I have the Clerk call the roll?
Oops, I am sorry.
Senator Coons. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Senator Coons.
Senator Coons. Mr. Chairman, I just want to speak in
support of the comments of the Ranking Member and to express my
appreciation to the Senator from Kentucky, as well.
In confirmation hearings, there come times when we need to
have an opportunity to air things that are probably best first
discussed, because they are contentious, because they are
private, in a closed session, and then, if appropriate, air
them publicly.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
If the committee wishes to go to--into a closed session,
that is what we will do. And the Clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Rubio?
The Chairman. No, by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Johnson?
Senator Johnson. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Gardner?
The Chairman. No, by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Romney?
The Chairman. No, by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Graham?
The Chairman. No, by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Isakson?
The Chairman. No, by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Barrasso?
The Chairman. No, by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Portman?
The Chairman. No, by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Paul?
Senator Paul. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Young?
The Chairman. No, by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Cruz?
The Chairman. No, by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Menendez?
Senator Menendez. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Cardin?
Senator Cardin. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. Shaheen?
Senator Shaheen. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Coons?
Senator Coons. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Udall?
Senator Menendez. Aye, by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
Senator Murphy. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Kaine?
Senator Kaine. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Markey?
Senator Menendez. Aye, by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Merkley?
Senator Merkley. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Booker?
Senator Menendez. Aye, by proxy.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. No.
The Clerk will report.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, yeas are 11, the nays are 11.
The Chairman. The motion has failed.
Senator Menendez, I appreciate the motion that you have
made. I simply disagree with that. This is the purpose of what
we are doing here, is the American public can hear exactly what
the complaints are that you have. And these people have
subjected themself to this. They know what is coming. They know
what is in their background. They know what is in these
reports. Let us get at it.
Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman? Would the Chairman yield for
one moment?
The Chairman. In just a moment, Senator.
I think we ought to get at it. I think we ought to have
this hearing. And you--you have looked at those FBI reports,
you know what the issues are here. We ought to litigate them.
And, when we are done, we should vote. And I understand that
there will be a lot of no-votes, as there usually are on these
kinds of things. But, the American public have a right to know.
And so, let us get at it.
Senator Cardin.
Senator Cardin. If I understand correctly, and please
correct me if I am wrong, both the Chairman and Ranking Member
believe that,with one nominee, information which only the two
of you know should be made available to all members of this
committee. How can we talk about that in an open session if
only two members know about it and the rest of us are in the
dark in regards to that information?
The Chairman. Well, first of all, I am not opposed to all
members seeing this. I have always said, anything that is
available to myself and the Ranking Member ought to be
available to everybody.
Senator Cardin. Well, my question is, in an open session,
where we have not been privy to that information, how can we
talk about it?
The Chairman. Well, we can talk about it. I am not going to
stop anybody from talking about it. And Senator Menendez has
seen the entire file. He knows what all the facts are in it.
So, he can bring that up and then you guys can follow it up on
it. And I am not--I am not going to restrain any discussion of
these facts.
Senator Cardin. But, how can I question about it if I do
not know about it?
The Chairman. Well, Senator Menendez has seen it, and----
Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, if I may, to be responsive
to Senator Cardin.
The Senate rules do not permit us to speak about it unless,
of course, there is a vote of the committee to do so. Since we
are now in uncharted territory, not only are Mr. Billingslea
and Mr. Issa here, in violation of comity, where we are now
operating outside of the scope of the committee rules for
closed session, which is unfortunate. These are not matters
that should be discussed in an open session. I think it is
unfair to the nominees. And because of restraints on releasing
committee confidential information, it would be extraordinary
to adequately and appropriately discuss these issues in full
public. I feel deeply uncomfortable with this approach. But, if
that is what the Chair and the majority of the members has
agreed to, and have this discussion in open, then I will
reluctantly defer to that path forward.
With that in mind, however, I move for a vote on the
question of approval of discussion of the Billingslea and Issa
matters, to the extent possible, in open session.
Senator Shaheen. Mr.----
The Chairman. Is there a second?
Senator Cardin. Second.
The Chairman. It has been moved----
Senator Shaheen [continuing]. I did you wish to speak to
the motion?
I need a clarification. Who makes the decision that this
information was not available for the rest of the committee?
And if--and should we not take a look at how that decision is
being made? I mean, if your position is everybody should be
able to see it, and what you are telling me, Senator Menendez,
is that Senate rules prohibit that, then that seems to create a
contradiction in how we operate that we ought to try and fix.
The Chairman. Well, I think that--the White House, I think,
has said that they--that the matter is closed. But, we are
about to have a motion, here, which I am going to support, by
the way, that allows us to discuss everything here in open
session. And we need to get at it. And if there are things
there that need further--we can have questions for the record.
And I----
Senator Paul. Mr. Chairman, may I speak, when you are done,
to the issue?
Senator Shaheen. Can I just get a followup on that?
Senator Paul. Go ahead.
Senator Shaheen. So, does that mean that we will have
access to that information after this hearing so that we can
read it?
The Chairman. Yeah. I am going to do everything I can to
get access to that. But, Senator Menendez has seen it. I
suspect, when the meeting is over, you are not going to need to
see it, because he is going to talk about everything that is in
there. So, that----
Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, if I may respond to the
Senator's question.
The White House is refusing to give access, at this point,
to all members, in a bipartisan fashion, to the files that are
in question. And, to the Chairman's credit, he joined me in a
letter, which I think speaks volumes as to the importance of
you all getting the opportunity to read what is in it, to the
White House which has gone unresponded and was one of the
reasons I, you know, would not agree to this hearing, because I
believe we need a response. And hopefully, that response would
be that, in this case, all members would have access to the
file. You would read the file, and you would come to your own
judgments, as I have, as a result of what is there. And,
unfortunately, we have not had an answer from the White House.
So, the question you have posed, Senator Shaheen, ``Who is
barring you?''--at this point, it is the administration.
The Chairman. Fair enough. And I will go even further----
Senator Cardin. After Senator Paul, if I could be
recognized.
The Chairman. Okay. In response to Senator Shaheen, the
Ranking Member and I are in full agreement on this, that all
members should have access to this. I commit to this committee,
there will be no vote on Mr. Issa until the White House has
agreed to allow you all to see that. When this hearing is over,
you may not--and it may not be necessary, because we are about
to vote on a motion that allows Senator Menendez to ask any
questions about what he has seen in the file.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
The Chairman. Fair enough.
I think, Senator Paul is next.
Senator Paul. You know, I am supportive of Congressman Issa
for the position. I have not yet seen the reports, but I would
like to see it, but I am supportive of his nomination. But, at
the same time, I have known him for years. I do not want to,
like, vote to say, ``Oh, we are going to release the FBI
report, and we are all going to talk about an accusation to him
that may be unfounded, or may go to his character, or may be
something that should not be said in front of his family or
anybody else.'' I have no idea what is in the FBI report. You
are going to ask me to vote on whether it should be public; we
all get to talk about it, while only two of you have read it. I
think this is a terrible process and a terrible precedent and
an injustice to people you support. If you support Congressman
Issa, and you are going to just say we are going to release all
this and have--and talk up and down about his character or some
accusation? We could not talk about this in private and then
decide what is in the report before we decide to discuss it in
front of everybody? This is exactly the opposite of what we all
complained about with the Supreme Court, that they did not talk
about it all in private before it became public. So, I think it
is a terrible, rotten thing that we are doing, and I will
oppose the motion to talk about something I have no idea of
what is in the report. I just think it is a bad idea.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Paul.
Senator Murphy.
Senator Murphy. I mean, Mr. Chairman, I understand you to
be saying that you will not hold a vote until we have access to
the information----
The Chairman. Correct.
Senator Murphy [continuing]. But you will hold a hearing
before we have access to the information. You will not allow
the committee to go into closed session. And so, what you are
essentially guaranteeing is that none of us have the ability to
ask questions of the nominee regarding what is in this file.
You are guaranteeing that we will be able to look at it before
the vote.
The Chairman. Yeah.
Senator Murphy. But, if you are willing to say we will not
have a vote before we have access, why would you not just
postpone the hearing? Why deny all the members of your
committee the ability to have access to the information so
that, if we chose, we could question the nominee, if you are
willing to make sure we have access to that information before
the vote? I just cannot understand that.
The Chairman. Well, you are going to have access to all
that information before you----
Senator Murphy. But, why not do it for the hearing if you
are willing to do it before the vote? I just do not understand
the difference.
The Chairman. Senator----
Senator Murphy. It really--I mean, I--to be honest, it--
there is only one reason to do that. The only reason to do that
is to deny us the ability to be able to question the nominee
about that information.
The Chairman. Senator Coons.
Senator Coons. Following up on Senator Murphy's point, I
assume the only member of this company on our side of the dais
who had access to it, and thus could fully question the
nominee, is the Ranking Member. Has the nominee been given the
opportunity to review the file? And is he willing to simply
consent to an open debate about it?
The Chairman. I cannot----
Senator Coons. That is the one way to cure the concern that
I think Senator Paul has reasonably raised.
The Chairman. I cannot answer that, whether you have--
Senator--or, Congressman Issa, have you had access to the file?
Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, can I just ask a question,
first, before we get to that point?
The Chairman. Senator Cardin.
Senator Cardin. Because I think it is important.
I have been in the Senate a long time. I know the
procedures that we use. Senator Paul is raising a very valid
point. I have reviewed FBI files. I was Ranking Member for a
period of time here when I reviewed FBI files. And there were
issues in the FBI files that I was concerned about. I had a
chance to talk to the nominee in private about those issues
before making a judgment as to where we should go next with
that issue. I believe that Senator Menendez and your request
should be honored, and every member of this committee should
have an opportunity to take a look at the FBI file. But, I also
believe we should have an opportunity to talk to the nominee in
private before having to go through a public hearing in regards
to that information. Now, I do not know what that information
is.
So, I would just urge the Chairman to exercise the regular
process we use here, and not require this to be released in
public without an opportunity for us to have that discussion. I
just do not think this is the right process to be used, and I
urge the Chairman to exercise restraint here to give us an
opportunity to talk about this in private before a decision is
made in regards to an FBI record.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cardin.
Senator Merkley. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Merkley.
Senator Merkley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Putting any of ourselves into the same seat as those who
come before this committee, I think all of us would feel
uncomfortable with a public discussion of issues that may be
just rumors or unfounded accusations. And I was just pondering,
because I know that, in your life, you have served both in the
role of prosecutor and the role as trial attorney, and there is
a basic--I am not a lawyer, but I understand, I believe, that
to have a fair hearing in any world, whether it is the--a
civilian challenge on a trial-attorney basis or it is a
criminal issue, like, information--basic information has to be
shared in advance so that the--both teams can have the same
information, and ponder it.
I just think that, for multiple reasons, fairness to each
member's ability to participate, we need to be able to see, in
advance, the information, ponder it. And, in fairness to those
who come before this committee now and in the future, I would
hate for the idea to be that someone may be absolutely unfairly
treated to a public airing of unfounded rumors or
possibilities. I--if we could just, maybe, delay this for a
week, get the information in advance, it just seems like it is
a fairness factor that would benefit everyone.
The Chairman. Some reasonable requests here.
Senator Menendez and I have had a sidebar, and we are going
to take a short recess while we counsel with Congressman Issa
to get his view on the matter.
Senator Johnson. Mr. Chairman? Just real quick, because I
am going to run out of time with this recess. I came, really,
to question Mr. Pack. I would just ask that, ``The World''--the
article by The Hill, ``The World Will be Freer, Safer By
Smashing Firewalls of Closed Societies'' be entered into the
record for this hearing, because I will not be able to be here
when you come back.
And, Mr. Pack, I will be submitting questions for the
record that I hope I can get good answers and good responses
from you on that.
So, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, much, and that will be put in the
record.
[The information referred to can be found at the following
website:]
https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/445360-the-world-will-
be-freer-safer-by-smashing-firewalls-of-closed-societies
The Chairman. And with that, the committee will be at ease,
hopefully briefly.
[Recess.]
The Chairman. The committee will come back to order.
After a sidebar between Senator Menendez and I and the
nominee and others, we have agreed that, as far as the--a
number of the requests here are very reasonable requests--we
are going to postpone the hearing on Mr. Issa, to which he has
agreed. We are going to get this file opened so that all of you
can have a chance to review that file and be able to ask
questions intelligently. The question whether the meeting be
open or closed after that, we will discuss at a future time.
That is an open question at this point. Again, we can get
everybody's input into that. Senator Paul has issues on it,
others have issues on it, and we will take it up at that point.
But, in any event, reasonable requests accommodated, and we
will move on with the other three nominees.
The bad news for you is that we will have more time to ask
you questions.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Thank you so much.
Well, moving on, we will turn now to our first nominee, Mr.
Billingslea. Your full statement will be included in the
record. And if you would please keep your remarks to no more
than 5 minutes, we have a lot of work to do yet this morning.
So, with that, Mr. Billingslea, your statement, please.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHALL BILLINGSLEA, OF VIRGINIA, NOMINEE TO
BE AN UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR CIVILIAN SECURITY,
DEMOCRACY, AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Billingslea. Thank you, Chairman Risch and Ranking
Member Menendez and members of this committee. I am honored to
appear before you today as the President's nominee for Under
Secretary of State for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human
Rights.
And, Senators, at the outset, I thank my family--my wife,
Karen, and my two daughters, Morgan and Elsa--for having
supported me in my decision to accept a second nomination from
the President; in this case, to serve at the Department of
State. These positions do require enormous family sacrifice,
and I could not do this without their love and their backing.
I have had the opportunity, over the past year, to meet
with a number of members of the committee. And it has been very
helpful for me to hear about a wide range of issues that are
viewed as important with respect to the ``J Family'' of bureaus
at the Department of State. And, if confirmed, I look forward
to working with all of the members of the committee and your
staff on the full range of topics.
The recent discussions notwithstanding, I must say at the
outset that it is wonderful to be back in this hearing room. I
began my government career, nearly 25 years ago, on the staff
of this august committee. And, in thinking about this hearing,
I vividly remember one of the very first hearings I attended--
in fact, I believe it was the very first hearing I attended in
my capacity as a staff member--sitting back on the bench in
that corner over there, and it was on a matter highly relevant
to the Office of the Under Secretary, both then and now. The
topic was Chinese repression of the Tibetans.
So, my familiarity and my involvement with issues falling
within the purview of J goes back more than two decades, and to
the very beginning of my time in government service. From the
days on this committee staff, working with the Department's
counterterrorism experts, to my work with the International
Narcotics and Law Enforcement Bureau on Colombia and
Afghanistan while I was at the Pentagon, and my present role in
driving the use of Treasury authorities to combat human rights
abuses across the globe, from Nicaragua to Venezuela, Burma, I
have been fortunate to work with the many fine career
professionals within the J Family.
There are three points I would like to emphasize today:
First, support for civilian security, democracy, and human
rights is crucial to advancing vital American interests. For
example, fighting terrorists, disrupting transnational
organized crime, and stopping the trafficking of opioids and
other illicit drugs protects the American people and our
communities. And building the capacity of foreign partners to
strengthen their own law enforcement capabilities and to
counter trafficking helps them take on greater responsibility
for addressing common threats. And championing our values, such
as justice, humanitarian ideals, religious freedom, and other
human rights, inspires and promotes strong, stable global
partners.
Second, threats to civilian security and democracy and
human rights are prevalent, and they are multifaceted. And
Venezuela is an example of what can happen when a regime
engages in massive corruption and undermines the rule of law
and fails to respect basic human rights and fundamental
freedoms. And I am gratified that a number of human rights
group in support of my nomination from Venezuela are here
today. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, I believe you inserted in the
record letters from opposition leader Maria Corina Machado
Antonio Ledezma, and Julio Borges, but I am also humbled, as
you said, that President--interim President Juan Guaido has
written a letter to this committee on my behalf. These are
incredible men and women, and they are valiantly speaking out
against the brutality of the Maduro dictatorship, in hope for a
better future for the Venezuelan people. And, if confirmed, I
commit to using the Office of the Under Secretary, as I have
used my current office within the Department of the Treasury,
to do everything I can to help alleviate the suffering in
Venezuela, as well as the suffering of those around the world
who are preyed upon by despots, oligarchs, and criminals.
I mentioned Tibet at the outset. China continues to seek to
silence criticism of its severe human rights violations and
abuses there. And, as Secretary Pompeo has said, China is home
to one of the worst human-rights crises of our time. And these
are all issues that fall within the responsibility of the J
structure to address.
This brings me to my final point in the final time allowed,
Mr. Chairman, which is to say that, in order to address these
complex challenges effectively, we have got to bring holistic
solutions that leverage not just all of the tools currently in
the repository of the Department of State, but also the
additional tools that this committee is able to provide through
the legislative process. As a former senior professional staff
member on this committee, I worked for many years on a wide
range of bipartisan issues that had overwhelming support. The
same is true of my work at the Treasury. And the same, if
confirmed, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, will be true for my
work at the Department of State.
Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Billingslea follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Marshall Billingslea
Chairman Risch, Ranking Member Menendez, and members of the
committee, I am honored to appear before you today as the President's
nominee for Under Secretary of State for Civilian Security, Democracy,
and Human Rights.
Senators, at the outset I thank my family--my wife Karen and my two
daughters Morgan and Elsa, for having supported my decision to accept
the President's nomination to the Department of State. These positions
require enormous family sacrifice, and I could not do this without
their love and backing.
I have had the opportunity over the past weeks to meet with several
members of the committee, and it has been very helpful for me to hear
about a wide range of issues that are viewed as important with respect
to the ``J Family'' of bureaus and offices at the State Department. If
confirmed, I look forward to working with all members of the committee,
and your staff, on the full range of topics.
At the outset, I must say that it is wonderful to be back in this
hearing room. I began my government career, nearly twenty-five years
ago, on the staff of this august committee. In fact, I vividly remember
one of the very first hearings I attended, sitting on the bench in the
corner over there. It was on a matter highly relevant to the Office of
the Under Secretary, both then and now; the topic was Chinese
repression of Tibetans.
So my familiarity and involvement with issues falling within the
purview of J goes back more than two decades, to the very beginning of
my time in government service. From the days on this committee's staff,
working with the Department's counterterrorism experts, to my work with
the International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Bureau on Colombia and
Afghanistan while I was at the Pentagon, and my present role in driving
use of Treasury authorities to combat human rights abuses and
corruption across the globe, from Nicaragua and Venezuela, to Uganda
and Burma, I have been fortunate to work with the many fine career
professionals within the J Family.
There are three points I would like to emphasize today:
First, support for civilian security, democracy, and human rights
is crucial to advancing vital American interests. For example, fighting
terrorists, disrupting transnational organized crime, and stopping the
trafficking of opioids and other illicit drugs protects the American
people and our communities. Strengthening the rule of law overseas
improves the investment climate for American businesses, while
advancing international labor standards the playing field for American
workers. Building the capacity of foreign partners to strengthen their
law enforcement capabilities and counter trafficking helps them to take
on greater responsibility for addressing common threats. Championing
our values such as justice, humanitarian ideals, religious freedom, and
other human rights inspires and promotes strong, stable global partners
that help keep the American people more safe and secure.
Second, threats to civilian security, democracy, and human rights
are prevalent and multi-faceted. Venezuela is an example of what can
happen when a regime engages in massive corruption, undermines the rule
of law, fails to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms,
dismantles democracy, and drives instability in the region. These
efforts to strangle the democratic aspirations of the Venezuelan people
have created the largest refugee crisis in Latin American history as
four million Venezuelans have fled. I have been outspoken in my current
role regarding the appalling acts perpetrated by the former Maduro
regime, from its use of food and hunger as a political tool, to the
ecocide conducted in the Orinoco belt, to the kleptocratic, wholesale
looting of Venezuela's natural resources. Like you, I am appalled at
the former regime's unconscionable human rights abuses, including
torture and extrajudicial killings. I am therefore so gratified that my
courageous friends in the Venezuelan opposition have written to the
committee in support of my nomination. Mr. Chairman, I submit for the
record letters from opposition leaders Maria Corina Machado, Antonio
Ledezma, and Julio Borges. These are incredible men and women,
valiantly speaking out against the brutality of the former Maduro
regime in the hope of a better future for the Venezuelan people.
I commit, if confirmed, to using the Office of the Under Secretary
to do everything I can to help alleviate the suffering in Venezuela, as
well as to help those around the world preyed upon by despots,
oligarchs, and criminals. I mentioned Tibet at the outset. China
continues to seek to silence criticism of its severe human rights
violations and abuses there, as well as its detention of more than one
million Uighurs, ethnic Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, and other Muslims in Xinjiang
since April 2017. As Secretary Pompeo has said, ``China is home to one
of the worst human rights crises of our time.'' More broadly, places
such as Syria, Central America, and Burma all show the
interconnectedness of religious intolerance, impunity, violence, porous
borders, trafficking of illicit goods, human rights abuses, human
trafficking, and large-scale forced displacement.
These are all situations where the multiple capabilities housed
within ``J'' must be brought to bear in a synchronized fashion.
This brings me to my final point: to address these complex
challenges effectively we must develop holistic solutions that leverage
all of the tools and resources at our disposal. This begins by
sustaining a close, bipartisan working relationship with Congress. In
partnership with Congress, the State Department has developed a broad
range of tools to promote civilian protection. In addition to
diplomatic engagement, these include foreign assistance programs; human
rights and corruption-related visa restriction regimes; terrorism, drug
trafficking, organized crime, and other rewards, sanctions, and
designation efforts; and public reports that draw global attention to
issues such as human rights, religious freedom, human trafficking,
atrocity prevention, narcotics control, and terrorism. The Under
Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights is
uniquely positioned to ensure the Department leverages these tools to
achieve our strategic objectives.
As a former senior professional staff member on the Foreign
Relations Committee, I worked for many years on a range of issues that
enjoyed overwhelming bipartisan support. The same is true for my work
at Treasury. I look forward to continuing to work in a strong
bipartisan fashion, if confirmed, in this new role.
In conclusion, Chairman Risch and Ranking Member Menendez, I
greatly appreciate the opportunity afforded by the committee to appear
before you today as you consider my nomination. Over more than two
decades, I have had the privilege of working closely with the
Department of the State on counterterrorism, conflict stabilization,
illicit finance, and other issues, and I believe I would bring a unique
combination of executive branch, legislative, and private sector
experience to the role of Under Secretary. If confirmed, I will
collaborate with this committee to design and implement the policies
and strategies necessary to advance civilian security, democracy, and
human rights.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Billingslea.
Now we will turn to Mr. Boehler. Your statement, please.
STATEMENT OF ADAM SETH BOEHLER, OF LOUISIANA, NOMINEE TO BE
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION
Mr. Boehler. Thank you, Chairman Risch, Ranking Member
Menendez, and members of the committee.
I want to thank Senators Cassidy and Whitehouse also for
their kind words and their partnership.
It is an honor to be here today in front of you to be the
nominee for the Chief Executive Officer of the International
Development Finance Corporation. This committee's ongoing
insights will be critical to ensure that we serve the interests
of the American people by addressing development challenges
through investment and economic growth.
I am joined this morning by my wife, Shira, and our four
children, Ruth, Abraham, Esther, and Rachel. I hope they are
not too young to appreciate witnessing democracy in action.
I would also like to say hi to the first and third great
classes at Newman Elementary School in New Orleans, who I think
are still watching it live.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Boehler. Maybe not.
The Chairman. I doubt it, but go ahead.
[Laughter.]
Senator Menendez. You should have told me that before the
hearing.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Boehler. I would like to start by recognizing the
talented professionals at OPIC and at USAID's Development
Credit Authority. If confirmed, I am committed to working in
partnership with USAID and other Federal agencies to further
build upon the goals that Congress established with the BUILD
Act.
I would like to thank the current acting and former
presidents of OPIC, David Bohigian, Elizabeth Littlefield, Rod
Mosbacher, and Peter Watson, for being here today with me, as
well as Ray Washburne, for all of his insights.
I grew up in a small town outside of Albany, New York. My
father is a primary care physician, and my mother is a speech
pathologist who made home visits to children in need. Their
commitment to helping others made a deep impression on me.
My first professional experience was in South Africa. The
mayor of Johannesburg was taking executive education classes at
my university, and I stood outside his class to meet with him.
This led to a summer working for the Financial and Fiscal
Commission, an agency set up by the South African Parliament to
advocate on behalf of the nine provinces. That summer, I was
fortunate enough to attend President Mbeki's inauguration and
watch as Nelson Mandela passed the torch.
The first half of my career was focused on domestic and
international investing in the United States and Israel. I then
started three successful businesses, the most recent being
Landmark Health. At Landmark, we cared for chronically ill
patients by providing 24/7 home medical care. My team and I
grew Landmark from an idea to the largest home physician
medical group in the country, with 20 offices and over 1,000
employees in the United States and India.
Two years ago, my predecessor at CMS, Dr. Patrick Conway,
asked if I would consider joining the government to run
innovation for our country. This meant walking away from a
company that I had built and loved. It was one of the most
difficult decisions in my life. I chose to do this because I
saw public service as an opportunity to go from helping
thousands to helping millions. I am proud of the 600 committed
people on my team and all that we are accomplishing at HHS.
I believe in empowering others and that diverse viewpoints
drive successful innovation. If confirmed, I will apply this
same belief, along with my international investment,
entrepreneurial, and public-sector experience to DFC.
The need for a nimble, strategic development finance agency
is clear in today's geopolitical landscape. The challenges
facing less-developed countries are vast. Private capital is an
essential ingredient in solving the problems that people in
emerging countries grapple with every day. From water
purification in India to energy in El Salvador, from a clinic
in Cameroon to thousands of loans to women entrepreneurs
throughout the world, DFC will work to improve conditions in
developing countries. DFC will further benefit from close
collaboration with other Federal agencies as well as our allies
internationally. DFC will be a critical tool in American
foreign policy to address the growing influence of China and
other authoritarian governments. American values, transparency,
rule of law, respect for people, and environment offer--afford
us a unique competitive advantage.
DFC is a product of this committee's bipartisan
collaboration. If confirmed, I commit to work together with you
and your staffs to ensure that we realize its full potential.
When I entered public service, I did not realize how
emotional it would be. I did not realize that I would feel a
bit different when I see our flag or when I stand for our
national anthem. I am proud to be an American, and I am proud
to have the opportunity to continue to serve our great Nation.
Thank you for considering my nomination.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Boehler follows:]
Prepared Statement of Adam Boehler
Thank you, Chairman Risch, Ranking Member Menendez, and members of
the committee. Thank you, Senators Cassidy and Whitehouse, for your
kind introductions and your partnership.
It is an honor to appear before you as the nominee for Chief
Executive Officer of the new U.S. International Development Finance
Corporation. This committee's ongoing insights will be critical to
ensure that we serve the interests of the American people by addressing
development challenges through investment and economic growth.
I am joined this morning by my wife Shira and our four children:
Ruth, Abraham, Esther, and Rachel. I hope that they are not too young
to appreciate witnessing democracy in action. I would also like to say
hi to the first and third grade classes at Newman Elementary School in
New Orleans who are watching this hearing right now.
I would like to recognize the talented professionals at OPIC and
USAID's Development Credit Authority. If confirmed, I am committed to
working in partnership with USAID and other federal agencies to further
the goals established by Congress through the BUILD Act.
I would like to thank the current acting and former presidents of
OPIC--David Bohigian, Elizabeth Littlefield, Rob Mosbacher, and Peter
Watson--for being here today with me, as well as Ray Washburne for all
of his insights.
I grew up in a small town outside of Albany, New York. My father is
a primary care physician, and my mother is a speech pathologist who
made home visits to children in need. Their commitment to helping
others made a deep impression on me.
My first professional experience was in South Africa. The mayor of
Johannesburg was taking classes at my university, and I stood outside
his class to introduce myself. This led to a summer working for the
Financial and Fiscal Commission, an agency set up by the South African
Parliament to advocate on behalf of the provinces. That summer I was
fortunate to attend President Mbeki's inauguration and watched Nelson
Mandela pass the torch.
The first half of my career was focused on domestic and
international investing in the United States and Israel. Later I
started three successful businesses, the most recent being Landmark
Health. At Landmark, we cared for chronically ill patients by providing
24/7 home medical care. My team and I grew Landmark from an idea to the
largest home physician group in the country, with 20 offices and over
1,000 employees in the U.S. and India.
Two years ago, Dr. Patrick Conway, my predecessor at CMS, asked me
if I would consider joining the government to run health care
innovation for our country. This meant walking away from a company that
I had built and loved. It was one of the most difficult decisions of my
life. I chose to do this because I saw public service as an opportunity
to go from helping thousands to helping millions. I'm proud of the 600
committed people on my team and all that we are accomplishing at HHS.
I believe in empowering others and that diverse viewpoints drive
successful innovation. If confirmed, I will apply this same belief,
along with my international investment, entrepreneurial, and public
sector experience, to DFC.
The need for a nimble, strategic development finance agency is
clear in today's geopolitical landscape. The challenges facing less
developed countries are vast. Private capital is an essential
ingredient in solving the problems that people in emerging countries
grapple with every day. From water purification in India, to energy in
El Salvador; from a clinic in Cameroon to thousands of loans to women
entrepreneurs throughout the world, DFC will work to improve conditions
in developing countries. DFC will further benefit from close
collaboration with other federal agencies as well as our allies
internationally.
DFC will be a critical tool in American foreign policy to address
the growing influence of China and other authoritarian governments.
American values--transparency, rule of law, respect for people and the
environment--afford us a unique competitive advantage.
DFC is a product of this committee's hard work and bipartisan
cooperation. If confirmed, I commit to work together with you and your
staffs to ensure that we realize its full potential.
When I entered public service, I did not realize how emotional it
would be. I did not realize that I would feel a little bit different
when I see our flag or stand for our national anthem. I am proud to be
an American, and I am proud to have the opportunity to continue to
serve our great nation.
Thank you for considering my nomination today. I look forward to
answering your questions.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Boehler.
Mr. Pack. the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL PACK, OF MARYLAND, NOMINEE TO BE CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS FOR
THE TERM OF THREE YEARS
Mr. Pack. Good morning, Chairman Risch, Ranking Member
Menendez, and distinguished members of this committee. It is an
honor to be with you today as the President's nominee to serve
as CEO of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, recently renamed
the U.S. Agency for Global Media.
With me today is my wife of 33 years, Gina--she is my
business partner and closest confident--and the oldest of my
three sons, William. I want to thank Gina, William, and my
entire family for their support.
I have a long love affair with international broadcasting.
In 1992, my wife and I were living in Los Angeles and running
our independent film company. My wife was pregnant with our
first child, William. Our life was very much on track. Then I
received a call from the U.S. Information Agency asking if I
would serve as director of Worldnet, which is now the
television component of the Voice of America. The Cold War had
recently ended, and the VOA had helped make that happen. Now I
could be part of this storied institution. Without hesitation,
my very pregnant wife and I rerouted our lives, sold our home,
moved to D.C., and never looked back.
Let me tell you a little about myself. I was born and
raised in New York City, where I started my film company,
Manifold Productions, in 1977. I have produced more than 15
documentaries, which have been nationally broadcast on PBS. We
made films about the Nation's founding fathers, the
entertainment industry, the history of America's political
parties, great engineers and scientists, and much more. Over
the years, I have also served as a senior executive in media
companies.
In 1993, I went to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting
to launch the International TV Council geared to arranging co-
productions in the former Soviet Union. Years later, in 2003, I
returned to CPB as the senior vice president for television
programming. Part of my mission was to launch new programming
initiatives. One of these was the series ``America at a
Crossroads,'' which examined challenges facing America after
September 11th from a variety of perspectives.
In between my stints at CPB, I was nominated by President
George W. Bush and confirmed by the Senate to serve on the
National Council of the National Endowment for the Humanities.
More recently, I was president and CEO of the Claremont
Institute, a think tank based in southern California, and I
have since returned to Manifold Productions, the successful
small business which my wife and I have run for over 30 years.
Now I feel called back to international broadcasting.
America's adversaries have stepped up their propaganda and
disinformation efforts. I am reminded of this famous quote from
Abraham Lincoln, quote, ``Public sentiment is everything.
Without it, nothing can fail. Against it, nothing can succeed.
Whoever molds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts
statutes or pronounces judicial decisions,'' unquote. Although
Lincoln had democratic America in mind, in today's connected
age, molding global public sentiment matters. As Lincoln would
have counseled, we need to counter lies with the truth.
If confirmed, I would have three goals:
The first is to raise employee morale at the agency. USAGM
consistently ranks at or near the bottom in surveys of midsized
agencies, in terms of morale. I will make it a priority to
change that.
The second is addressing the scandals besetting USAGM. The
agency has been rocked by a series of scandals, including
accusations of bribery, anti-Semitism, and malfeasance by a
senior official. I will make certain that the agency is doing
everything that it can to make sure such scandals cease and do
not occur in the future.
Third, and most important, my mission will be to make the
agency more effective.
There was bipartisan support to create this new CEO
position. The hope was that a CEO would provide the leadership
and vision to ramp up the impact of the five broadcasting
entities, and to create a more effective U.S. international
broadcasting effort on the world stage. That will not be easy
or fast. I will confer extensively with the talented and
dedicated men and women of USAGM, and I will consult with all
stakeholders, including here in Congress. So, you will be
hearing from me often.
Thank you for your time this morning, and I look forward to
answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pack follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael Pack
Good Morning Chairman Risch, Ranking Member Menendez, and
distinguished members of the committee. It is an honor to be with you
today as the President's nominee to serve as CEO of the Broadcasting
Board of Governors, recently re-named the U.S. Agency for Global Media.
As you all know, this is a new position, and I want to thank the
committee for having had the foresight and vision to create it.
With me today is my wife of soon to be 33 years, Gina Cappo Pack;
she is my business partner and my closest confidant. Our anniversary is
tomorrow. The oldest of my three sons, William, is also in the
audience. I want to thank Gina, William and my entire family for their
support and encouragement. Let me also thank my good friend Ambassador
Paula Dobriansky for making time to introduce me today.
I have a long love affair with international broadcasting. In 1992,
my wife and I were living Los Angeles and running our independent film
company. We had recently bought a new home in the Hollywood Hills with
a lovely view. My wife was eight months pregnant with our first child,
William. Our life was very much on track.
Then, I received a call from the U.S. Information Agency asking if
I would serve as Director of Worldnet, which is now the television
component of the Voice of America.
The biggest event of my life--the end of the Cold War--was recent
history, and the VOA had helped bring that about. Now, I could be part
of this storied institution and help it bring free media and fact-based
reporting to the now newly-liberated states of the former Soviet Union,
and rest of the world. Without hesitation, my very pregnant wife and I
rerouted our lives, sold our home, moved to DC, and never looked back.
Since then, I have been a participant, an observer, and a fan of
international broadcasting. I have never wavered in my admiration and
support of its mission and the men and women who work so hard to
fulfill it.
Let me tell you a little about myself. I was born and raised in New
York City, where I started my film company--Manifold Productions--in
1977. As I said, we moved to LA in 1988, and then to DC in 1992. I have
produced more than 15 documentaries which have been nationally
broadcast on PBS, all received favorable reviews and excellent ratings.
Our films tell America's story--also one of the goals of
international broadcasting. The stories we've told range from history
to politics to culture. We've made films about our nation's founding
fathers, the entertainment industry, the history of America's political
parties, Congress, great engineers and scientists, and much more.
In addition to my documentary filmmaking, I have served as a senior
executive in media companies, gathering experience managing
journalists, writers, professors, staff and others. Often, I have had
to restructure and move these organizations in new directions.
I've already mentioned my time serving as Director of Worldnet
under President George H.W. Bush. I reported to both the Director of
the U.S. Information Agency and the Director of the Voice of America
and managed a staff of 291, mostly civil servants but also contractors
and foreign service officers. During my time there, we were able to
more fully integrate Worldnet with the VOA, producing their first ever
collaboration, a weekly public affairs television series for Ukraine.
And, I forged life-long friendships that continue to enrich my life
today.
After leaving Worldnet, I took what I had learned about
international broadcasting to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting
and launched, with Paula Dobriansky, the International TV Council,
geared to arranging co-productions between American producers and their
counterparts in the former Soviet Union, to aid in their transition to
independent, free media.
Years later, in 2003, I returned to the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting as the Senior Vice President of Television Production.
Part of my mission was to launch new programming initiatives, which CPB
had not done in many years. The first was America at a Crossroads, a
series of prime-time documentaries examining challenges facing America
after September 11th, from a variety of perspectives. The second was
the History and Civics initiative, employing all media, from
traditional TV to video games, to address middle and high schoolers'
declining knowledge of our nation's past. Both these initiatives, in
their way, focused on telling America's story.
In between my stints at CPB, I was nominated by President George W.
Bush and confirmed by the Senate to serve on the Council of the
National Endowment for the Humanities.
Most recently, I was the President and CEO of the Claremont
Institute, a think tank based in Southern California. The Institute is
dedicated to restoring the principles of the American Founding to the
rightful, preeminent authority in our national life. I opened the
Institute's first Washington, D.C. office and its first communications
department, which significantly raised the profile of the Institute.
And under my direction, we launched a website based on its flagship
publication, the Claremont Review of Books.
My many years running Manifold Productions, in between these other
professional opportunities, has provided varied and relevant management
experience. Each film produced is like launching a mini-company, with
50 to 75 associates, from journalists and historians to film
professionals and other experts, all working on it at one time or other
over several years. In addition to the creative work, my wife and I are
responsible for all business functions, from raising and managing the
finances to marketing and development and we have run this successful
small business for over 30 years.
Although making documentaries is very satisfying work, I feel
called back to international broadcasting again, just as I was
originally called in 1991, though this time my wife is not pregnant,
and we don't have to move three thousand miles.
America's adversaries have stepped up their propaganda and
disinformation efforts. They are aggressively promoting their very
different visions of the world. Consider this famous quote from Abraham
Lincoln's first debate with Senator Stephen Douglas, ``Public sentiment
is everything. With it, nothing can fail; against it, nothing can
succeed. Whoever molds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts
statutes or pronounces judicial decisions.''
Although Lincoln had democratic America in mind, in today's
connected age, molding global public sentiment matters. As Lincoln
would have counseled, we need to counter lies with the truth. We need
to make clear to the world the ideals America strives to live up to.
That is the mission of the U.S. Agency for Global Media. I would be
honored to assist in that noble effort.
If confirmed, I have would have three goals: The first is to raise
employee morale at the Agency. USAGM consistently ranks at the bottom
in surveys of mid-sized Agencies in terms of morale and job
satisfaction. I will make it a priority to improve morale. The second
is addressing the scandals besetting USAGM. In recent years, the Agency
has been rocked by a series of scandals including accusations of
bribery, anti-Semitism, and malfeasance by a senior official. I will
make certain that the Agency is doing everything it can to make sure
such scandals cease and put processes in place to prevent such
situations in the future. Third, and most importantly, my mission will
be to make the Agency more effective. There was bi-partisan support to
create this new CEO position and to replace the existing Broadcasting
Board of Governors. The hope was that a CEO would provide the
leadership and vision to help ramp up the impact of the five
broadcasting entities and to create a more effective U.S broadcasting
effort on the world stage. Fulfilling that hope won't be easy or fast.
I will confer extensively with the talented and dedicated men and women
of USAGM and will consult with all stakeholders, most definitely
including here in Congress. So, you will be hearing from me often.
Thank you for your time this morning. I look forward to answering
your questions.
The Chairman. Mr. Pack, thank you very much.
And thank you, to all of our nominees.
We are now going to do a round of questions, 5 minutes
each. I am going to reserve my time.
And, with that, I will yield to Senator Menendez.
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me start with Mr. Billingslea. I still have some issues
that I want to pursue on the other matter, and I will pursue
those. But, since you are here and the Chairman has decided to
move forward with your nomination, let me ask you some
questions. I want to ask you questions particularly on your
record on interrogation and torture.
Do you consider the bipartisan 2008 SASC Detainee Report an
accurate and reliable account of the events that led to the
abuse of detainees in U.S. custody?
Mr. Billingslea. Senator, I do.
Senator Menendez. The SASC report found that the
interrogation technologies requested by GITMO on October 11th
of 2002, and approved by Secretary Rumsfeld in December, quote,
``influenced and contributed to the use of abusive techniques,
including military working dogs, forced nudity, stress
positions in Afghanistan and Iraq.'' October 10th, the day
before GITMO made that formal response, was the last day of an
8-day interrogation of one of the detainees which had used
military dogs and stress positions. It was also the day--
October 10th--that military personnel from the Afghanistan
Special Mission Unit Task Force, over which your office at DOD
exercised policy oversight, left GITMO after studying the new
interrogation techniques.
On October 10th, that also was the day that you wrote a
member--a memo, I should say, to Secretary Rumsfeld titled
``Detainees at GITMO.'' While in this setting, I cannot say
exactly what you wrote in that memo. I can say that I found it
very disturbing, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the
committee to read that important memo.
Mr. Billingslea, I want to ask you about another memo that
we can talk about in public that you wrote, this one in April
of 2003, titled ``Interrogation Methods for GITMO.'' In it, you
recommended that Secretary Rumsfeld approve 11 interrogation
techniques, which you supported, but, at that point, he no
longer did--meaning the Secretary. These are the same
techniques that the SASC report concluded--bipartisan SASC
report concluded led to abuses in Afghanistan and Iraq. In the
memo, which is quoted in the SASC report, you wrote that the
techniques were, quote, ``not controversial from either a legal
or policy standpoint,'' end quote. But, the Judge Advocate
Generals from every military service raised serious legal and
policy objectives to these techniques, including that they
violated the UCMJ and domestic criminal law, and could expose
servicemembers to possible prosecution, would have a negative
effect on the treatment of U.S. POWs by their captors, would
adversely impact the pride, discipline, and self-respect within
the United States Armed Forces, and would adversely affect
human intelligence exploitation and surrender of foreign enemy
forces and cooperation and support of friendly nations,'' close
quote.
Why did you write that stress positions, hooding, 20-hour
interrogations, forced grooming, and scenarios designed to
convince the detainee that death or severely painful
consequences were imminent for him or his family, were not
controversial, when all the military services had clearly
stated that they were highly controversial?
Mr. Billingslea. Senator, I was not then, and I am not
today, an expert on interrogation. I had to rely at the time on
what people from the combatant commands told us about how
different techniques would be used, and I had to rely on
lawyers up and down the chain of command to tell us that these
things were legal. I never supported any measure that was even
remotely possibly determined to be illegal by the lawyers. In
fact, in 2015, Congress passed a law making clear what is
allowable and what is not. But, this was 2002. We did not have
the benefit of the investigation that you referenced by the
bipartisan group of the Senate Armed Services Committee. And we
were--I was in the Pentagon on 9/11. All--many of us remember
those dark days. Some of the interrogation techniques, as you
point out, that were proposed by the combatant command--
proposed by the combatant command, not by me--in the aftermath
of the attack are now clearly prohibited by law. And if I were
ever called upon, and I hope never to be again, to have a view
on these matters, I would, without question, uphold the law and
reject anything not contained in the Army Field Manual.
Now, Senator, I am honored and I am humbled that Senator
John McCain voted for my confirmation to the current position.
As we all know, he was tortured gravely by the North
Vietnamese. He would not have done that if I were a torture
advocate.
The different assertions that are being made in the press
in the past days are decades-old claims that were examined and
discarded by the very investigation of the Senate Armed
Services Committee that you referenced. That bipartisan
investigation lasted a year and a half. They reviewed hundreds
of thousands of documents. They interviewed, in person, more
than 70 people. And they did not ever ask to talk to me. And
the reason is that they knew I was not involved in advocating
for torture, Senator. In fact, do not take my word for it, take
Senator Levin's own--one of his own lead investigators, Dr.
Mark Jacobson, who has written letters on my behalf and made
himself available to your staff on the Minority committee
staff, who has made crystal clear that I did not advocate for
torture, that I was not in a deciding role, and that I was one
of the key people trying to bring order to an orderless,
chaotic process at GITMO.
Senator Menendez. I have allowed you to use most of my time
to answer the question, because it is a serious one. And, in
follow-ups, I would like to explore what you have just
answered, because, in fact, you were the author of the memos,
you were the approver of some others. So, regardless of what
you try now to claim was the framework, you know, the--maybe
this would not be an issue, except for the position that you
are being nominated for. You are going to travel the world on
behalf of the United States. You are going to speak out against
torture. You are going to, supposedly, speak out for human
rights. Well, it is difficult to be in some country in the
world speaking about that, when they are going to reference
your own history. And that is why I am asking this line of
questioning. But, in deference to my colleagues, I will wait
for our second round.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator----
Senator Menendez. I do have, also, other questions, as
well, for the other nominees. I do not want them to think I
have no affection for you.
[Laughter.]
Senator Menendez. I will have questions for Mr. Boehler,
though I largely support his nomination. I have spoken to Mr.
Pack, and there are some questions that have arisen of late,
but our meeting, I thought, went relatively well, and we will
look forward to how you answer those questions.
But, I will, hopefully, follow up on a second round.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator. Affection is good.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. We will go on with our round of questioning,
and we will back to you, Senator Menendez, so you can pursue
some more.
Senator Paul.
Senator Paul. I would like to continue on that line of
questioning with Mr. Billingslea. You no longer support these,
but I think, at the time, it was clear that you did support
these enhanced interrogation techniques. In April of 2003,
Richard Myers proposed to Rumsfeld the authorization of 24
interrogation techniques. You then sent a memo, which I believe
is authored by you, to Secretary Rumsfeld recommending that he
approve 11 additional abusive techniques that are now illegal.
So, it seems to me that you were an advocate for things that
are now illegal.
Mr. Billingslea. Senator, thank you for that question.
As the Armed Services Committee report makes clear, I was
not pushing techniques that the lawyers group had rejected. The
group had decided on all the various techniques----
Senator Paul. Which are now illegal.
Mr. Billingslea [continuing]. Senator, yes, they----
Senator Paul. But, you were an advocate for them when they
were legal, when people thought they were legal. No one was
telling you they were illegal. You were an advocate for these
techniques. You are no longer for them, now that they are
illegal.
Mr. Billingslea [continuing]. So, Senator, again, I am not
an expert on interrogation. I had to go on the basis of what we
were told by those who had described the techniques, and I had
to rely on the--I am not a lawyer, either, so we had to rely on
the legal counsel.
Senator Paul. But, there were a considerable amount of
legal counsel on the other side. Major General Thomas Romig was
the Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Army. He responded
verbally to you, and has recounted that he was against the
expansion of the enhanced interrogation. So was his assistant--
let us see if I have got it here--the Deputy Judge Advocate
General and also the Navy JAG, Michael Lohr. So, I am assuming
they are all lawyers, and they were all very much opposed to
what you were for at the time. So, there were some lawyers
saying it was legal, some lawyers saying it was illegal. But,
at the time, you did agree to these things, and I think that is
an important fact.
I guess the question is, is that--do you think that these
interrogation techniques--advocating for them, did you think,
at the time, that there might be an adverse effect on our POWs,
that, once they are captured, if we are torturing people here,
that other countries might say, ``Well, hell, if America does
it, why do we not do it to their people, as well?'' Did you
ever consider that it might have an adverse effect on our POWs?
Mr. Billingslea. Senator, absolutely. In fact, that is the
reason why I was the individual in the Pentagon who blocked the
use of waterboarding at Guantanamo, for exactly that reason.
And that is why it was never considered, beyond the early
stages of discussion, by the various legal groups. In fact, I
am pleased, and the committee should have a letter on my behalf
from Dr. Michael Gelles, who, at the time, was the chief
psychologist for the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, and
someone who was raising major concerns about what was going on
at GITMO. And he has supported my nomination. And Dr. Gelles
has made crystal clear that I have never supported torture, nor
anything resembling torture, based on all the information I was
given at the time.
Senator Paul. But, you did support 11 additional enhanced
interrogation techniques, which are now illegal. And whether we
call them ``torture'' or not, people, later on, did decide, and
the Judge Advocate at that time did also think, that these were
not advisable.
I guess another reason to think about this is whether or
not, you know, we can ultimately prosecute and keep in prison
potentially bad people. So, the prisoner, Slahi--I know you
were involved with advocating for enhanced interrogation there,
as well. The problem ended up being that the prosecutor--the
military prosecutor, who went--joined after 9/11, because he
was gung-ho to do something to our enemies--in the end, this is
a guy who really wanted to convict the enemy, dropped the
charges because he felt like the information that was gathered
was done under stress and could never be used in court.
Ultimately, though, people have also said that, when you do
all these things to people, when you pretend to drown them,
when you take them out to sea and you say, ``We have got your
mother now, and this is the paperwork. We have got your mother,
and we are killing her tomorrow''--when you do these abusive
techniques, you get information that largely is not true. And
so, I think that was the case with Slahi. And it also is not
only not true, it ended up not being usable.
So, I think it really was a judgment error. And, I mean, I
think it is great, now, that you do not believe in torture, and
you will obey the law, but I do question whether or not this is
a problem, that, at the time, you were advocating, you were
writing reports, you were the author of someone who wanted to
go beyond even what Rumsfeld was willing to approve. You know,
there were 24 approved, and you were for 11 more different
enhanced interrogation techniques. So, I am bothered by it. I
am willing to hear your answer here today, but also in writing,
if you would like to follow up.
Mr. Billingslea. Senator, yes. Because, again, I think a
lot of the different dynamics are not getting conveyed in the
way that the Armed Services Committee examined the matter.
The memo you are referencing--I will talk about Slahi, with
permission of the Chairman--but, the memo you are talking
about, the decision--my concern was not trying to push one set
of interrogation techniques or another, it was that we had
worked for months to even get to a point where there was a
process by which the legal teams would meet and discuss these
matters. The entire--GITMO was complete chaos. In fact, what
the committee has seen in the way of memoranda--the committee
has seen a huge number of documents where I am literally
personally trying to get people out of Guantanamo, get them
onto planes and send them home, where I am trying to document
human rights abuses that are being alleged by these detainees,
where I am focused on making sure they have reading materials.
These are not the kinds of interventions that a torture
advocate would be making.
Senator Paul. One thing that would help me in my vote would
be if there are contemporaneous documents. We have reports that
sound like you are advocating for more enhanced interrogation.
If there are any reports or documents, from that period of time
that we are not aware of, where you are arguing the opposite, I
am more than happy to look at that. It seems like what I am
seeing from the time, the contemporaneous stuff, is, you were
advocating for more enhanced interrogation, with your memos and
your reports.
Mr. Billingslea. So, Senator, the--Chairman, with your
permission--the very memo you referenced with regard to Slahi
is a good example, where that was a request, started at GITMO,
on how to do--we did not come up with these--this was not our--
this is not my plan. This was a request made by the Joint Task
Force at GITMO. It made its way past their lawyers. It came to
U.S. Southern Command. It made its way past those lawyers. It
came to the Joint Staff. It made its way past those lawyers.
Then it got to me. And handwritten on that memo is me saying
that OGC, the legal team, has concurred that this is legal.
Senator, what that tells you is that, despite the fact that
dozens of lawyers at every which level had looked at this
document, I did not trust it, and I wanted to hear, for myself,
again, that these measures were legal. That is not something a
torture advocate would do.
The Chairman. Senator Cardin.
Senator Cardin. Let me thank all of our nominees, thank
your families.
Mr. Pack, I want to start with you, because you are from
Maryland. We had a wonderful discussion in my office. Very
impressed with your background and your desire to serve our
country. You would be the first confirmed CEO of the agency now
known as the U.S. Agency for Global Media.
We talked in my office, but I want to put this on the
record, the balance that you are required to do as CEO. The law
provides that you respect the professional independence and
integrity of the agency. First and foremost, you are reporters,
so you have to have the integrity of presenting the facts and
the news. But, on the other side, this is a government-
supported function, and we are countering propaganda that is
out there that is anything but factual, which is clearly aimed
at a political objective. So, how do you go about balancing the
professional integrity of the reporting versus the mission to
counter propaganda that is out there?
Mr. Pack. Thank you, Senator. An excellent question and a
difficult problem.
But, I want to say that I think the whole agency rests on
the belief that the reporters are independent, that no
political influence is telling them how to report the news and
what to say. Without that, without that trust, I think the
agency is completely undermined. So, I think that is a bedrock
principle.
On the other hand, I think that you can decide what
countries to focus on, you can make some decisions that keep
the work of this agency in line with what the United States
global interests are. But, it is a difficult balancing act.
But, the first principle has to be the editorial
independence of journalists in the field. And no one should be
telling them which reporter how to shade the news.
Senator Cardin. I agree completely with that statement, and
I tell you, you will find that tested, because political
expediency, at times, will challenge the bedrock principle.
But, I concur with how you answered that question and tell you,
you have allies in Congress who will support that principle and
urge you to rely upon that bedrock support incorporated in the
law itself.
Mr. Billingslea, I want to, first, underscore the point
that Senator Paul made and Senator Menendez made, in that we
are not comfortable that we have all of the information we need
in regards to the history of your role in regards to enhanced
techniques, interrogation techniques. I will be asking you some
questions for the record. Others will. To the extent that you
can provide that information, it will make our task a little
bit easier in evaluating this.
But, I want to get to the question that Senator Menendez
ended with that has really troubled me, that the press reports
about your support for the use of enhanced techniques,
interrogation techniques, for expediency purposes will run up
against people that you will be meeting internationally. If you
are confirmed for a democracy and human rights agenda for our
country, you will be in Turkey, where their leaders will say,
``Well, we had to suspend civil rights in order to prevent a
coup or a future coup in this country, so it is important to
suspend human rights.'' Or you will be Hungary, where you will
have leaders who have a concentration of the media messaging in
that country through their relationships with the oligarchs,
and they will say they needed that in order to be able to keep
popular support for elections, and their elections are not free
and fair today. Or you will run into the Philippines and the
leaders there saying, ``Well, extrajudicial killings, no one
likes it, but we needed to do that in order to control our
national security on drug infiltration.'' So, how do you
respond when you raise those issues and they say, ``Well, you
were a head, or part, of the process of the United States that
said enhanced interrogation techniques were necessary--i.e.,
torture--in order to protect the security of your own country.
Do not yell at us. You did the same thing''? How do you answer
that?
Mr. Billingslea. Thank you, Senator.
Well, first of all, to start with the simple fact that I am
not an advocate for torture, and I never have been.
Secondly, I travel--in the current role, I travel the
world, I have hit 77 different countries, some of them repeats,
in the current capacity, where I have worked on more than 700
human-rights-related designations of all manner of vile
behavior, whether we are talking about the Burmese army units
that have repressed the Rohingya or we are talking about the
former police chief in Uganda, where I was, and what he was
doing to local populations. I am very plain-spoken with my
counterparts, and there is no ambiguity over the fact that we
will uphold human rights and combat corruption at every step of
the way. And there is no doubt of my commitment, when I deal
with these interlocutors, over the intensity with which both
the United States government and I hold these issues.
So, we have to be, just, very clear that there were a
series of representations and legal determinations that were
made 18, 19 years ago, in the wake of 9/11, which have
subsequently, in 2015, codified into law, which I will advocate
for and respect. But, that is actually part of the narrative
here, which is that we have to talk to our counterparts about
the fact that we are a nation of law, and we learn from our
mistakes, and we evolve. And therefore, we will expect that
other countries understand this and learn with us on these
matters.
Senator Cardin. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cruz[presiding]. Thank you very much.
Mr. Billingslea. I want to talk with you a little bit about
the service you have been providing at Treasury. And you and I
had a long and, I think, productive conversation in my office
on these topics just a few days ago. By all accounts, you have
excelled in the position you are currently serving in.
Nonetheless, as you know, I have some concerns about policy
that I would like to discuss.
First of all, regarding Iran, as you know, the Europeans
are currently engaged in efforts to circumvent our sanctions
against the ayatollahs, including through a range of
initiatives. One of those initiatives is the so-called special-
purpose vehicle. I am deeply concerned about this vehicle, and
I believe it would badly undermine our campaign of maximum
pressure. Could you please give me your assessment of the
effect you think the vehicle would have on our maximum pressure
campaign?
Mr. Billingslea. Senator, I share your concern about the
so-called INSTEX vehicle, which is the special-purpose vehicle.
Ostensibly, that vehicle is intended--we are told is intended
to allow for the furnishing of humanitarian assistance. It is
not clear to me why that is required, because the Department of
the Treasury has never impeded or otherwise objected to
humanitarian assistance and medical--provision of medical
support anywhere in the world. So, they seem to be developing
it, perhaps, for other purposes. We have made incredibly clear,
to the European countries involved, that we are following
INSTEX very closely, and we will not allow it to be used to
circumvent United States sanctions or the maximum pressure
campaign we have on Iran.
Senator Cruz. I want to also dig a little deeper in the
issue with another initiative the Europeans are proposing. And,
specifically, the French are proposing extending a $15 billion
credit line to the ayatollahs. What effect do you think
providing a $15 billion credit line would have on our pressure
campaign?
Mr. Billingslea. Senator, I think that would be very
counterproductive, and the Secretary of the Treasury has made
clear that this is not something we support.
Senator Cruz. I am glad to hear it.
Let us shift to another part of the world. As you know, I
am also concerned about Russia's construction of the Nord
Stream II pipeline, which would go to Germany and give Putin
much greater control over Europe's energy security. Can you
please give me your assessment of what the completion of the
Nord Stream II pipeline would do to our national security and
to Europe's security?
Mr. Billingslea. Senator, the President has made clear that
he opposes the Nord Stream II pipeline. Likewise, Secretary
Pompeo and Secretary Mnuchin have both been clear with our
counterparts that we think this is an unwise development. There
have been representations made to us about how the Ukrainians
will be shielded from the development of a whole new pathway
that, frankly, I think, would allow Russia to bypass Ukraine
and deny Ukraine the revenue that they currently generate from
the existing pipeline structure. And I think that gives us
great pause, as well.
But, ultimately, if your question is going to be whether we
feel that disrupting Nord Stream II through the application of
sanctions--at the moment, the perspective of the United States
government is that that is not the right way to address it. And
we, on the Treasury side, speaking in my Treasury capacity, are
working with the Department of State to ensure that the
diplomatic channels are maximized in an effort to prevent this
pipeline from coming online.
Senator Cruz. When you say it is the administration's view
that sanctions are not the right way to address it, why is
that?
Mr. Billingslea. Those sanctions authorities, first of all,
do not reside with the Treasury Department, so I have not been
privy to the internal deliberations within the State Department
on it. But, at this stage, I think our goal is to attempt to
work through other ways of disrupting the pipeline, with
European allies, including passage through various territorial
waters.
Mr. Billingslea. Senator, I will need to look into this
with Ambassador Sales and understand how he is thinking about
reorganization of the mission. But, I think it is very, very
important that we provide clarity on the swim lanes that exist
within the different Department of State bureaus. And, if
confirmed, you have my commitment that I will look into this
and get back to you.
Senator Cruz. I look forward to working with you on it.
A final question. Many of us are deeply horrified by the
Chinese persecution against the Uyghur minorities. Religious
liberty will be within your portfolio if you are confirmed. The
Chinese have created a 1984 dystopia, where they track the
movement of millions of people, using cutting-edge
biotechnology and artificial intelligence. I have introduced
legislation to prevent exports and re-exports of U.S. goods to
the companies that are aiding China in this persecution. Could
you please describe both the Chinese campaign and how you
intend to counter it, should you be confirmed?
Mr. Billingslea. Senator, as I mentioned in my opening
statement, the idea that China could be doing to the Uyghur
population in Xinjiang today what they are doing in this day
and age is--it is outrageous, it is reprehensible. We are, and
I am personally, alarmed by the repressive campaign. As you
mentioned, it is not just the cruel and inhumane treatment, it
is the pervasive high-tech and arbitrary surveillance of the
population. But, it goes beyond that. It also involves the
insertion of the Han--ethnic Han Chinese into the houses, into
the families of Uyghurs, some of whom's heads of household are
imprisoned in these camps. And Chinese claims that these are
humane job training centers is an outright falsehood, and it is
belied by a wide range of evidence. In these camps, China is
trying to force the Uyghurs to renounce their ethnic identity,
their religious beliefs, and their religious practices. And
this is unacceptable. They have to be held to account, and we
have to decry this behavior in every shape and form and
fashion.
Senator Cruz. Thank you.
Senator Kaine.
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And congratulations, to the witnesses, for your
nominations.
Mr. Billingslea. I want to ask you a question about the
position into which you could be confirmed. The important role
that you will play includes many portfolios, but one of the
portfolios of importance to this committee is the Magnitsky
Act. And I know you are familiar with the Act, because, at
Treasury, you have been involved in Magnitsky Act's decisions
and sanctions. The committee was very discouraged earlier this
year. In February, 120 days after the--it was--Committee under
a Republican majority, there was a bipartisan request to the
President to make a determination about culpability for the
assassination of Virginia resident, Washington Post journalist,
Jamal Khashoggi. The Magnitsky Act requires such a
determination. The President has 120 days to respond to a
direct request from Congress about violations of the Act. The
administration's answer, after 120 days, was, quote, ``The
President maintains his discretion to decline to act on
congressional committee requests, when appropriate.'' That was
the White House's response.
This was not just a congressional committee request, it was
pursuant to a statute that is in law, that was a statute that
was signed by a President. So, it is not just a request, like a
document request or something pedestrian--more pedestrian. It
was a legal requirement. And I think there was a sense, on the
committee, Democratic and Republican, that the President was
flouting the law by not giving us an answer. And the answer
was--either these people are responsible and others are not,
and the administration was asked to make a decision, one way or
the other, and refused to answer.
Do you know what the role of your position would be, should
you be confirmed, in a process with the White House to render
Magnitsky Act determinations, when requested by Congress?
Mr. Billingslea. Well, Senator, I am not steeped in the
State Department side of the Magnitsky Act. I have studied on
it, and especially following our conversation, because I
understand, in addition to just the fact that this was a
horrific, barbaric act perpetrated, it was also one of your
constituents, and those who were involved have to be held
accountable. The Treasury Department, as you know, has
designated, now, 18 of the individuals involved. I understand,
however, that there are a series of legal issues that date back
to the Obama administration and the signing of the Act, in
terms of how, when, where, and if the executive branch responds
to these kinds of requests. And again, I am not--I have not
been party to those discussions----
Senator Kaine. Are you aware of a--of an earlier case,
where a President refused to answer the Magnitsky Act's
question that is established pursuant to the statute?
Mr. Billingslea. I am not. But, I am also not--I am not
aware of how many such requests have been made. But, Senator,
what I would commit to you to do--and I--also, I think you may
have seen--the committee may have seen intelligence on this
issue, which I have not. So, if you do confirm me into this
job, I view it as a fundamental responsibility to make sure
that the details and the considerations regarding human rights
abuses are escalated and furnished to the Secretary of State,
to give the best possible advice, and to ensure that those
topics do not fall off the table when other equities and
considerations are being presented to the Secretary of State.
Senator Kaine. I think that is very important. Obviously, a
decision has to be made at some point about what are the
equities in the relationship between the United States and
Saudi Arabia, but I worry that it sends a very, very bad signal
about our commitment to human rights when the White House is
unwilling to answer a question about whether there has been a
human rights violation or whether certain individuals are
responsible for human rights violations.
Mr. Boehler. let me ask you a question. I was pleased that,
in your discussion with my staff, one of the things you talked
about was the desire to focus on investments in the Northern
Triangle. You know, we have been bedeviled here with all kinds
of issues dealing with immigration and others. And my strong
belief, having lived in Honduras many years ago, is, if we do
not deal with some of the root causes of challenges in that
region, we can do whatever we want here, but there will be a
natural desire of people to protect themselves, and that might
include leaving their neighborhoods, leaving their cities,
leaving their countries if they do not feel like they are safe.
What would you intend to do, should you be confirmed, to
prioritize the Northern Triangle with the development work you
would be charged with?
Mr. Boehler. Thank you for the question, Senator.
I think, now that DFC will be a new agency, and if I am
confirmed, I have the opportunity to be the first CEO. I think
it represents an excellent opportunity to have that discussion
with the administration and to work closely together with this
committee to address that issue.
Senator Kaine. I think it is important, just as I close.
Because what we are seeing is the administration, you know,
being pretty harsh in terms of slashing funding----
Mr. Boehler. Yeah.
Senator Kaine.--for initiatives in these countries, and
then bemoaning the fact that people from the countries are
leaving neighborhoods of violence to come to the United States
or elsewhere. I think if we really want to deal with this
migration issue, the smartest way to do is to go upstream and
try to work in partnership with these countries, as we have
with Colombia, for example, to try to promote more internal
stability. And I would look forward to working with you on
that.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Kaine.
Back to Senator Menendez.
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me return to Mr. Billingslea. As the Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low
Intensity Conflict, your office had policy oversight of the
Special Mission Unit Task Forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, which
were composed of Special Operation Forces in charge with
finding WMD and high-value targets. According to the 2008 SASC
report, those units' interrogation policies, quote, ``were a
direct cause of detainee abuse and influenced interrogation
policies at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere in Iraq,'' close quote.
There are numerous written records, including Department of
Justice IG interviews with FBI agents, which state that
concerns about the abuses that I just mentioned by those units
were raised directly with you. Did you take any steps to
address those abuses?
Mr. Billingslea. Thank you, Ranking Member Menendez.
First of all, I need to be very, very clear, we did not,
and I never, provided, nor did I have the authority to provide,
policy oversight to Special Mission Units operating in
Afghanistan or Iraq. That is not the way SOLIC is organized.
The office created by Congress for the Special Operating--the
senior civilian for Special Operations is responsible for
engaging with U.S. Special Operations Command in Tampa
directly. Those Special Mission Units were elements of the
Joint Special Operations Command, and they worked for the
regional combatant commanders. They were well outside of any
kind of direct engagement or direct contact.
Moreover, we had no role in, and had no input into, any
type of interrogation activities or techniques being employed
by these units. Our sole involvement in the interrogation
process that we were trying to create was focused on
Guantanamo.
Senator Menendez. But, you were directly told that there
were concerns about the abuses of those units. What did you do?
Mr. Billingslea. So, Senator, thank you.
It came to our attention--I do not know that we were told--
it came to our attention that, actually, in the case of, I
believe, an individual in--may have been Bagram--that there had
been a death in one of these facilities. And I escalated that
issue, personally, to the Special Operations combatant
commander and asked him, in effect, what is going on here?
Senator Menendez. All right. So, that is a specific
incident. I assume that, in that specific incident, there would
be some written record as to what happened. Is that a fair
statement?
Mr. Billingslea. I believe the Armed Services Committee
looked into this exhaustively and tackled this question. But,
again, I had no role----
Senator Menendez. On the broad question that you were
directly--according to these FBI agents, that they brought this
directly to your attention about the abuses at Abu Ghraib,
about the abuses of this policy, what did you do? You mentioned
one specific incident. Did you say, ``We need to review this
policy of torture? We need to end some of this?''
Mr. Billingslea. Senator, I was long gone from SOLIC--I was
at NATO at the time Abu Ghraib happened.
Senator Menendez. You know, I heard your previous answer to
me. And the problem is that all of the service chiefs and
others, like Alberto Mora and William Taft, were strongly
opposing torture. They were telling everyone who would listen
to them that torture was ineffective, immoral, and illegal. You
were clearly not among the group who sought to oppose that
torture. What you are claiming is that you were trying to put
order around a disorderly process. Well, that is bureaucratic
jargon. What it means is that you furthered the machinery of
torture. You put a process around memos, decisions, et cetera,
but you did not seek to stop it. You advocated for it, and then
you helped advance the development and implementation of
torture.
So, you cannot change history, or hide from it in
bureaucratic jargon. And this goes--you may be doing a good job
in what you are doing now, but this goes to the very heart of
the position you have been nominated for. I do not know how you
go talk to the Chinese about the Uyghurs. I do not know--when,
you know, we were conducting torture against other Muslim
entities. I mean, I--do you not understand the debility, based
upon your past, in terms of this specific position?
Mr. Billingslea. Well, Senator, simply put, I dispute the
claim that I ever advocated for torture. And again, I refer you
to multiple individuals, who felt strongly and disagreed
strongly with what was occurring at Guantanamo, who have made
the point that I never advocated for torture or anything
resembling it. And again, I repeat, I opposed waterboarding at
Guantanamo, as an example of the stand that I took.
Senator Menendez. Would you urge the Department of Defense
to provide us all of the documents that involve you in this
regard so that we could come to a clear understanding before
there is a vote on your nomination?
Mr. Billingslea. Senator, I have asked the Department of
Defense to give you everything. But, I think, more importantly,
you are retreading ground that has already been well covered by
the Senate Armed Services Committee in an exhaustive bipartisan
investigation that lasted more than a year and a half. And that
report, the definitive report which led to the changes in law,
in no way, shape, or fashion remotely accuses me of having been
a proponent for torture. They simply did not--in fact, to the
point that they never even asked to talk to me about this
matter.
Senator Menendez. Well, we have seen no documents to
support the statements you have made about waterboarding. We
need to see them all. And that is, ultimately, the challenge
with your nomination.
Let me turn to Mr. Boehler, if I may. Mr. Boehler, I want
to know from you whether the--the committee passed the BUILD
Act because we saw the need to modernize and expand our
development finance capabilities. As you noted in your
statement, it is critical that the DFC offer an alternative to
State-directed investment. There is a lot of expectations here.
But, as far as I can tell, the administration is asking DFC to
take on all the new requirements of the BUILD Act with,
essentially, the same resources as before. How will you
deliver, under those circumstances? And what can we do to help?
Mr. Boehler. Thank you for the question, Senator.
First, I am a big believer in using what you have. And I do
not see DFC as independent of other U.S. government agencies. I
think it is a great opportunity to work very closely with
USAID, with our missions, with our embassies internationally. I
think you rightly identify--we lack boots on the ground, to a
large extent. We have 300 employees. And so, it will be
critical to use and leverage our other partners, like USAID and
State.
I would also note, I think there is a huge opportunity to
partner with our allies to work together to counter China and
other autocratic governments.
And finally, I would note that I would love to work closely
with the committee as we think about resources, going forward.
It is important to me, as I am sure it is to you, that the DFC
is--comes into being as this Congress intended. And I would
work closely with you to ensure that.
Senator Menendez. Can we rely upon you, if confirmed, to
answer truthfully when you are asked a question, for example,
such as resourcing?
Mr. Boehler. Yes, Senator.
Senator Menendez. There are four members who had to leave.
All happen to be members of the Appropriations Committee who
are also members of this committee. So, I think it is a very
good opportunity to be honest with them when they ask you,
because you have several allies among them, as well as myself.
Let me ask you one other question. What is your opinion--
the USDFC is authorized to create enterprise funds--new
enterprise funds--what is your opinion on them and their dual
mandate to increase development but also to make a return on
investment?
Mr. Boehler. Senator, I think enterprise funds are a
potentially excellent opportunity, both looking at regions as
well as product-specific-type enterprise funds. And I think the
new DFC could be a tool to operate them in an effective manner.
So, I am interested in that potential tool, going forward.
Senator Menendez. Yeah. The problem is--is the history--you
know, development funds, in and of itself, has a national
policy purposes, a foreign policy purpose. Getting a return on
investment is not always easy as it relates to development
funds. So, I hope we are not constrained in the enterprise
funds in a way that the return on investment outweighs the
national interest as it relates to the actual development.
Mr. Pack. some issues have arisen since we spoke, and I am
not going to raise it here today, but my staff has asked you a
series of questions. I am--I want you to state for the
committee: Do you commit to providing the committee prompt and
complete responses to those questions, as well as any
followups, before we advance your nomination to the full
Senate?
Mr. Pack. Senator, I did get those questions yesterday
afternoon. And the extent and breadth of the questions made it
impossible to answer quickly. They will require adequate
research, consultation, going back over some relevant
documents. But, I absolutely commit that I will get you the
answers as expeditiously as possible. And I take the questions
seriously, and I will put in the time and energy to get them to
you as quickly as I possibly can.
Senator Menendez. Well, I appreciate it. That is why I am
not asking you today. I do not expect you to have the answers.
But, I do want a commitment to get them.
Finally, this is an incredibly important position. The
Chairman and I were talking about this entity, and how
important it is. And you and I talked a little bit about this,
but I want to establish it for the record. Much has been made
of your collaboration with former Trump campaign advisor Steve
Bannon. In 2017, you penned an article titled, quote, ``Will
Steve Bannon Help Break the Left's Monopoly on Documentaries,''
in which you wrote--``Democracy,'' as well--but, in any event,
``Documentaries,'' in which you wrote, ``Given the explosion of
interests in documentaries and the rise of conservative news
and talk radio, you might expect that Steve and I are typical
of a large and growing group of conservative documentarians.''
You continued, quote, ``Trump, with Bannon's help, campaigned
against political correctness and self-dealing elites, and they
won,'' close quote.
Now, my question, based upon that, is, How can we expect
someone who has publicly embraced his role as a conservative
documentarian to steward an agency that is charged with
supporting independent, politically unmotivated press?
Mr. Pack. Senator, well, that article--that op-ed called
for diversity in documentary programming, something I still
believe in. But, I think you should look to my track record. I
have worked at other institutions, and I have had the same
political views--for example, the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting--where I had a charge to assist programming and
reflect the highest journalistic standards and a diversity of
opinion. I cited, in my opening remarks, ``America at the
Crossroads,'' a series that I caused to--I initiated at the
CPB, that was 30-plus programs that dealt with post-9/11 issues
from a variety of perspectives. I did not try to impose my
views on the filmmakers. And they were very well received, and
they did not have my views enforced upon them.
I think it is very different to write an op-ed and have a
role--at the time, I was CEO of a think tank. I think that is a
very different kind of a role than the role at USAGM, where I
think I would not--or I would take seriously that it is not my
job to impose my views on journalists. As I said earlier, their
independence is the bedrock of the institution.
Senator Menendez. So, let me finalize, then. How will you
protect the firewall between journalists and political
interference?
Mr. Pack. Well, I am not sure about all the journalistic
practices and techniques inside the agency now to do that, but
I would look at those and try to strengthen them. I guess it
comes down to that we need to say no when you get a call from
somebody--a political person telling journalists what to do.
But, I will look for ways to make sure that journalists
maintain----
Senator Menendez. Are you capable of saying no?
Mr. Pack. I think so. I have said no before.
Senator Menendez. Well, there is going to be enormous
pressure, at times, here. And, regardless of the quarter--I do
not care if it is the Ranking Member of the Foreign Relations
Committee, the leader of the Senate or the House, or the
President of the United States calling and saying, ``You need
to have your journalists tell this story in this way.'' That is
not what broadcasting is across the globe. If we have
independent, free, balanced reporting, then people in the world
will listen to what we have to say. If we are just promoting
somebody's view, then people in the world will very quickly--I
give people a lot of credit, at the end of the day--they will
very quickly, you know, tune off and turn out.
So, that is one of the critical elements of this job, and I
hope that what you said, that you have the ability to say no--I
hope you are never called upon to say no, but, if you are, I
would expect you to say no.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
And thank you, to our nominees, for your patience with us
this morning.
For information of the members, the record will remain open
until close of business on Friday, including for members to
submit questions for the record.
With many thanks to this committee, this committee is now
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted to Hon. Marshall Billingslea by Senator Robert Menendez
Question. Mr. Billingslea, no matter what other talents you might
bring to this position, it would be remarkable that someone who worked
to advance this nation's use of enhanced interrogation techniques would
be serving in the job of Under Secretary for Civilian Security,
Democracy, and Human Rights. Do you see how that threatens to undercut
America's moral voice, harm our strategic interests, and undermine the
morale of our diplomatic workforce?
Answer. In my capacity as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, I
have made human rights a foundational cornerstone of my work. In this
role, I have advocated for--and driven implementation of--more than 700
sanctions using human-rights and corruption-related authorities. I have
traversed the globe pursuing human rights abusers and their finances,
and a number of them have found their access to the international
financial system cut off due to these actions. If confirmed by the
Senate, I will bring to the role of Under Secretary a strong moral
voice that will advance our strategic interests and a proven track
record of leadership that will bolster the morale of our diplomatic
workforce.
Question. How will you look torture survivors in the eye and tell
them that what happened to them is wrong, and that the United States
stands with them? Why do you think that they should trust you?
Answer. As I stated in the hearing, I have never advocated for
torture. If confirmed, I look forward to making clear that torture is
illegal, counterproductive, and wrong.
Question. How will you engage in conversations--with America's
friends and foes alike--about how torture is illegal,
counterproductive, and wrong?
Answer. As someone who has never advocated for torture, if
confirmed I will engage aggressively in conversations to make clear
that torture is illegal, counterproductive, and wrong.
Question. When you're engaged in a conversation with Chinese
officials about how that government is systematically locking up and
abusing its Muslim population, do you not expect that they will
reference your own history of advocating for the mistreatment of
(Muslim) detainees?
Answer. I have never advocated for torture or the mistreatment of
detainees. Indeed, the committee staff have seen multiple classified
documents showing that I was very concerned with everything from
ensuring detainees had appropriate reading materials, to ensuring that
detainees were returned home from Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. If
confirmed, I look forward to making clear that torture is illegal,
counterproductive, and wrong.
Question. How do you believe that engaging in this conversation
could possibly advance U.S. interests and work to the benefit of
repressed Uighurs?
Answer. I will actively pursue the human rights of repressed
Uighurs, if confirmed by the Senate.
Question. Similarly, you will, no doubt, be called upon to engage
with some of America's security partners, like Saudi Arabia, UAE, and
Egypt, who are known to routinely torture their citizens at home and
abroad. You will need to engage in difficult, but important
conversations around how repression drives radicalization and foments
instability. How are we, members of the committee, to believe that your
very presence in these conversations will not send a signal that, for
now, the U.S. government stands not with the tortured, but with the
torturer?
Answer. As stated in Answer 1, in my capacity as Assistant
Secretary of the Treasury, I have made human rights a foundational
cornerstone of my work. In this role, I have advocated for--and driven
implementation of--more than 700 sanctions using human-rights and
corruption-related authorities. If confirmed, I look forward to making
clear that torture is illegal, counterproductive, and wrong.
Question. As you know, the State Department is currently grappling
with historically low morale due to mismanagement, ill-conceived hiring
freezes, and in some instances, outright political retribution. If
confirmed, many of the staff members that you will oversee have
dedicated their lives to fighting on behalf of the most marginalized,
including torture victims. In some instances, they've spent years in
conflict-ridden and inhospitable locations. They've seen first-hand how
torture and other forms of repression break bodies, break communities,
and break societies. Yet in their new boss, they will see that when the
going got tough, you decided to dispense with law and policy (e.g., the
Army Field Manual dictating acceptable interrogation techniques). They
will know that the torture policies you played a role in led to a
massive stain on America's standing in the world. They will know that
the torture inflicted on detainees held in U.S. custody meant that
these detainees, some of whom sought to harm America, could never be
brought to trial. They will know that your engagement with foreign
officials on human rights issues leaves the United States with a weak
hand.
Given all of this, how can you in good conscience argue that you
are the appropriate person to lead the human rights bureau and serve as
Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights?
Answer. As stated in previous answers and my testimony, in my
capacity as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, I have had the
opportunity to work with the outstanding professionals within the ``J
Family'' on a wide range of topics. Many staff know that I have made
human rights a cornerstone of my work and that I have advocated for--
and driven implementation of--more than 700 sanctions based upon human-
rights and corruption-related authorities. If confirmed by the Senate,
I look forward to leading this organization to advocate strongly around
the world for human rights.
Question. If confirmed, you will oversee a significant portion of
the State Department's foreign assistance in key accounts related to
human rights, refugees, and law enforcement, among other things. The
Trump administration has consistently sought to decimate U.S. foreign
assistance, including in many accounts you will oversee. Will you
commit to defend and strengthen critical foreign assistance aimed at
improving governance, upholding human rights, supporting democracy, and
precluding conflict?
Answer. Yes. In the FY 2020 Request, the administration requested
nearly $2 billion in foreign assistance funding to support democracy,
good governance, and human rights, as well as to mitigate conflict and
promote stabilization, reflecting its commitment to these priorities.
The work of the family of bureaus and offices which report to the
Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights--
including the foreign assistance they provide--is essential to
protecting the United States and projecting our values abroad. If
confirmed, I will do everything I can to support these bureaus,
offices, and U.S. missions overseas as they do this important work.
Question. Thousands of people have fled persecution, violence, and
deprivations in Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador. Many are unable to
secure protection from governments wracked with corruption. Yet the
U.S. has failed to stand up for major anti-corruption initiatives in
the region, and is cutting programs in these countries that were aimed
at improving access to protection in these countries--for instance, for
children targeted by gangs. Do you agree that cutting aid aimed at
fighting corruption and reducing crime serves the U.S. national
interest?
Answer. I understand that President Trump and Secretary Pompeo
believe the governments of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras must
take clear action to stem migration to the United States. These
governments must address corruption, enhance citizen security and the
rule of law, and promote economic development. I understand that the
United States continues to support anti-corruption efforts whether or
not we provide foreign assistance. It is clear that political will and
partner commitment are critical to ensuring the effectiveness of any
such assistance. If confirmed, I will make the case to our partners
that when we share a strong commitment, our combined efforts better
serve U.S. interests.
Question. What steps, if any, will you take to ensure the State
Department advances the human rights of people in these countries,
instead of undermining their ability to secure protection at home--
pushing many to flee in search of protection?
Answer. I believe the United States must continue to support human
rights and anti-corruption efforts regardless of whether we provide
foreign assistance through one specific program or another. If
confirmed, I will work to engender political will and partner
commitment so that all people at risk are not pushed to flee in search
of protection.
Question. How do you see this position to which you have been
nominated as supporting and/or being impacted by implementation of the
State Department's reorganization efforts?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Under Secretary for
Management to ensure any potential reorganizations are coordinated and
bureaus and offices within the J family are positioned to advance
foreign policy priorities.
Question. What is your current understanding of how any
reorganization efforts may affect the bureaus for which you would be
responsible?
Answer. I am not currently involved in any discussions related to
potential reorganization efforts within the Department of State that
would affect bureaus and offices within the J family.
Question. From your perspective, what affect has the hiring freeze
instituted under Secretary Tillerson had on staffing levels within the
bureaus and offices overseen by the position?
Answer. If confirmed, I will analyze the current staffing levels
within the bureau under my purview and work with the Under Secretary
for Management and Director General to ensure appropriate staffing
levels to advance foreign policy objectives.
Question. If confirmed, you will oversee the Bureau of Population,
Refugees, and Migration (PRM). In many cases, key U.S. allies are
struggling to host large numbers of refugees in the face of declining
aid and resettlement, both of which are key tools that help support the
stability of these allies as they continue to provide refuge to the
persecuted. As you know, the Trump administration has already reduced
refugee resettlement to the lowest level ever, and is considering
simply eliminating the program. Two weeks ago, 27 retired generals and
admirals--a veritable who's who of recent four and three-star
commanders of America's military--spoke out in opposition to this
decision. The retired generals and admirals wrote that, among other
things, the U.S. refugee resettlement program has ``demonstrated our
humanitarian leadership and values,'' ``provided life-saving
assistance,'' and ``served critical national security interests.'' In
particular, these retired military leaders referenced the Special
Immigrant Visa (SIV) and Iraqi Direct Access (P-2) programs that
directly support the safety of U.S. service members. Given the truth of
this perspective, if confirmed, will you state unequivocally that you
will strenuously advocate not just the maintenance of the refugee
resettlement program, but for a return to historic resettlement levels
for this critical national security tool?
Answer. I understand that the United States remains one of the
largest resettlement countries in the world. I am also aware that the
United States exercises international leadership as the single largest
donor of humanitarian assistance worldwide, last year delivering more
than $8 billion in life-saving aid around the world. If confirmed, I
will support the President's emphasis on coordinated, effective, and
efficient international responses, as well as the need for other
governments and private sector actors to contribute to humanitarian
efforts.
Question. In light of U.S. interests, as explained by former U.S.
military leaders, what steps will you take to strengthen--and
increase--US refugee resettlement?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the career
professionals dedicated to managing refugee programs. I understand that
the United States anticipates resettling up to 30,000 refugees in FY
2019 under the refugee ceiling. These refugees will join hundreds of
thousands of asylum seekers who are already inside the United States
awaiting adjudication of their claims. The refugee admissions program
must take into account this operational reality. I understand that in
consideration of both the U.S. national security interest and the
urgent need to restore integrity to an overwhelmed asylum system, the
administration is focusing on addressing the humanitarian protection
cases of those already in the country. Moreover, it is important that
the refugee ceiling number should not be viewed in isolation from
America's other, expansive humanitarian programs. I understand that in
FY 2018, the United States provided more than $8 billion in
humanitarian assistance, including to refugees.
Question. Please comment on PRM's response capacity and contingency
planning. To what extent does the current level of staffing of the PRM
bureau adequately address its fundamental areas of responsibility?
Answer. If confirmed, I am committed to ensuring that the Bureau of
Populations, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) has sufficient staff to
carry out its diplomatic, program management, and oversight functions,
including humanitarian response and contingency planning, in order to
implement efficiently and effectively the funds appropriated by
Congress. This includes having sufficient refugee coordinators overseas
as well as staff within the bureau at the Department.
Question. What is your view of the role of the United States in
global fora, such as the global compacts on refugees and migration?
Answer. Our National Security Strategy states that the United
States will continue to lead the world in humanitarian assistance and
that we will provide this generous assistance as close to refugees'
homes as possible in order to meet their needs until they can return
home safely, voluntarily, and with dignity. I understand that the
United States remains the largest single donor of humanitarian
assistance worldwide, and supports engagement to create conditions for
predictable response and greater burden-sharing among U.N. member
states and other stakeholders, including development actors, refugee-
hosting communities, and the private sector.
Question. What do you see as the key drivers for the U.S.
withdrawal from participation in the Global Compact on Migration?
Answer. I understand the United States does not support the Global
Compact on Migration or any process that imposes or has the potential
to impose international guidelines, standards, expectations, or
commitments that might constrain our ability to make decisions in the
best interests of our nation and citizens. The Compact is inconsistent
with how we choose to exercise our sovereignty in managing our
immigration system and establishing national policy and laws.
Question. What do you see as the U.S. role in refugee resettlement?
Answer. I understand that the United States offers humanitarian
protection to the most vulnerable of those who have experienced
persecution or who fear persecution, while prioritizing the safety and
security of the American people. The National Security Strategy says
that the United States will prioritize supporting displaced people
close to their homes to help meet their needs until they can safely and
voluntarily return home. I understand that U.S. humanitarian assistance
reaches millions of refugees and displaced people worldwide every year,
including those who will never be considered or qualify for
resettlement.
Question. The U.S. refugee ceiling for FY2019 is historically low
at 30,000. In the area of humanitarian protection, the administration
has stated that it is giving priority to the adjudication of asylum
cases. Do you think the United States will (or should) continue to be
the leading country for the resettlement of refugees? Why or why not?
Answer. I understand that the United States anticipates resettling
up to 30,000 refugees in FY 2019 under the refugee ceiling. These
refugees will join hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers who are
already inside the United States awaiting adjudication of their claims.
The refugee admissions program must take into account this operational
reality. I understand that in consideration of both the U.S. national
security interest and the urgent need to restore integrity to an
overwhelmed asylum system, the administration is focusing on addressing
the humanitarian protection cases of those already in the country.
Moreover, it is important that the refugee ceiling number should not be
viewed in isolation from America's other expansive humanitarian
programs. I understand that in FY 2018, the United States provided more
than $8 billion in humanitarian assistance, including to refugees.
Question. If you were making a recommendation to the President
today on what the resettlement number should be, what would that
recommendation be and why?
Answer. Each year, the President makes an annual determination,
after appropriate consultation with Congress, regarding the refugee
admissions ceiling for the following Fiscal Year. I understand that
determination is expected to be made prior to the start of Fiscal Year
2020 on October 1, 2019. I cannot speculate on internal and interagency
deliberations or communications involved in such deliberations.
Question. What message do you think it sends to other countries
that resettle refugees that the U.S. is drastically lowering its
resettlement number? Are you concerned about the ripple affect the U.S.
approach could have on refugee resettlement globally?
Answer. I understand the United States continues to be one of the
largest resettlement countries in the world. U.S. advocacy--through
engagement within the United Nations, other multilateral fora, as well
as bilaterally with nations around the world--focuses on expanding the
number of donors, increasing global contributions to humanitarian
appeals and response, and ensuring that American taxpayer dollars serve
our foreign policy interests. The administration applauds those
refugee-hosting countries that are making generous and critical
contributions to support refugees. I agree that a global response, with
the increasing financial support of multiple nations and non-
traditional actors, is critical to ensuring regional stability and
creating conditions so that refugees can return home voluntarily and
safely.
Question. What will your priorities be for the CT Bureau?
Answer. If confirmed, counterterrorism will be one of my top
priorities. While the United States has made real progress, the threats
from ISIS, al-Qa'ida, and Iran and its proxies are far from behind us.
I believe that the State Department is central to any successful
counterterrorism strategy and approach. In this effort, we must fully
leverage the Department's diplomatic, foreign assistance, and sanctions
tools, among others. While the United States will continue to lead the
global campaign to defeat terrorist groups, it is not a battle that we
can win on our own. Working with the Coordinator for Counterterrorism,
I will focus on ensuring our partners do their part and appropriately
share the burden.
Question. What policies or activities may need to be reassessed or
improved?
Answer. While our partners around the world have taken significant
steps in recent years to address the terrorist threats confronting the
international community *- particularly in countering the rise of
ISIS--significant gaps remain. Some countries still lack the basic
counterterrorism tools mandated by U.N. Security Council resolutions,
including UNSCR 2396 on terrorist travel, which the State Department
was instrumental in conceiving and adopting. I also worked closely with
the CT Bureau in my current capacity to secure UNSCR 2462, which
requires nations to criminalize the financing of terrorism even when
the financial flows are not associated with a particular terrorist
attack. Many nations have not addressed either of these two critical
resolutions. The State Department is assisting countries on the front
line to build these capabilities, but I believe we can do even more.
However, these partners must be equally committed to this effort. If
confirmed, one of my top priorities would be ensuring that our partners
are doing their part and that we are doing everything we can to help
them.
Question. How do you envision CT/CVE informing and supporting the
work of the other bureaus and offices you will be leading?
Answer. The Bureau of Counterterrorism (CT) guides and coordinates
the Department's countering violent extremism (CVE) policy, assistance,
and programming, which is conducted by a range of State Department
bureaus and offices including those that, if confirmed, I will lead.
Countering violent extremism requires a whole-of-government and whole-
of-society approach. The Department has many bureaus and offices that
can bring their expertise and programming to bear. If confirmed, I will
work to ensure the Department works collaboratively to bring all of our
resources to bear on CT and CVE.
Question. How will you address and resolve potential internal State
Department counterterrorism-related coordination issues?
Answer. While there are a number of bureaus and entities in the
State Department that play an important counterterrorism role, the
Bureau of Counterterrorism (CT) is at the forefront of these efforts.
The Global Engagement Center, the Special Envoy for the Global
Coalition to Defeat ISIS, and various other bureaus also have a vital
role to play. While these actors may have individual views at times
about counterterrorism policy, strategy, and approach, if confirmed, I
will work with other Department leaders to ensure that the Department
is speaking with one voice to the interagency, to our international
partners, and to the public and media.
Question. How do you see the role of the National Security Council
(NSC) in supporting the activities of the Bureau of Counterterrorism?
Answer. The National Security Council (NSC) plays a critical role
in setting United States counterterrorism policy, strategy, and
approach. The State Department works closely with the NSC in this
effort. For example, I understand that the State Department was
integrally involved in the development, drafting, and implementation of
the NSC-led National Strategy for Counterterrorism. The NSC's
interagency Counterterrorism Security Group, in which the State
Department participates, serves as the key venue to coordinate
counterterrorism policy, through which the CT Bureau and U.S. Chiefs of
Mission ensure foreign policy and counterterrorism efforts remain
aligned around the world. The CSG, along with the Deputies and
Principal Committee, are fora where the Department can ensure our
counterterrorism efforts are aligned to broader U.S. foreign policy
objectives.
Question. The annual Country Reports on Terrorism are often
criticized for putting forth politicized findings. Do you agree with
this assessment? What changes, if any, do you envision for this report?
Answer. The State Department's annual Country Reports on Terrorism,
submitted to Congress and released publicly, lay out the United States'
assessment of the state of the terrorist threat around the world,
significant developments, and other countries' efforts to address the
threat. I understand that career professionals serving at U.S.
embassies provide substantial input, and the reports are widely
reviewed by the experts in the State Department and other U.S. agencies
to ensure that they are accurate and comprehensive. I understand the
Department continually looks for ways to improve these products so that
they are useful and informative. If confirmed, I will consult with
stakeholders to determine whether improvements can be made, while fully
complying with the Congressional intent in the statute mandating the
report.
Question. What is your assessment of the effectiveness of U.S.
diplomacy in rallying the international community to find and eliminate
terrorist cells and to seize their financial assets?
Answer. The United States is a global counterterrorism leader that
relies on robust international partnerships to ensure a broad and
coordinated approach to disrupting and disabling terrorist networks. In
addition to domestic terrorist designations, the United States has
worked successfully to disrupt ISIS and al-Qa'ida financing through
multilateral organizations such as the Counter ISIS Finance Group, the
Terrorist Financing Targeting Center, and the U.N. Security Council
1267 Sanctions Committee. The State Department also is actively engaged
in a range of efforts to counter the far reaching terrorist and illicit
activities of Iran and Hizballah, and continues to urge other countries
to designate Hizballah in its entirety.
Question. Do you believe that the resources and funding dedicated
to U.S. counterterrorism programs at the State Department are adequate?
Answer. I greatly appreciate continued Congressional support for
State Department programs, including through the provision of
resources. I understand these funds allow the Department to sustain its
assistance in the highest priority areas and improve civilian
capabilities with some of its most important partners in Afghanistan,
Bangladesh, Iraq, the Philippines, Somalia, Tunisia, and beyond. I
understand the Department has developed a comprehensive program review
and budget planning process to ensure that it knows where every dollar
is spent, the effectiveness of its programs, and what threats and needs
exist. If confirmed, I look forward to supporting the Department's
process to develop its budget request and ensure that it requests the
resources it needs to execute the President's strategy.
Question. What is being done to win the ``hearts and minds'' of
individuals and groups that may be susceptible to the influences and
teachings of radical Islamic fundamentalists?
Answer. I understand the Bureau of Counterterrorism (CT) and USAID
have worked to implement a multi-pronged approach to offer alternatives
to individuals who may be susceptible to the influences and teachings
of radical Islamic fundamentalists. These strategic countering violent
extremism priorities and lines of effort inform policy formulation,
diplomatic engagement, and foreign assistance programming. If
confirmed, I will work with host and affected governments where Islamic
fundamentalists may be propagating problematic influences and
teachings.
Question. How does the State Department assess the effectiveness of
efforts to counter violent extremism?
Answer. It is my understanding that CT Bureau senior leadership has
been engaged on ensuring that CVE grants and cooperative agreements are
achieving desired results by overseeing (1) the development of a single
definition for what constitutes CVE programs or projects, and (2) the
establishment of a process to verify that CVE grants and cooperative
agreements comply with that definition.
Question. What particular issues and/or regions and countries
within DRL's broad mandate would you direct the DRL Assistant Secretary
to prioritize?
Answer. If confirmed, I will build on my work at the Treasury
Department and continue to support efforts to isolate and hold
accountable perpetrators of human rights abuses in countries such as
Venezuela, Iran, Syria, and China. I also will prioritize support for
vulnerable communities and persons, such as members of ethnic and
religious minority groups living in areas liberated from ISIS. If
confirmed, I will work with the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and
Labor (DRL) to support its Human Rights and Democracy Fund rapid
response mechanisms and other initiatives that reinforce U.S.
leadership in global human rights promotion. I am aware of longstanding
Congressional support for democracy programming, and I pledge to
respond quickly and flexibly to changing needs and opportunities to
advance human rights around the world.
Question. How would you help ensure that democracy and human rights
issues are adequately prioritized in our relations with other
countries?
Answer. I believe that promoting democracy and human rights is in
the best interests of the United States and should always be a part of
U.S. foreign relations.
If confirmed, I will raise these issues with counterparts,
including when I travel. Consistent with the National Security
Strategy, I will use diplomacy, sanctions, and other tools to isolate
and hold accountable states and leaders who threaten our interests and
whose actions run contrary to our values. I will also support efforts
to strengthen democratic institutions and empower democracy and human
rights activists, including through U.S. assistance.
Also, if confirmed, I will meet with a broad cross-section of civil
society and opposition leaders during my overseas trips. The United
States values the voice and opinions of civil society and has a long
history of engaging leaders both inside and outside the government, a
tradition I will continue. Hearing this range of views is essential in
understanding country conditions, including the state of democracy and
human rights, and plays a key role in informing and advancing U.S.
foreign policy.
Question. How do you view DRL's role within the broader State
Department and its relation to the regional bureaus?
Answer. The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL)
plays a key role by leading the State Department's efforts to promote
human rights, which is in the best interests of the United States. DRL
champions American values, including the rule of law and the rights of
individuals that contribute to strong, stable, prosperous, and
sovereign states. American security is advanced in the struggle against
authoritarianism and terrorism when we stand for the freedoms of
religion, speech, and the press, and the rights of people to assemble
peaceably and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.
I commit to you that, if confirmed, I will be a fierce advocate for DRL
continuing to play this vital role, including in its relationships with
regional bureaus.
Question. Some believe that the United States must balance its
promotion of ``values'' issues with its pursuit of interests, while
others tend to argue that promoting human rights and democracy can
itself support U.S. interests, particularly over the long term. What is
your view? Are there sometimes trade-offs between the pursuit of more
immediate security or other interests and these arguably longer term
objectives? If so, how should the United States balance these trade-
offs?
Answer. The National Security Strategy states that, ``Liberty, free
enterprise, equal justice under the law, and the dignity of every human
life are central to who we are as a people.'' It also makes clear that
a commitment to human rights is essential to advance U.S. influence
abroad, and that respect for human rights produces peace, stability and
prosperity--making it integral to U.S. national security. I believe the
promotion of human rights is in the best interests of the United
States, and these issues and concerns should always be at the table
when foreign policy decisions are made. If confirmed, I pledge to
ensure that human rights and democracy always receive due attention and
consideration.
Question. Many experts argue that the world is in the midst of a
``democratic recession,'' with evidence of democratic erosion within
existing democracies while key non-democracies such as China are
arguably becoming both more repressive internally and more influential
internationally. How would you direct DRL to respond to these
developments? What implications, if any, do these trends have for DRL
policies and programs?
Answer. I share these concerns regarding democratic backsliding in
many parts of the world. In fact, I believe that the situation may be
even more dire than suggested by the question. A number of repressive
regimes around the world are actively colluding with one another to
counter U.S. and allied efforts to foster democracy and the rule of
law. If confirmed, I will work with the Bureau of Democracy, Human
Rights, and Labor (DRL) and others to use diplomacy, sanctions, and
other tools to isolate and hold accountable states and leaders who act
contrary to human rights norms. I am aware of longstanding
Congressional support for democracy programming, and I pledge to
respond quickly and flexibly to changing needs and opportunities to
strengthen democratic institutions and advance human rights around the
world. In each of these cases, I will seek to reinforce U.S. leadership
in democracy and human rights promotion, for example by using DRL's
Human Rights and Democracy Fund rapid response mechanisms to leverage
partnerships with governments, the private sector, faith-based
organizations, and other stakeholders.
Question. INL has contributed to the U.S. government's efforts to
shine a light on foreign corrupt practices around the world. Please
assess how INL's anti-corruption programming has contributed to U.S.
foreign policy efforts and what more, if any, can INL do to ensure U.S.
priorities in this area are achieved.
Answer. I understand that the Bureau of International Narcotics and
Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) has played a variety of important roles
in addressing corruption internationally. Its extensive capacity-
building programs provide foreign partners with the know-how to adopt
effective anticorruption reforms and equip officials with the ability
to implement them. INL also has worked with partners to help establish
consensus international rules of the road such as the U.N. Convention
against Corruption. It also has helped to develop political consensus
on these issues in bodies such as the Group of Twenty. Within the U.S.
government, I understand that INL assists in implementing the Global
Magnitsky Act and coordinates the State Department's corruption visa
restrictions.
Question. How have INL programs, activities, and funding been
realigned to contribute to U.S. efforts to combat the opioid crisis?
Answer. The State Department has developed a comprehensive new
strategy to disrupt the supply of illicit synthetic drugs that fuel the
U.S. opioid crisis. I understand that to support its implementation,
the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL)
allocated FY 2018 funding toward a new Drug Supply Reduction (DSR)
program and developed a dedicated DSR funding request in the
administration's FY 2020 budget request. DSR programs include expanding
public-private partnerships; targeting trafficking by mail; increasing
scheduling of new substances; and strengthening national capacities to
investigate, detect, and interdict opioids. I understand that these
efforts complement INL's bilateral counterdrug programs as well as the
Department's ongoing work abroad to stop flows of synthetic opioids
into the United States and prevent the crisis from spreading.
Question. What further efforts, if any, would you propose for INL
to pursue under your leadership at State?
Answer. I believe that the Bureau of International Narcotics and
Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) plays an important role in keeping
Americans safe by countering crime, illegal drugs, and instability
abroad. I support INL's continued focus on countering narcotics and
transnational crime; helping foreign countries assess, build, reform,
and sustain competent and legitimate criminal justice systems; and
building partnerships and international frameworks to combat 21st
century crime.
Question. What is your opinion of the effectiveness of the GCJ
office in promoting accountability for perpetrators of atrocities,
including genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes?
Answer. The Office of Global Criminal Justice (J/GCJ) leads U.S.
policy formulation on redressing atrocities--including genocide, war
crimes, and crimes against humanity--and is the U.S. government's
primary liaison with criminal tribunals and non-judicial transitional
justice mechanisms. My understanding is that J/GCJ--despite its small
size--provides senior policymakers with expert advice and actively
ensures that accountability for atrocities is a core component of U.S.
policy in any country or region. If confirmed, I will review J/GCJ's
activities and take steps to maximize its effectiveness.
Question. How can the office improve its effectiveness? What do you
believe is the future of the U.S.-ICC relationship in meeting the
mutual goals of holding perpetrators of atrocity crimes accountable for
their actions?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review the activities and mandate of
the Office of Global Criminal Justice (J/GCJ) and take steps to
maximize its effectiveness.
Regarding the U.S. relationship with the International Criminal
Court (ICC), I understand that current U.S. policy is not to cooperate
with or provide assistance to the ICC given the ICC's attempts to
assert jurisdiction over U.S. personnel. Rather, the United States
supports meaningful accountability and justice for victims of
atrocities, including through legitimate and effective prosecutions by
international, hybrid, mixed, and national tribunals.
Question. Please comment on how adequately the TIP Office is
resourced to carry out its mission. What issues would you direct the
TIP Ambassador to prioritize within its broad mission?
Answer. Both the White House and the State Department have
demonstrated that combating human trafficking is a priority. I know
that Secretary Pompeo is committed to making sure the Office to Monitor
and Combat Trafficking in Persons (J/TIP) has the resources it needs to
continue the Department's critical work on this front. If confirmed, I
will work with Congress and Department colleagues to address any needs
J/TIP may have while making the most efficient use of its existing
resources.
I will also work closely with Ambassador Richmond to continue the
excellence of the TIP Report, the State Department's year-round
diplomatic engagement and support for the President's Interagency Task
Force to coordinate interagency anti-trafficking efforts, and its
international programming. Together these efforts advance U.S.
interests, consistent with the National Security Strategy.
Question. What was the award this year to Global Fund? What was the
objective behind previous PEMS awards of over $23 million to now just a
little over $1 million this year? Please explain.
Answer. The Global Fund has received more than $46 million to date
from the U.S. government and has leveraged an additional $39 million
from other governments, all while absorbing and seeking to program
these resources at a rate commensurate with its growth as an
organization. I understand the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking
in Persons (J/TIP) has conducted an open and transparent competition
for the third tranche of PEMS funding, which expires September 30, and
will announce award(s) soon.
If confirmed, I will work hard to ensure that the $100 million
appropriated to date by Congress for the Program to End Modern Slavery
(PEMS) will support transformational programming that leads to
measurable and substantial reductions of the prevalence of modern
slavery in targeted sectors and populations.
Question. Will you support efforts to ensure that the tier rankings
accurately reflect efforts to combat human trafficking in each country?
How will you help ensure the TIP report is seen as credible and
objective?
Answer. Combating trafficking in persons (TIP) is a priority for
this administration and will be a priority of mine at the Department,
if confirmed. From my work at the Treasury Department, I know the
Department's TIP Report to be the gold standard in assessing government
efforts to monitor and combat trafficking in persons. If confirmed, I
will work closely with Ambassador Richmond and State Department experts
to ensure that the TIP Report is as credible, objective, and accurate
as possible, based solely on a country's efforts to combat trafficking,
as required by the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. I am told the
Department has had robust engagement with this committee on the Report,
and I look forward to continued partnership, if confirmed.
Question. The President's Interagency Task Force to Monitor and
Combat Trafficking in Persons (PITF), established pursuant to the
Trafficking Victims Protection Act and chaired by the Secretary of
State, does not appear to have yet convened during the Trump
administration. TIP Ambassador-designate John Cotton Richmond indicated
in recent testimony that he hoped the PITF would convene prior to the
end of the year. In your view, what is the value of the PITF? Would you
work with the TIP Ambassador to support the Secretary of State's
convening of a PITF meeting?
Answer. President Trump opened the meeting of the President's
Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons
(PITF) on October 11, 2018, at the White House. Secretary Pompeo
chaired the meeting and principals of 14 other U.S. departments and
agencies attended, as did the U.S. Advisory Council on Human
Trafficking, recipients of the 2018 Presidential Award for
Extraordinary Efforts to Combat Trafficking in Persons, and other
distinguished guests. I understand that plans are underway for PITF to
meet again in 2019.
If confirmed, I will work closely with Ambassador Richmond and
others across the government in 2020 to commemorate progress over the
previous 20 years (since enactment of the Trafficking Victims
Protection Act and the Palermo Protocol) and set an even higher bar for
future federal anti-trafficking efforts.
Question. The United States has been a leader for decades in
promoting human rights and ensuring the protection of human rights
defenders across the world. In accordance with this leadership, we've
been gratified to see the Department's use of Global Magnitsky
designations to hold individuals and entities who commit serious human
rights violations or who engage in acts of corruption accountable by
freezing their assets and denying their visa requests to the United
States. Do you support the use of Global Magnitsky designations and
calling out human rights abusers as a tool of foreign policy in order
to hold individuals and entities to account?
Answer. Yes. The Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act
is an invaluable tool. If confirmed, I will seek to continue to use it
with respect to human rights violations or abuses. As I have noted in
answers to other related questions, I have been and will continue to be
a strong advocate for the application of financial sanctions in
response to human rights abuse and corruption. I believe that, because
I understand Treasury Department processes related to these
designations, I will be a ``force multiplier'' within interagency
deliberations on use of ``GloMag'' authorities.
Question. Do you agree that that there should be additional
resources provided to those who review Global Magnitsky designations in
order to ensure a more robust sanctions regime that targets the worst
human rights abusers?
Answer. The Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act is a
valuable tool, which I will seek to use with respect to human rights
violations or abuses. If confirmed, I will review the resources
available for such designations and ensure that the State Department
supports those efforts effectively.
Question. What role do you see the 7031(c)-authority playing in
upholding human rights abroad?
Answer. The 7031(c) authority is a valuable tool which promotes
accountability of those involved in gross human rights violations and
can deter future abuses. Its usage sends a clear signal that the United
States stands for its values and will not ignore gross human rights
violations.
Question. This past May, Secretary Pompeo stated that the U.S.
``firmly opposes criminalization, violence and serious acts of
discrimination such as housing, employment and government services
directed against LGBTQI persons.'' He went on to say that the U.S. uses
``public and private diplomacy to raise human rights concerns, provide
emergency assistance to people at risk, and impose visa restrictions
and economic sanctions against those who persecute them.'' What
specific actions will you take to support the human rights of LGBTQI
people abroad?
Answer. If confirmed, I am committed to protecting the human rights
and fundamental freedoms of all persons, including historically
marginalized or persecuted populations such as LGBTI persons. The
safety and security of LGBTI persons is of the utmost importance. LGBTI
status or conduct remains criminalized in some seventy countries, so I
will focus on supporting local efforts that may lead to
decriminalization. I will work with the Bureau of Democracy, Human
Rights, and Labor (DRL) and State Department regional bureaus to
develop strategies that prioritize regular discussions with local LGBTI
community and civil society partners. I will also raise human rights of
LGBTI persons in the context of larger human rights and democracy
concerns wherever possible. I also note that, while in the Department
of the Treasury, I supported application of financial sanctions against
Ayub Kataev a ruthless Russian proxy who has perpetrated grave human
rights abuses against the LGBTI community in Chechnya. In May of this
year, I supported designations of Abuzayed Vismuradov and the Terek
Special Rapid Response Team for detention and torture of LGBTI
individuals. If confirmed, I will actively pursue the use of both State
and Treasury authorities to protect the LGBTI community abroad.
Question. In countries around the world, there are criminal
penalties associated with exercising sexual and reproductive health and
rights. LGBTQI people are criminalized for who they love and are
regularly prosecuted or incarcerated for consensual same sex sexual
conduct or in places like Indonesia, Chechnya and Egypt. There are also
women who are in jail in places like El Salvador and Senegal for having
miscarriages or abortions. These are gross human rights violations. As
Undersecretary, would you raise concerns about laws that criminalize
same-sex relationships and women's personal health decisions in public
and private diplomatic settings?
Answer. If confirmed, I am committed to protecting the human rights
and fundamental freedoms of all persons, including historically
marginalized or persecuted populations such as women and LGBTI persons.
I will also raise LGBTI and women's human rights issues in the context
of larger human rights and democracy concerns wherever possible,
including addressing decriminalization of LGBTI status or conduct.
Women should not be jailed for having a miscarriage. If confirmed, I
will raise this issue where relevant.
Question. Furthermore, do you plan on instructing DRL to report on
LGBTI rights and access to sexual and reproductive health services in
the Human Rights Report?
Answer. If confirmed, I will support the Bureau of Democracy, Human
Rights, and Labor's approach to the Human Rights Report (HRR), which
includes reporting on the rights of LGBTI individuals. I understand
that the HRR subsection entitled ``Reproductive Rights'' by the
previous administration was renamed ``Coercion in Population Control''
consistent with the requirement of U.S. law to report ``wherever
applicable, practices regarding coercion in population control,
including coerced abortion and involuntary sterilization.'' Additional
material on maternal mortality, access to contraception, and similar
issues is available via hyperlink in the text of each country chapter
and in an appendix to the HRR. If confirmed, I will ensure the State
Department continues to comply with statutory reporting requirements
and delivers objective, evidence-based, rigorous human rights reports.
Question. In August 2017, the Burmese military forces increased
their attacks against the Rohingya in Rakhine State in a coordinated
and widespread campaign of indiscriminate killing, rape, and razing of
villages. Following a series of investigations, including by the United
Nations Fact Finding Mission and the State Department's contracting
with PILPG, there have been credible reports documenting the egregious
human rights violations that have occurred in Rakhine State. These
reports have noted that legal determinations should be considered,
including crimes against humanity and genocide. Previously, the State
Department has acknowledged these atrocities as ethnic cleansing, which
has been the U.S.'s stance toward the atrocities taking place in Burma.
Do you believe that these crimes amount to crimes against humanity or
genocide?
Answer. I am appalled by the ethnic cleansing of Rohingya in
northern Rakhine State. Credible reports of massacres, gang rape, and
village and mosque burnings shock the conscience, and I am committed to
promoting accountability for those responsible.
The U.S. determination of atrocity crimes, including genocide or
crimes against humanity, is generally made by the Secretary of State. I
would emphasize that there is no hierarchy of atrocity crimes; they are
all equally abhorrent and shocking. If confirmed, I will consult with
experts within the State Department and examine all the information to
provide the Secretary with my best advice.
Question. What position and specific actions will you take with the
Burmese military?
Answer. If confirmed, I will prioritize promoting accountability
for those responsible for these abuses, and justice for victims as part
of larger efforts to promote and defend human rights. Further, I will
work with State Department counterparts and likeminded partners to
promote democratic governance, reduce the military's role in politics,
and strengthen civilian control of the security forces to safeguard
human rights for all in Burma.
Question. The United Nations Fact Finding Mission, the U.S.
government, and several non-governmental organizations have documented
the Burmese military's killing of tens of thousands of Rohingya, cases
of summary executions, mass rapes, and burnings of villages, which led
to the displacement of over 700,000 to neighboring Bangladesh. As of
August 2019, over 900,000 Rohingya reside in refugee camps in
Bangladesh. As Undersecretary, will you commit to more funds and focus
going to these refugees through PRM?
Answer. The United States has led the donor response to the Rakhine
State crisis since it began in August 2017, providing nearly $542
million in humanitarian assistance in Bangladesh and Burma. If
confirmed, I will continue U.S. leadership in the humanitarian response
to this crisis, as well as support efforts in developing durable
solutions. It is important for the international community to continue
providing humanitarian assistance to vulnerable populations affected by
the Rakhine State crisis, while durable solutions are being pursued,
given that conditions in Rakhine State are not yet conducive for
voluntary, safe, dignified, and sustainable returns.
Question. How will you ensure that the basic human rights of the
Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh are met, including rights to food,
livelihood, health care and education?
Answer. I understand that the United States is the leading
contributor of humanitarian assistance in response to the Rakhine State
crisis, having provided nearly $542 million since the escalation of
violence in August 2017, of which nearly $464 million is for programs
inside Bangladesh. This money funds programs that save lives. It helps
provide protection; emergency shelter; water, sanitation, and hygiene;
healthcare; psychosocial support; food and nutritional assistance; non-
food items; site management and development; education, and access to
livelihood opportunities to approximately one million beneficiaries in
Bangladesh, most of whom are Rohingya women and children from Burma,
and the related needs of Bangladeshi host communities, and other
vulnerable populations affected by the crisis. If confirmed, I will
work with the international community to support efforts of the United
Nations and its partners to ensure that human rights and humanitarian
needs of Rohingya refugees are met, while durable solutions are being
pursued, given that conditions in Rakhine State are not yet conducive
for voluntary, safe, dignified, and sustainable returns.
Question. Additionally, given that the most effective way to
permanently resolve the Rohingya refugee crisis is by restoring their
citizenship in Burma and ensuring safe, dignified and voluntary
repatriation process, how do you propose employing the Department's
resources to resolving the Rohingya refugee crisis in a more permanent
manner?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue the State Department's
efforts to engage, influence, and lead actions of the international
community, including like-minded states, non-traditional partners, and
international organizations, to resolve the Rakhine State crisis and
advance U.S. interests and values in Burma. I will support efforts and
mechanisms at the United Nations to foster justice and accountability
for human rights abuses and violations in Rakhine State and other areas
of Burma. These include the Fact Finding Mission for Myanmar, the
Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar, the U.N. Special Envoy
to Myanmar, and the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the human rights
situation in Myanmar. If confirmed, I will also continue to call on the
government of Burma to fully implement the Annan Commission
recommendations, including recommendations related to access to
citizenship and freedom of movement, and to create the conditions that
would allow for voluntary, safe, dignified, and sustainable returns.
Question. What do you see as the role of PRM during this process?
Answer. If confirmed, I will support the Bureau of Populations,
Refugees, and Migration (PRM) to lead the humanitarian response and
work towards developing durable solutions for communities affected by
the Rakhine State crisis. PRM will continue its role working with U.N.
bodies, other international and local humanitarian organizations, like-
minded countries, and communities affected by the Rakhine State crisis
to provide life-saving humanitarian assistance and protection to those
in need. Through diplomatic engagements from the beginning of the
crisis, the U.S. government with PRM's lead, has effectively pressed
Bangladesh to take a principled humanitarian approach to addressing the
refugee influx. PRM's longstanding relationships with U.N. agencies and
international organizations in both Burma and Bangladesh led to an
effective humanitarian response since the outbreak of violence in
August 2017.
Question. The Department of State's documentation of atrocities in
Northern Rakhine State released in September 2018 says the violence was
``extreme, large-scale, widespread, and seemingly geared toward both
terrorizing the population and driving out the Rohingya residents.'' In
response to these atrocities, the U.S. administration has sanctioned
five military officers and two military units thus far under Global
Magnitsky. Most recently, in recognition of the second anniversary of
the ongoing genocide against the Rohingya people, Secretary Pompeo
publicly designated the main architects of the Rohingya genocide,
including the military Commander-in-Chief, General Min Aung Hlaing and
Deputy Commander-in-Chief Soe Win. What do you believe the impact of
these sanctions have been?
Answer. I share your concern regarding the atrocities perpetrated
by Burmese security forces against civilians during the ethnic
cleansing of Rohingya, and your commitment to seek accountability and
justice. I welcomed the United States' leadership for being the first
nation to take public action against the Burmese Commander in Chief and
the Deputy Commander in Chief for their command responsibility for the
gross violations of human rights in Northern Rakhine State. I believe
sustained diplomatic engagement, working with likeminded partners,
using U.N. mechanisms, such as the International Investigative
Mechanism for Myanmar, and other policy tools, including sanctions, can
both promote accountability and deter future abuses.
Question. Do you believe that the individuals publicly designated
in July should also have their assets frozen?
Answer. Absolutely. If confirmed, I will prioritize promoting
accountability for those responsible for these abuses. I will aim to
continue U.S. leadership of the international response to the Rakhine
State crisis and efforts to deter further atrocities. In this regard, I
will consider the utility of all policy tools at our disposal,
including further sanctions. Further, I would work closely with the
U.S. Mission to the U.N. and like-minded countries and regional
partners, to press the government of Burma to grant unhindered access
to U.N. mechanisms, including the International Investigative Mechanism
for Myanmar, the U.N. Special Rapporteur, and the U.N. Special Envoy.
Question. Do you pledge to support targeted sanctioning mechanisms
when credible information about military officials' role in violations
of human rights are provided to the U.S. government?
Answer. Absolutely. If confirmed, I will support the use of
targeted sanctions when the State Department has credible information
about military officials' role in gross violations of human rights. One
advantage I bring to the ``J Family'' if confirmed, is a detailed
understanding of Treasury processes, which will influence and
strengthen the manner in which diplomatic reporting is developed and
provided to the Treasury for targeted financial designations.
Question. The State Department's 2018 Human Rights Report says
there were ``substantial interference with the rights of peaceful
assembly and freedom of association, including arrests of peaceful
protesters and restrictions on civil society activity; restrictions on
religious freedom; significant restrictions on freedom of movement,''
among other human rights issues in Burma. How do you propose to protect
and promote democratic norms and ideals in a country where the military
is conducting human rights abuses with impunity and the space for civic
engagement is shrinking?
Answer. I understand that the State Department has focused on
changing behavior and promoting accountability in the civilian and
military sectors of the Burmese government to ensure the human rights
of all persons in Burma, including religious, ethnic and other
minorities are respected. If confirmed, I will work with Department
experts to promote democratic governance, protect fundamental freedoms,
reduce the military's role in politics, and strengthen civilian control
of the security forces to safeguard human rights for all in Burma.
Question. To eliminate opposition and consolidated power,
Guatemala's Congress is trying to pass a new legislation governing
NGOs. If passed, the law would give the Ministry of Interior, and by
extension the president and his allies, the power to shut down any
organization that challenges them under the guise of protecting public
law and order. What are the specific actions that the Department will
take to support a vibrant and active civil society in Guatemala,
particularly because this is so tied to regional stability and
migration?
Answer. Protecting and supporting a vibrant and active civil
society, including human rights defenders (HRDs) is a key U.S. foreign
policy priority. The United States supports HRDs as they work
tirelessly--and sometimes at great personal risk--to protect human
rights and fundamental freedoms, advocate for government transparency
and accountability, promote rule of law, and expose corruption.
Democratic governance is strongest when NGOs are able to operate free
from burdensome regulation.
The fight against corruption and impunity is of critical importance
in Guatemala. The Department takes threats against civil society actors
seriously. Those who are involved in such threats can face consequences
from the U.S. government including possible economic sanctions and visa
restrictions.
Question. Given the administration's recent unvetted decision to
cut funding from Guatemala and other Northern Triangle countries, how
do you intend to ensure regional stability without this funding?
Answer. The State Department will continue its long history of
engagement with the countries in Central America by working with them
and others in the hemisphere on the many shared challenges we face,
including narcotics smuggling, human trafficking, illegal immigration,
natural disasters, malign outside influences, and others. It is only
through coordinated, cooperative action that the nations of the
hemisphere can successfully address such problems, and it is that very
coordinated effort that will help promote stability in the region. If
confirmed, I will continue Department efforts to work bilaterally, and
through multilateral organizations such as the Organization of American
States, to ensure peaceful relations within the hemisphere.
Question. Guatemala has made incredible strides in promoting
accountability for abuses of power, including cases of human rights
atrocities and acts of corruption. One of the emblematic institutions
created to address corruption and impunity is the U.N.-backed
International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG). Since
2007, CICIG identified more than 600 elected officials, businesspeople,
and bureaucrats in corruption and broke up 60 criminals' networks in
the country. On January 7, 2019, Morales announced that his
administration would unilaterally cancel the international agreement
that established CICIG, defying Constitutional Court orders in what
amounts to a technical coup. Just two weeks ago, CICG's mandate ended
in Guatemala, and since that time human rights organizations and civil
servants have reported physical insecurity and threats against their
safety. How do you plan to address the ongoing human rights situation
in Guatemala, particularly as CICIG is no longer operating?
Answer. I understand that the departure of CICIG does not affect
the State Department's commitment to continue working with Guatemalan
judicial partners to build their capacity to fight corruption and
impunity. If confirmed, I will support the Guatemalan people and
institutions in their ongoing fight against corruption and impunity,
and will use all the tools at the Department's disposal in order to do
so.
Question. Do you pledge to support other justice and anti-
corruption mechanisms in Guatemala through designated U.S. funding?
Answer. I understand that the departure of CICIG does not affect
the State Department's commitment to continue working with Guatemalan
judicial partners to build their capacity to fight corruption and
impunity. If confirmed, I will support the Guatemalan people and
institutions in their ongoing fight against corruption and impunity,
and will use all the tools at the Department's disposal in order to do
so.
Question. Will you raise concerns about Morales' attacks on CICIG
or other mechanisms and support foreign policy measures to defend these
bodies?
Answer. I understand that the departure of CICIG does not affect
the State Department's commitment to continue working with Guatemalan
judicial partners to build their capacity to fight corruption and
impunity. If confirmed, I will support the Guatemalan people and
institutions in their ongoing fight against corruption and impunity,
and will use all the tools at the Department's disposal in order to do
so.
Question. In his written response to a question on Tibet during his
confirmation hearing, Secretary Mike Pompeo said that he ``will express
publicly, and at the highest levels of government, that Chinese
authorities need to engage in meaningful and direct dialogue with the
Dalai Lama or his representatives, without preconditions, to lower
tensions and resolve differences.'' Since 2010, there have been no
dialogue between the two sides. If you are designated as the US Special
Coordinator for Tibetan Issues, what could be the actions that
Secretary Pompeo could take to fulfill this commitment?
Answer. As I noted in my testimony, my involvement in supporting
Tibetan human rights and the Dalai Lama dates to 1995. I was on the
Foreign Relations Committee staff when the Special envoy position was
created by law. This administration is committed to raising Tibetan
issues with Chinese government counterparts at multiple levels. If
confirmed, and if I am designated as the U.S. Special Coordinator for
Tibetan Issues, I will continue these efforts to establish conditions
that lead to a direct and meaningful dialogue between Chinese
authorities and the Dalai Lama or his representatives, without
preconditions, that leads to a sustainable settlement.
Question. No U.S. Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues has been
able to visit Tibet to date, primarily because the Chinese government
refuses to grant access. However, Chinese officials purporting to
represent Tibet have been freely coming to the United States and
interacting with all levels of the society here. In 2018, the
Reciprocal Access to Tibet Act was passed to change the situation.
Since the Tibetan Policy Act of 2002 mandates that the Special
Coordinator for Tibetan Issues should undertake ``regular travel to
Tibetan areas of the People's Republic of China,'' if designated to the
position, how would you promote reciprocal access to Tibet?
Answer. President Trump has regularly stated his desire for
reciprocity in the U.S.-China relationship. If confirmed and designated
to the position of Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues, I will raise
concerns about the lack of regular access to the Tibetan Autonomous
Region (TAR) for U.S. diplomats, journalists, academics, and others. I
will work to ensure that U.S. diplomats, as well as journalists, civil
society representatives, legislators, religious leaders, and scholars
have full access to China, including the TAR and Tibetan areas. I also
will support full implementation of the Reciprocal Access to Tibet Act.
If confirmed by the Senate, and if named as the Special Coordinator, I
will seek aggressively and repeatedly to gain access to Tibet.
Question. Since 2007, China has adopted regulations that give to
the Chinese atheist state the authority to identify the reincarnation
of Tibetan Buddhist masters, in total violation of Tibetan religious
freedom. The Chinese Communist Party plans to identify its own
reincarnation of the next Dalai Lama. The Tibetan Policy and Support
Act of 2019, which is before Congress, makes it a policy of the United
States to ``ensure that the identification and installation of Tibetan
Buddhist religious leaders, including a future 15th Dalai Lama, is
determined solely within the Tibetan Buddhist faith community, in
accordance with the universally-recognized right to religious
freedom.'' Would you commit to making the preservation of religious
freedom of Tibetan Buddhists a priority of your term in dealing with
the Chinese authorities and categorically let them know that the
authority of the current Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Buddhists should be
respected on matters of reincarnations?
Answer. The administration is deeply concerned about Chinese
government interference in the selection, education, and veneration of
Tibetan Buddhist religious leaders. I believe that Tibetan Buddhist
communities, like all faith communities, should be able to select,
educate, and venerate their leaders without government interference. If
confirmed, I will urge the Chinese government to respect that decisions
regarding the selection of Tibetan Buddhist leaders rest with the Dalai
Lama, Tibetan Buddhist leaders, and the people of Tibet.
Question. The major rivers of Asia that flow from the Tibetan
Plateau and are subject to current and potential dam and diversion
projects by China. These projects are planned and implemented without
the proper involvement of the Tibetan people, who are the best stewards
for the preservation of the delicate environment of the Tibetan
Plateau. India and other governments in Asia are increasingly worried
about China's plans to dam rivers originating in Tibet which serve over
a billion people downstream. Given that the Tibetan waters play an
important role in the Indo-Pacific region, would you raise the need to
fully involve Tibetans in the preservation of Tibet's fragile
environment with the Chinese authorities? Would you call on the Chinese
authorities to engage China's neighbors for the development of a
regional framework on water security?
Answer. If confirmed, I will encourage all countries, including
China, to manage their water resources soundly and to cooperate on the
management of shared waters. I will press China to make decisions on
dams and other major water-related infrastructure needs deliberatively,
based on the best science available, and in transparent consultation
with all affected stakeholders, including the people of Tibet.
Question. Will you commit to pressing the Chinese authorities to
allow for the opening of a U.S. consulate in Lhasa as highlighted in
the Tibetan Policy and Support Act of 2019 that is before the Congress?
Answer. Yes. I am committed to pressing the Chinese government to
allow the opening of a U.S. Consulate in Lhasa, consistent with the
goals of the Tibetan Policy and Support Act. I am also committed, if
confirmed, to working closely with Congress in pursuit of our shared
goal of seeing Americans have full access to China, including the
Tibetan Autonomous Region and other Tibetan areas.
Question. President Trump has made it clear on many occasions that
he believes torture is effective and the U.S. should resume
waterboarding and approve additional torture techniques. In 2015,
President Trump said, ``Would I approve waterboarding? You bet your ass
I would. In a heartbeat. I would approve more than that. It works.and
if it doesn't work, they deserve it anyway for what they do to us.'' In
2016, President Trump wrote, ``I have made it clear in my campaign that
I would support and endorse the use of enhanced interrogation
techniques if the use of these methods would enhance the protection and
safety of the nation. Though the effectiveness of many of these methods
may be in dispute, nothing should be taken off the table when American
lives are at stake.'' Also in 2016, President Trump said, ``We should
go much stronger than waterboarding. That's the way I feel.'' Do you
agree with President Trump's statements? Please answer yes or no.
Answer. I do not believe that torture is effective, and I have
never supported the use of torture. In fact, as noted in my hearing, I
opposed the use of waterboarding at Guantanamo, when the issue arose
while I served at the Department of Defense.
Question. Do you agree with President Trump's claim that torture is
effective? What is the basis for your answer?
Answer. As stated in Answer 73, I do not believe torture is
effective.
Question. You have said that you do not support waterboarding. If
the President decides to ``approve'' waterboarding, and it is up to you
to implement, would you carry out the President's wishes?
Answer. No. I would resign from office before implementing
waterboarding.
Question. If the President wanted to re-institute waterboarding,
putting aside any legal arguments, would you counsel him against it,
based on your prior knowledge of the effects of waterboarding?
Answer. Yes. I opposed contemplation of waterboarding for use at
Guantanamo, and I would continue to do so.
Question. Do you agree with President Trump's desire to ``go much
stronger than waterboarding''?
Answer. I opposed contemplation of waterboarding for use at
Guantanamo, and I would continue to do so.
Question. How do you plan to explain or discuss President Trump's
public support for torture with countries around the world?
Answer. The United States does not support any action which could
constitute torture.
Question. How do you plan to explain or discuss your own role in
previous U.S. government policy regarding torture with countries around
the world?
Answer. As noted in multiple previous answers, and as stated during
my testimony, I have never advocated for torture. I will strongly
represent U.S. policy against the use of torture.
Question. What would you say in meeting a dictator who wants to use
torture?
Answer. That this is unacceptable. Torture should never be employed
under any circumstances. Nations have undertaken solemn national and
international obligations that reject the use of torture, and any
regime which violates these obligations will suffer the opprobrium of
the United States, our friends and Allies.
Question. President Trump said in January 2017 that he would allow
Defense Secretary Mattis, who opposed reinstating torture, to
``override'' him on this issue. Secretary Mattis left the Defense
Department in January 2019. Do you agree with President Trump that the
U.S. should reinstate torture?
Answer. I have always opposed the use of torture.
Question. If the President wanted to re-instate techniques that
constitute torture, how would you counsel him?
Answer. I have always opposed the use of torture.
Question. In June 2018, the Trump administration announced that the
U.S. was withdrawing from the U.N. Human Rights Council. Do you agree
with President Trump's decision to withdraw the U.S. from the U.N.
Human Rights Council? Why or why not?
Answer. Yes, I agree with the administration's decision to withdraw
from the Human Rights Council. As Secretary Pompeo noted, ``the only
thing worse than a council that does almost nothing to protect human
rights is a council that covers for human rights abuses.''
Question. Do you agree with President Trump's response to the
murder of Jamal Khashoggi?
Answer. The murder of Jamal Khashoggi was a terrible crime, one
that President Trump swiftly condemned. The United States was the first
nation in the world to take action against those responsible for his
murder, including imposing sanctions and travel bans on 17 Saudi
government officials. I understand that the administration continues to
review information on the killing and take appropriate action, as well
as press the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to hold accountable any individual
involved in the murder.
Question. How would you characterize the message that the Trump
administration has sent in its response to Khashoggi's murder?
Answer. President Trump has made clear in no uncertain terms that
the killing of Jamal Khashoggi was an ``unacceptable and horrible
crime'' that required a swift U.S. government response and full
accountability for those involved.
Question. Do you think it has undermined the U.S. ability to stand
up for human rights and denounce extrajudicial killings around the
world?
Answer. The administration has taken a strong stance against Jamal
Khashoggi's killing and continues to take steps to promote human rights
and denounce extrajudicial killings. The administration sanctioned 17
Saudi government officials involved in Mr. Khashoggi's killing using
the executive order that implements the Global Magnitsky Human Rights
Accountability Act. The administration then designated Saudi government
officials involved in the killing under Section 7031(c) of the
Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Act,
2018. The administration further highlighted Mr. Khashoggi's killing--
and denounced extrajudicial killings throughout the world--in the
Department's 2018 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.
Question. Do you agree with President Trump's decision to believe
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman over the assessment of the U.S.
Central Intelligence Agency?
Answer. The President and Secretary Pompeo have been clear that we
will hold accountable all involved. I am not in a position to discuss
matters of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency.
Question. If you were counseling President Trump in the aftermath
of Khashoggi's murder, would you recommend any changes to his approach?
Answer. The administration took concrete measures to promote
accountability for Jamal Khashoggi's murder. President Trump swiftly
condemned Mr. Khashoggi's killing. In addition, the United States was
the first nation in the world to take action against those responsible
for his murder, including imposing sanctions and travel bans on 17
Saudi government officials. I understand the administration continues
to review information on the killing and take appropriate action, as
well as press the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for full accountability.
Question. In October 2018, President Trump told a cheering crowd at
a campaign rally that there was once tough talk ``back and forth''
between himself and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un ``and then we fell
in love.'' What is your assessment of President Trump's statement that
he ``fall in love'' with North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un, a notorious
human rights abuser?
Answer. The administration's goal is to achieve the final, fully
verified denuclearization of the DPRK, as committed to by Chairman Kim
in Singapore. I understand it is engaged in a diplomatic effort to
eliminate the DPRK's U.N.-prohibited WMD and ballistic missile program.
Meanwhile, as the President has said, sanctions on the DPRK remain in
effect.
On human rights, the DPRK is among the most repressive
authoritarian states in the world. Its human rights situation is
deplorable. If confirmed, I will continue the administration's efforts
to work with the international community to raise awareness, highlight
abuses and violations, increase access to independent information, and
promote respect for human rights in the DPRK.
Question. Do you think that is an appropriate statement for the
leader of the United States to make?
Answer. The administration's goal is to achieve the final, fully
verified denuclearization of the DPRK, as committed to by Chairman Kim
in Singapore. On the deplorable human rights situation in North Korea,
the United States continues to work with the international community to
raise awareness, highlight abuses and violations, increase access to
independent information, and promote respect for human rights in the
DPRK. If confirmed, I would support these efforts.
Question. In February 2019, Trump said that he believed Kim Jong
Un's claim that he did not have prior knowledge of the mistreatment of
Otto Warmbier, an American college student who died days after being
released, in a coma, from 17 months in captivity in 2017. Do you agree
with President Trump's decision to believe Kim Jong Un about the
condition of Otto Warmbier?
Answer. As Secretary Pompeo has said, ``The North Korean regime is
responsible for the death of Otto Warmbier and the humanitarian
violations that are continuing to take place.'' If confirmed, I will
work to advance human rights and accountability in the DPRK by
supporting documentation efforts; fostering the free flow of
information into, out of, and within the DPRK; and promoting strong
international pressure on the DPRK to respect human rights. I also have
personally engaged with the member states of the Gulf Cooperation
Council (GCC) in my current capacity to bring to a speedy end the use
of DPRK workers in the region--a practice which I believe is tantamount
to use of slave labor. I am pleased that our Arab partners have made
clear that they will not allow these workers to stay beyond the U.N.-
imposed deadline, and several countries expelled the workers prior the
U.N. General Assembly, at my request.
Question. In August 2019, President Trump said the Chinese leader
Xi had acted responsibly in handling the Hong Kong protests, for
calling the demonstrations ``riots,'' and for saying the issue is
between ``Hong Kong and China.'' Do you agree with President Trump's
stance on the protests in Hong Kong?
Answer. In speaking about Hong Kong, the President has been clear
that he supports democracy and liberty, and that he expects the
situation in Hong Kong to be resolved in a humane and peaceful fashion.
I support this stance.
Question. How do you plan to explain or discuss President Trump's
apparent disdain for human rights with countries around the world?
Answer. President Trump has made clear that human rights are in our
national interest, and his National Security Strategy (NSS) reflects a
strong commitment to human rights. The NSS states that, ``Liberty, free
enterprise, equal justice under the law, and the dignity of every human
life are central to who we are as a people.'' It also makes clear that
a commitment to human rights is essential to advance U.S. influence
abroad, and that respect for human rights produces peace, stability and
prosperity--making it integral to U.S. national security. Secretary
Pompeo has emphasized to this committee that he is firmly committed to
defend the human rights of all people and will work to strengthen
democracy where it exists and promote it where it does not. If
confirmed, I will raise human rights concerns with counterparts,
including when I travel.
Question. How would you characterize President Trump's approach to
human rights?
Answer. As President Trump said in Warsaw, ``We value the dignity
of every human life, protect the rights of every person, and share the
hope of every soul to live in freedom. That is who we are. Those are
the priceless ties that bind us together as nations, as allies, and as
a civilization.'' Secretary Pompeo noted in his remarks during the
release of the 2018 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices that the
State Department continues to play a leading role in championing human
rights around the globe, honoring the vision of our founders and
expressing our time-honored American aspiration for all people to be
free. If confirmed, I will uphold those values in defending the human
rights of all people and will work to strengthen democracy where it
exists and promote it where it does not.
Question. If confirmed, what changes would you make or recommend
for his administration's rhetoric and approach to human rights?
Answer. The National Security Strategy makes it clear that,
``Liberty, free enterprise, equal justice under the law, and the
dignity of every human life are central to who we are as a people.'' It
also emphasizes that a commitment to human rights is essential to
advance U.S. influence abroad, and that respect for human rights
produces peace, stability, and prosperity--making it integral to U.S.
national security. That message is clear, and one that, if confirmed, I
will be pleased to advance.
Question. In May 2019, on World Press Freedom Day, President Trump
criticized the press, saying, ``They go out of their way to cover me
inaccurately.'' President Trump told Russian leader Vladimir Putin in
June 2019, ``Get rid of them [journalists]. Fake news is a great term,
isn't it? You don't have this problem in Russia, but we do.'' Do you
agree with President Trump's attacks on independent media?
Answer. An informed citizenry is a fundamental requirement for free
nations and people. If confirmed, I will actively advocate with
governments for free expression and freedom of the press. I will also
work to strengthen independent voices in the media, and push for
accountability for violence against or killings of journalists around
the world.
Question. Leaders around the world, particularly authoritarian and
autocratic leaders, have repeated President Trump's use of ``fake
news.'' What is your assessment of the impact that authoritarian
leaders are using the President of the United States' words to further
attack the media in their countries?
Answer. Freedom of opinion and expression is enshrined in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and as an obligation in the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as a fundamental
freedom. All parties to the Covenant have an obligation to provide
their inhabitants with these rights. If countries fall short, we should
call them out and press for reforms. If confirmed, I will actively
advocate with governments for free expression and freedom of the press,
and I will push for accountability for violence against or killings of
journalists around the world.
Question. How, in the face of President Trump's rhetoric will you
stand up for journalists facing violence, threats, and persecution?
Answer. Freedom of speech is guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution.
Internationally, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights cover freedom of
speech. If countries fall short, we should call them out and push for
reforms. If confirmed, I will actively advocate with governments for
free expression and freedom of the press, and I will push for
accountability for violence against or killings of journalists around
the world.
Question. Do you agree with President Trump's sentiment that Putin
is lucky to be able to get rid of journalists?
Answer. Freedom of expression is fundamental to democracy. If
confirmed, I will actively advocate with governments for freedom of
expression, including for the press. I will also work to strengthen
independent voices in the media, and push for accountability for
violence against or killings of journalists around the world.
Question. How do you plan to explain or discuss President Trump's
disdain for a free and independent media with countries around the
world, especially those struggling with press freedom?
Answer. I understand the Department of State is firmly committed to
protecting and promoting press freedom. In addition to its diplomatic
engagement on that issue, its annual Country Reports on Human Rights
Practices document the status of press and media freedoms, violence and
harassment against journalists, and censorship and content restrictions
in each country around the world. The Department also has programs to
support economic, legal, and regulatory conditions to enable media
freedom, as well as support to media outlets and journalists to improve
professionalism and financial sustainability. If confirmed, I will
continue this work and actively advocate with governments for free
expression and freedom of the press.
Question. In May 2017, President Trump said in Saudi Arabia, ``We
are not here to lecture. We are not here to tell other people how to
live, what to do, who to be or how to worship. Instead, we are here to
offer partnership, based on shared interests and values.'' Do you agree
with President Trump that the U.S. should not advocate for democratic
values abroad?
Answer. As President Trump said in Warsaw, ``We value the dignity
of every human life, protect the rights of every person, and share the
hope of every soul to live in freedom. That is who we are. Those are
the priceless ties that bind us together as nations, as allies, and as
a civilization.'' Secretary Pompeo has emphasized to this committee
that he is firmly committed to defend the human rights of all people
and will work to strengthen democracy where it exists and promote it
where it does not. If confirmed, I will raise human rights concerns
with counterparts, including when I travel. Promoting human rights and
defending the dignity of all persons is in the best interest of the
United States.
Question. How do you plan to explain or discuss President Trump's
disdain for democratic values with countries around the world?
Answer. The President's National Security Strategy (NSS) reflects
the administration's commitment to democratic values. The NSS states
that ``We will continue to champion American values and offer
encouragement to those struggling for human dignity in their societies.
There can be no moral equivalency between nations that uphold the rule
of law, empower women, and respect individual rights and those that
brutalize and suppress their people.'' If confirmed, I will use a range
of diplomatic tools to support democracy and human rights around the
world.
Question. Do you think the Muslim ban is smart policy? Do you have
any concerns that it will undermine our effectiveness or advocacy for
human rights around the world? What is your assessment of the impact
the Muslim ban has had on relationships with Muslim majority countries?
Answer. There is no Muslim ban. It is my understanding that
Presidential Proclamation 9645 includes exceptions and waiver
provisions that will permit travel in certain circumstances and that
the Department of State's consular officers identify and expedite those
individuals with urgent travel needs who qualify for exceptions or
waivers. If confirmed, I will seek opportunities to understand if there
are impacts on our bilateral relationships with Muslim majority
countries.
Question. How will you justify it to Muslim majority countries?
Answer. If confirmed, I will seek opportunities to explain that Per
Section 2 of Executive Order 13780 of March 6, 2017 (Protecting the
Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States), the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in consultation with the
Department of State and the Director of National Intelligence,
conducted a global review to determine what additional information, if
any, was needed from each foreign country to assess whether foreign
nationals who seek to enter the United States pose a security or safety
threat. As part of that review, DHS developed a comprehensive set of
criteria to evaluate the information-sharing practices, policies, and
capabilities of foreign governments on a worldwide basis. That review
also included a 50-day period of engagement with foreign governments
aimed at improving their information sharing practices (an engagement
facilitated by our embassies and consulates overseas). After
considering DHS' recommendations, and foreign policy, national
security, and counterterrorism goals, the President deemed it necessary
to impose certain restrictions on the entry of nonimmigrants and
immigrants who are nationals of certain countries in Presidential
Proclamation 9645.
Question. Do you agree with President Trump's approach to
immigration policy in the United States?
Answer. The Department of State and partner agencies have the
responsibility to implement the immigration laws of the United States
consistently and correctly. If confirmed, I will take this
responsibility very seriously.
Question. Do you agree with the Trump administration's enforcement
of a zero tolerance policy that forcibly separated nearly 2,800
children from their parents and maybe thousands more that have yet to
be identified??
Answer. I understand that this is a matter of domestic immigration
policy that falls under the authorities of the Department of Homeland
Security and Department of Justice. Further, I understand that this
issue is the subject of ongoing litigation in the Federal courts. I am
therefore unable to speculate about how it might or might not affect
our diplomatic engagement.
Question. What is your assessment of the impact of the
administration's zero-tolerance family separation policy on the
children that were separated from their families and do you believe
that separation caused these children any type of emotional or mental
distress??
Answer. I understand that this is a matter of domestic immigration
policy that falls under the authorities of the Department of Homeland
Security and Department of Justice. Further, I understand that this
issue is the subject of ongoing litigation in the Federal courts. I am
therefore unable to speculate about how it might or might not affect
our diplomatic engagement.
Question. How do you plan to credibly push other countries to
improve human rights when the Trump administration has created a
massive family separation crisis on its own soil??
Answer. I understand that this is a matter of domestic immigration
policy under the purview of the Department of Justice and the
Department of Homeland Security. Further, I understand that this issue
is the subject of ongoing litigation in the Federal courts. I am
therefore unable to speculate about how it might or might not affect
our diplomatic engagement.
Question. What is your assessment of the impact of the Trump
administration's efforts to restrict asylum to foreign nationals on our
relationships with foreign countries??
Answer. I understand that the new Interim Final Rule on Asylum
Eligibility and Procedural Modifications issued by the Department of
Homeland Security and Department of Justice only recently went into
effect. It is too soon to judge its effect, if any, on our
relationships with foreign countries.
Question. Did you oppose the implementation of any enhanced
interrogation techniques that were ultimately approved by Secretary
Rumsfeld?
Answer. I have testified regarding my opposition to waterboarding,
which was--to my knowledge--never approved by Secretary Rumsfeld. As
documented by the Senate Armed Services Committee in its definitive
work on this matter, I also was concerned that certain techniques
should not be simply delegated to the Combatant Commander, and that
instead the Secretary of Defense should be notified prior to their use
in order to ensure maximum supervision, accountability, and oversight.
Question. When did you first hear concerns from the field about
concerns of the effects of interrogation techniques?
Answer. I served as the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Special Operations/Low-Intensity Conflict (SO/LIC) from the
summer of 2002 through the late fall of 2003. Shortly after taking
office, I began hearing about a wide range of concerns relating to
Guantanamo, ranging from interrogation topics to the non-transparent
inflow of detainees from CENTCOM, to the lack of a process for
repatriating detainees of no further intelligence or prosecutorial
value, to a complete disregard for civilian oversight. As I testified,
upon taking office within SO/LIC, I was confronted in short order by
multiple broken or non-existent processes at GTMO.
Question. From whom and how did you first hear concerns about the
use of interrogation techniques at GTMO?
Answer. I do not recall.
Question. What did you do upon learning of concerns?
Answer. A number of things. First and foremost, I needed to create
an office within SO/LIC to investigate the full range of issues about
which we were hearing. I proposed, and received permission, to create
the first Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs,
and to staff it with a mix of career civilian and military
professionals to bring greater oversight and transparency.
Question. What did you do, personally to address the concerns that
were raised about interrogation techniques at GTMO?
Answer. I began asking for information. As stated in Answer 113,
the responsibilities within SO/LIC were broad and demanding, and I was
operating as the PDASD without a confirmed Assistant Secretary. I
therefore created the DASD for Detainee Affairs and staffed it with
experts of the highest caliber in order to assist with information
gathering.
Question. As you know, my staff and I have reviewed a number of
memos you regarding interrogation techniques under the Bush
administration. Taken as a whole, it is clear that you sought to
advance the effort by the Bush administration to implement techniques
that our nation later agreed constitute unlawful torture. Are there any
specific memos or documents you can point to that demonstrate you
sought to stop, block, or in which you objected to any of the
techniques implemented by the Bush administration?
Answer. I have never advocated for torture, and have testified to
the fact that I strongly opposed contemplation of waterboarding at
GTMO. The Senate Armed Services Committee report of November 20, 2008,
is the definitive report into the matter and had the benefit of a
bipartisan investigation over more than a year, with access to the
documentary record.
Question. You testified that when it comes to torture, you would
``uphold the law.'' But ensuring that the United States does not make
the mistakes it made in the past, we need leaders who will stand up for
what is right, what is humane, and what is best for the country, even
if it may be ``legal.'' How can we be confident that you will do just
that?
Answer. I am known as a forthright, honest public servant who has
devoted most of his professional career to defending our nation. I mean
what I say, and I do what I say, which is why both my previous and
current nominations have received bipartisan support.
Question. When you served in the Bush administration, did you ever
question that you were not standing up for what was right, as the
administration was expanding and advancing the use of torture on
detainees?
Answer. As stated in multiple other answers, I have never advocated
for torture.
Question. At your hearing, you maintained that you never advocated
for waterboarding. Are there any memos that you wrote or approved that
demonstrate you did not support the use of waterboarding? Please
provide specific information that would enable us to locate them. If
the response requires a classified response, please provide it in the
appropriate form.
Answer. I refer you to the Senate Armed Services Committee, which
conducted the definitive investigation into interrogation at
Guantanamo. I have testified that I opposed discussion of
waterboarding. The Senate report makes clear that waterboarding was
flagged as ``red'' by the Working Group that Secretary Rumsfeld
established indicating significant legal or policy concerns. My office
made clear our policy objections, contributing to that red color
coding. I also note that waterboarding was not approved for use at GTMO
by Secretary Rumsfeld.
Question. As you know, there have been troubling reports of
targeting and retaliation against career employees based on their
perceived political affiliation or work on policy initiatives under the
previous administration. Do you agree that such actions have no place
in federal government?
Answer. You mentioned this in the hearing. I have not been privy to
the details of the reports, but based on the information I have, I
agree.
Question. If confirmed, do you commit to familiarize yourself with
these allegations, including reading the recent Inspector General
report in the International Organizations Bureau?
Question. Yes.
Question. What will you do to ensure that all employees under your
leadership understand that any retaliation, blacklisting, or other
prohibited personnel practices will not be tolerated?
Answer. This will be communicated clearly, and any such behaviors
will be referred through appropriate State Department mechanisms.
Question. A public Deloitte document cited you describing Marigold,
a product you were selling as: ``Deloitte's proprietary, web-based
Marigold due diligence solution, for example, automates risk assessment
and monitoring through proprietary algorithms and an automated alert
system.'' Other sales documents claimed that Marigold ``automates and
standardizes information gathering tasks that commonly consume the
majority of an analyst's time'' and ``can potentially provide an
estimated 54% reduction in labor vs. comparative manual due-diligence
investigation.''
According to several of your former colleagues, the ``automated
risk assessment'' that ran on ``proprietary algorithms'' never worked
as advertised, and analysts manually performed the work and uploaded it
into the web-based platform. In addition, several of your former
colleagues said that the ``automated alert system'' never worked, and
instead analysts would periodically re-run their checks and upload any
new information into the system.
Did you ever overstate Marigold's automated and alert capabilities
(or any other supposed capabilities) to internal and/or external
clients, including the U.S. government?
Answer. No. The Marigold software had the capability to automate
risk assessments and to automatically alert users of changes to risk
profiles.
Question. In your meeting with SFRC Democratic staff, you said that
you never claimed to clients that Marigold could perform ``persistent''
due diligence. However, sales documents state that Marigold's
``persistent monitoring provides even greater cost savings over time.''
Furthermore, another sales document with your name on it describes
Marigold's ``four-phased process of Aggregating, Automating and
Alerting, Analyzing, and Persisting.'' Please explain the discrepancy
between your statement to staff and Deloitte sales documents.
Answer. Marigold had the capability to automate the due diligence
process by gathering information and providing users with automatic
alerts. This automation allowed some clients to realize cost savings.
Question. SFRC Democratic understands that a complaint was filed
against you for misrepresenting the capabilities of Marigold. Were you
ever made aware of this complaint?
Answer. No. I am not aware of any complaints.
Question. To your best knowledge, did any employees of Deloitte
ever express dissatisfaction about the way that you or others presented
Marigold to existing internal or external clients and potential
clients, including the U.S. government?
Answer. I do not recall any dissatisfaction.
Question. To your best knowledge, did any employees of Deloitte
ever refuse to write promote Marigold in the way that you wanted them
to?
Answer. I do not recall any such circumstances.
Question. If Marigold worked as portrayed in interviews you gave
and in sales documents, why did Deloitte stop selling the product soon
after you left the company?
Answer. I cannot speculate as to the business decisions made after
I separated from Deloitte.
Question. Did you ever attempt to become a partner at Deloitte? If
so, what was the outcome? If you were not selected as a partner, were
the issues with Marigold a contributing factor?
Answer. I was in the process of converting from Managing Director
to Partner when I was asked to join the administration and accepted the
President's nomination to the Treasury Department.
Department of Treasury Office of Terrorist Financing and Financial
Crimes
Since June 2017, you have served as the Assistant Secretary for
Terrorist Financing U.S. Department of the Treasury. Results of
Employee Viewpoint Surveys, which poll employees, (see table below)
show declines across a range of factors, including morale, since you
have taken office. Please review the table and answer the questions
below:
Results of EVS Surveys for Department of Treasury: ``Asst Sec Terrorist Financing''
Percent Responding Positive: (``Strongly Agree and Agree'' or ``Very Satisfied and Satisfied'')
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016 2017 2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arbitrary action, personal 69.0 58.5 42.9
favoritism and coercion for
partisan political purposes are
not tolerated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prohibited Personnel Practices (for 85.4 70.5 65.6
example, illegally discriminating
for or against any employee/
applicant, obstructing a person's
right to compete for employment,
knowingly violating veterans'
preference requirements) are not
tolerated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my organization, senior leaders 65.7 57.4 47.2
generate high levels of motivation
and commitment in the workforce.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My organization's senior leaders 85.1 72.0 57.8
maintain high standards of honesty
and integrity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have a high level of respect for 77.5 58.4 59.4
my organization's senior leaders.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How satisfied are you with the 68.5 48.7 47.1
policies and practices of your
senior leaders?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Considering everything, how 67.5 64.7 57.1
satisfied are you with your job?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Considering everything, how 70.0 62.2 52.1
satisfied are you with your
organization?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each of the categories above witnessed a decline in the number of
employees who responded favorably. Note that the results are only
reported if there is a sufficient response pool to be significant. For
each, please explain, separately, what you attribute for the decline in
the percentage of employees who agree with the statements.
Question. To what do you attribute the decline in the percentage of
employees who agreed that arbitrary action, personal favoritism, and
coercion are not tolerated?
Answer. I note that data from 2016 and 2017 is completely unrelated
to my tenure in office. To the extent that this data shows trends, it
predates my confirmation by the Senate. I also note that the scores
highlighted have been picked from among other questions which showed
either no significant change year over year, or noteworthy
improvements, particularly with regard to my leadership of the
organization.
As examples:
Percent Responding Positively
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Treasury-
TFFC 2017 TFFC 2018 wide 2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am given a real opportunity to improve my skills in my organization. 56.7 68.3 62.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My performance appraisal is a fair reflection of my performance. 73.2 82.0 75.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Creativity and innovation are rewarded. 46.1 56.9 40.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My supervisor is committed to a workforce representative of all 65.1 67.6 75.0
segments of society.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supervisors work well with employees of different backgrounds. 64.6 67.9 68.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall, how good a job do you feel is being done by the manager 59.2 75.6 63.9
directly above your immediate supervisor?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have a high level of respect for my organization's senior leaders. 58.4 59.4 53.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will not speculate as to the reason for the increases or declines
in employee responses. However, I take seriously all results of the EVS
survey, which is why I convened several management meetings to address
areas requiring improvement and created a new position to oversee
efforts to drive change. I enacted a plan to respond to many of these
challenges in 2018 and a revised version for 2019 continues to guide
our office's efforts to improve.
Question. To what do you attribute the decline in the percentage of
employees who agreed that prohibited personnel practices are not
tolerated than before you took office?
Answer. I note that data from 2016 and 2017 is completely unrelated
to my tenure in office. To the extent that this data shows trends, it
predates my confirmation by the Senate. I also note that the scores
highlighted have been picked from among other questions which showed
either no significant change year over year, or noteworthy
improvements.
I will not speculate as to the reason for the increases or declines
in employee responses. However, I take seriously all results of the EVS
survey, which is why I convened several management meetings to address
areas requiring improvement and created a new position to oversee
efforts to drive change. I enacted a plan to respond to many of these
challenges in 2018 and a revised version for 2019 continues to guide
our office's efforts to improve.
Question. To what do you attribute the decline in the percentage of
employees who agreed that senior leaders generate high levels of
motivation and commitment than before you took office?
Answer. I note that data from 2016 and 2017 is completely unrelated
to my tenure in office. To the extent that this data shows trends, it
predates my confirmation by the Senate. I also note that the scores
highlighted have been picked from among other questions which showed
either no significant change year over year, or noteworthy
improvements.
I will not speculate as to the reason for the increases or declines
in employee responses. However, I take seriously all results of the EVS
survey, which is why I convened several management meetings to address
areas requiring improvement and created a new position to oversee
efforts to drive change. I enacted a plan to respond to many of these
challenges in 2018 and a revised version for 2019 continues to guide
our office's efforts to improve.
Question. To what do you attribute the decline in the percentage of
employees who agreed that their organization's senior leaders maintain
high standards of honesty and integrity than before you took office?
Answer. I note that data from 2016 and 2017 is completely unrelated
to my tenure in office. To the extent that this data shows trends, it
predates my confirmation by the Senate. I also note that the scores
highlighted have been picked from among other questions which showed
either no significant change year over year, or noteworthy
improvements.
I will not speculate as to the reason for the increases or declines
in employee responses. However, I take seriously all results of the EVS
survey, which is why I convened several management meetings to address
areas requiring improvement and created a new position to oversee
efforts to drive change. I enacted a plan to respond to many of these
challenges in 2018 and a revised version for 2019 continues to guide
our office's efforts to improve.
Question. To what do you attribute the decline in the percentage of
employees who agreed that they have a high level of respect for their
organization's senior leaders than before you took office?
Answer. I note that data from 2016 and 2017 is completely unrelated
to my tenure in office. To the extent that this data shows trends, it
predates my confirmation by the Senate. I also note that the scores
highlighted have been picked from among other questions which showed
either no significant change year over year, or noteworthy
improvements.
I will not speculate as to the reason for the increases or declines
in employee responses. However, I take seriously all results of the EVS
survey, which is why I convened several management meetings to address
areas requiring improvement and created a new position to oversee
efforts to drive change. I enacted a plan to respond to many of these
challenges in 2018 and a revised version for 2019 continues to guide
our office's efforts to improve.
Question. To what do you attribute the decline in the percentage of
employees who agreed that they are satisfied with the policies and
practices of their senior leaders than before you took office?
Answer. I note that data from 2016 and 2017 is completely unrelated
to my tenure in office. To the extent that this data shows trends, it
predates my confirmation by the Senate. I also note that the scores
highlighted have been picked from among other questions which showed
either no significant change year over year, or noteworthy
improvements.
I will not speculate as to the reason for the increases or declines
in employee responses. However, I take seriously all results of the EVS
survey, which is why I convened several management meetings to address
areas requiring improvement and created a new position to oversee
efforts to drive change. I enacted a plan to respond to many of these
challenges in 2018 and a revised version for 2019 continues to guide
our office's efforts to improve.
Question. To what do you attribute the decline in the percentage of
employees who agreed that they are satisfied with their jobs and their
organization than before you took office?
Question. I note that data from 2016 and 2017 is completely
unrelated to my tenure in office. To the extent that this data shows
trends, it predates my confirmation by the Senate. I also note that the
scores highlighted have been picked from among other questions which
showed either no significant change year over year, or noteworthy
improvements.
I will not speculate as to the reason for the increases or declines
in employee responses. However, I take seriously all results of the EVS
survey, which is why I convened several management meetings to address
areas requiring improvement and created a new position to oversee
efforts to drive change. I enacted a plan to respond to many of these
challenges in 2018 and a revised version for 2019 continues to guide
our office's efforts to improve.
Question. In January 2018, the Treasury Department released its
public list of prominent Russian political figures and business leaders
with ties to Putin and the Russian government. Treasury's list was an
exact replica of the Forbes 2017 list of the world's billionaires, and
reporting indicates that a senior administration official replaced the
original list drawn up by Treasury analysts with the Forbes list
shortly before publication. To the best of your knowledge, which
administration official made that decision, and why?
Answer. I cannot comment on the internal deliberative processes of
the administration.
Question. What was your role in the oligarch's list process, and
did you object to the original list being replaced by the Forbes list?
Answer. I cannot comment on the internal deliberative processes of
the administration.
Question. During the period under which the Rusal and EN+ sanctions
de-listings were being reviewed by Congress, were you or anyone else at
the Treasury Department aware of Rusal's intention/desire to invest in
a commercial venture in the state of Kentucky? If so, how were you made
aware?
Answer. The administration has provided multiple briefings to
Congress regarding sanctions pertaining to EN+ and Rusal. I believe the
sanctions on Oleg Deripaska, Rusal, and EN+ sent a strong message to
Vladimir Putin and the oligarchs that we will not tolerate their
continued malign behavior. Our efforts to hold Oleg Deripaska
accountable for his actions continue in a number of overseas
jurisdictions.
Question. In April 2003, you wrote a memo to Secretary Rumsfeld
titled ``Interrogation Methods for GTMO.'' In it, you recommended that
Secretary Rumsfeld approve 11 interrogation techniques which you
supported but, at that point, he no longer did. These are the same
techniques that the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) report
concluded led to abuses in Afghanistan and Iraq. In the memo, which is
quoted in the SASC report, you wrote that the techniques were ``not
controversial from either a legal, or policy standpoint.''
(If a classified response is necessary to respond to any of the
questions below fully and completely, please provide a response in
classified form, but only to the extent necessary to protect classified
information).
Question. Putting the legal concerns of the military JAGs aside,
how did you determine that the techniques were not controversial from a
policy standpoint?
Answer. As I testified, I am not an expert on interrogation
techniques, nor am I a lawyer. We relied upon descriptions provided at
the time by interrogation specialists and upon the determinations by
counsel of which techniques were legally permissible. As I have noted
in other answers, I also created an office charged with detainee
matters, and I relied upon the advice of career professionals within
the Office of the Secretary of Defense. The combination of these two
factors (legal and policy) was used by the Working Group to categorize
different requested authorities, as described in the SASC report.
Question. During your time at Special Operations/Low-Intensity
Conflict (SO/LIC), did you ever oppose the use of any interrogation
techniques not in the Army Field Manual?
Answer. I opposed the use of waterboarding, which I understand was
not included in the Army Field Manual at the time.
Question. If so, which techniques did you oppose using? Was your
opposition recorded in any memos you authored or approved? If so,
please provide specific information that would enable us to identify
and locate those memos. If a classified response is necessary, please
provide it.
Answer. I refer to Answer 140 and multiple other answers indicating
that the Senate Armed Services Committee conducted the definitive
investigation into these topics and had access to the historical record
on a bipartisan basis.
Question. Did you ever advocate for or approve the use of the
enhanced interrogation technique (EIT) known as ``hooding,'' which
involved placing a hood or blindfold over the detainee's head during
questioning?
Answer. As made clear in materials furnished to the committee,
including a letter from Dr. Mark Jacobson, who both worked in SO/LIC
and later as an investigator for Senator Levin on the Senate Armed
Services Committee staff, I was not in the position of deciding on
interrogation-related matters. The role of SO/LIC at the time was to
endeavor to create a transparent process whereby requests made by the
Joint Task Force at GTMO were routed through multiple levels of
scrutiny, including multiple layers of legal review, to ensure that the
Secretary of Defense was provided with a fulsome and considered set of
views.
Question. If so, were you aware of the objections of military JAGs
and law enforcement professional interrogators (FBI, NCIS, etc.) to
this technique?
Answer. I depended upon law enforcement and intelligence
professionals, together with legal counsels from multiple organizations
and services, to provide their best advice on interrogation techniques
requested for use at Guantanamo. The purpose of the Working Group was
to assemble a wide array of individuals to develop a set of
recommendations for the Secretary. As I am not an expert in
interrogation, I relied upon SO/LIC staff to attend various meetings
where differing views were expressed.
Question. Were you aware that some of JAGs and law enforcement
professional interrogators believed that this technique constituted
torture?
Answer. I have never supported the use of any interrogation
technique that constituted torture. I do not recall that the various
Working Group draft reports ever defined this technique as torture.
Within SO/LIC, we relied upon determinations by the Department of
Defense's Office of the General Counsel regarding the legality of
proposed measures.
Question. Do you now consider this technique to be abusive? If so,
why did you not consider it abusive at the time?
Answer. I have never supported the use of any interrogation
technique that constituted torture. I do not recall that the various
Working Group draft reports ever defined this technique as torture.
Within SO/LIC, we relied upon determinations by the Department of
Defense's Office of the General Counsel regarding the legality of
proposed interrogation measures.
Question. Did you ever advocate for or approve the use of the EIT
known as ``threat of transfer,'' which involved threatening to transfer
the subject to a 3rd country that the subject is likely to fear would
subject him to torture or death?
Answer. As stated in Answer 142, I was not in the position of
deciding on interrogation-related matters. The role of SO/LIC at the
time was to endeavor to create a transparent process whereby requests
made by the Joint Task Force at GTMO were routed through multiple
levels of scrutiny, including multiple layers of legal review, to
ensure that the Secretary of Defense was provided with a fulsome and
considered set of views.
Question. If so, were you aware of the objections of military JAGs
and law enforcement professional interrogators (FBI, NCIS, etc.) to
this technique?
Answer. I depended upon law enforcement and intelligence
professionals, together with legal counsels from multiple organizations
and services, to provide their best advice on interrogation techniques
requested for use at Guantanamo. The purpose of the Working Group, was
to assemble a wide array of individuals to develop a set of
recommendations for the Secretary. As I am not an expert in
interrogation, I relied upon SO/LIC staff to attend various meetings
where differing views were expressed.
Question. Were you aware that some of them believed that this
technique constituted torture?
Answer. I have never supported the use of any interrogation
technique that constituted torture. I do not recall that the various
Working Group draft reports ever defined this technique as torture.
Within SO/LIC, we relied upon determinations by the Department of
Defense's Office of the General Counsel regarding the legality of
proposed measures.
Question. Do you now consider this technique to be abusive? If so,
why did you not consider it abusive at the time?
Answer. I have never supported the use of any interrogation
technique that constituted torture. I do not recall that the various
Working Group draft reports ever defined this technique as torture.
Within SO/LIC, we relied upon determinations by the Department of
Defense's Office of the General Counsel regarding the legality of
proposed measures.
Question. Did you ever advocate for or approve the use of the EIT
known as ``use of prolonged interrogations,'' which involved the
continued use of a series of approaches that extend over a long period
of time (e.g., 20 hours per day per interrogation)?
Answer. I was not in the position of deciding on interrogation-
related matters. The role of SO/LIC at the time was to endeavor to
create a transparent process whereby requests made by the Joint Task
Force at GTMO were routed through multiple levels of scrutiny,
including multiple layers of legal review, to ensure that the Secretary
of Defense was provided with a fulsome and considered set of views.
Question. If so, were you aware of the objections of military JAGs
and law enforcement professional interrogators (FBI, NCIS, etc.) to
this technique?
Answer. I depended upon law enforcement and intelligence
professionals, together with legal counsels from multiple organizations
and services, to provide their best advice on interrogation techniques
requested for use at Guantanamo. The purpose of the Working Group, was
to assemble a wide array of individuals to develop a set of
recommendations for the Secretary. As I am not an expert in
interrogation, I relied upon SO/LIC staff to attend various meetings
where differing views were expressed.
Question. Were you aware that some of them believed that this
technique constituted torture?
Answer. I have never supported the use of any technique that
constituted torture. I do not recall that the various Working Group
draft reports ever defined this technique as torture. Within SO/LIC, we
relied upon determinations by the Department of Defense's Office of the
General Counsel regarding the legality of proposed measures.
Question. Do you now consider this technique to be abusive? If so,
why did you not consider it abusive at the time?
Answer. I have never supported the use of any interrogation
technique that constituted torture. I do not recall that the various
Working Group draft reports ever defined this technique as torture.
Within SO/LIC, we relied upon determinations by the Department of
Defense's Office of the General Counsel regarding the legality of
proposed measures.
Question. Did you ever advocate for or approve the use of the EIT
known as ``forced grooming,'' which involved forcing a detainee to
shave their hair or beard?
Answer. I was not in the position of deciding on interrogation-
related matters. The role of SO/LIC at the time was to endeavor to
create a transparent process whereby requests made by the Joint Task
Force at GTMO were routed through multiple levels of scrutiny,
including multiple layers of legal review, to ensure that the Secretary
of Defense was provided with a fulsome and considered set of views.
Question. If so, were you aware of the objections of military JAGs
and law enforcement professional interrogators (FBI, NCIS, etc.) to
this technique?
Answer. I depended upon law enforcement and intelligence
professionals, together with legal counsels from multiple organizations
and services, to provide their best advice on interrogation techniques
requested for use at Guantanamo. The purpose of the Working Group, was
to assemble a wide array of individuals to develop a set of
recommendations for the Secretary. As I am not an expert in
interrogation, I relied upon SO/LIC staff to attend various meetings
where differing views were expressed.
Question. Were you aware that some of them believed that this
technique constituted torture?
Answer. I have never supported the use of any interrogation
technique that constituted torture. I do not recall that the various
Working Group draft reports ever defined this technique as torture.
Within SO/LIC, we relied upon determinations by the Department of
Defense's Office of the General Counsel regarding the legality of
proposed measures.
Question. Do you now consider this technique to be abusive? If so,
why did you not consider it abusive at the time?
Answer. I have never supported the use of any interrogation
technique that constituted torture. I do not recall that the various
Working Group draft reports ever defined this technique as torture.
Within SO/LIC, we relied upon determinations by the Department of
Defense's Office of the General Counsel regarding the legality of
proposed measures.
Question. Did you ever advocate for or approve the use of the EIT
known as ``sleep deprivation,'' which involved keeping the detainee
awake for an extended period of time, up to 4 days in succession?
Answer. I was not in the position of deciding on interrogation-
related matters. The role of SO/LIC at the time was to endeavor to
create a transparent process whereby requests made by the Joint Task
Force at GTMO were routed through multiple levels of scrutiny,
including multiple layers of legal review, to ensure that the Secretary
of Defense was provided with a fulsome and considered set of views.
Question. If so, were you aware of the objections of military JAGs
and law enforcement professional interrogators (FBI, NCIS, etc.) to
this technique?
Answer. I depended upon law enforcement and intelligence
professionals, together with legal counsels from multiple organizations
and services, to provide their best advice on interrogation techniques
requested for use at Guantanamo. The purpose of the Working Group, was
to assemble a wide array of individuals to develop a set of
recommendations for the Secretary. As I am not an expert in
interrogation, I relied upon SO/LIC staff to attend various meetings
where differing views were expressed.
Question. Were you aware that some of them believed that this
technique constituted torture?
Answer. I have never supported the use of any interrogation
technique that constituted torture. I do not recall that the various
Working Group draft reports ever defined this technique as torture.
Within SO/LIC, we relied upon determinations by the Department of
Defense's Office of the General Counsel regarding the legality of
proposed measures.
Question. Do you now consider this technique to be abusive? If so,
why did you not consider it abusive at the time?
Answer. I have never supported the use of any interrogation
technique that constituted torture. I do not recall that the various
Working Group draft reports ever defined this technique as torture.
Within SO/LIC, we relied upon determinations by the Department of
Defense's Office of the General Counsel regarding the legality of
proposed measures. As I have noted in responses to multiple other
questions, Congress enacted a law in 2015--more than a decade after my
time in SO/LIC--which established that only techniques contained in the
Army Field Manual may be used in interrogations. I strongly support
this law, and do not support any interrogation technique not contained
in the Manual.
Question. Did you ever advocate for or approve the use of the EIT
known as ``isolation,'' which involved separating a detainee from
others for up to 96 hours?
Answer. I was not in the position of deciding on interrogation-
related matters. The role of SO/LIC at the time was to endeavor to
create a transparent process whereby requests made by the Joint Task
Force at GTMO were routed through multiple levels of scrutiny,
including multiple layers of legal review, to ensure that the Secretary
of Defense was provided with a fulsome and considered set of views.
Question. If so, were you aware of the objections of military JAGs
and law enforcement professional interrogators (FBI, NCIS, etc.) to
this technique?
Answer. I depended upon law enforcement and intelligence
professionals, together with legal counsels from multiple organizations
and services, to provide their best advice on interrogation techniques
requested for use at Guantanamo. The purpose of the Working Group, was
to assemble a wide array of individuals to develop a set of
recommendations for the Secretary. As I am not an expert in
interrogation, I relied upon SO/LIC staff to attend various meetings
where differing views were expressed.
Question. Were you aware that some of them believed that this
technique constituted torture?
Answer. I have never supported the use of any interrogation
technique that constituted torture. I do not recall that the various
Working Group draft reports ever defined this technique as torture.
Within SO/LIC, we relied upon determinations by the Department of
Defense's Office of the General Counsel regarding the legality of
proposed measures.
Question. Do you now consider this technique to be abusive? If so,
why did you not consider it abusive at the time?
Answer. I have never supported the use of any interrogation
technique that constituted torture. I do not recall that the various
Working Group draft reports ever defined this technique as torture.
Within SO/LIC, we relied upon determinations by the Department of
Defense's Office of the General Counsel regarding the legality of
proposed measures.
Question. Did you ever advocate for or approve the use of the EIT
known as ``sound modulation''?
Answer. As stated in Answer 142, I was not in the position of
deciding on interrogation-related matters. The role of SO/LIC at the
time was to endeavor to create a transparent process whereby requests
made by the Joint Task Force at GTMO were routed through multiple
levels of scrutiny, including multiple layers of legal review, to
ensure that the Secretary of Defense was provided with a fulsome and
considered set of views.
Question. If so, were you aware of the objections of military JAGs
and law enforcement professional interrogators (FBI, NCIS, etc.) to
this technique?
Answer. I depended upon law enforcement and intelligence
professionals, together with legal counsels from multiple organizations
and services, to provide their best advice on interrogation techniques
requested for use at Guantanamo. The purpose of the Working Group, was
to assemble a wide array of individuals to develop a set of
recommendations for the Secretary. As I am not an expert in
interrogation, I relied upon SO/LIC staff to attend various meetings
where differing views were expressed.
Question. Were you aware that some of them believed that this
technique constituted torture?
Answer. I have never supported the use of any interrogation
technique that constituted torture. I do not recall that the various
Working Group draft reports ever defined this technique as torture.
Within SO/LIC, we relied upon determinations by the Department of
Defense's Office of the General Counsel regarding the legality of
proposed measures.
Question. Do you now consider this technique to be abusive? If so,
why did you not consider it abusive at the time?
Answer. I have never supported the use of any interrogation
technique that constituted torture. I do not recall that the various
Working Group draft reports ever defined this technique as torture.
Within SO/LIC, we relied upon determinations by the Department of
Defense's Office of the General Counsel regarding the legality of
proposed measures.
Question. Did you ever advocate for or approve the use of the EIT
known as ``face slap/stomach slap,'' which involved a quick glancing
slap to the fleshy part of the cheek or stomach, used as a shock
measure?
Answer. I was not in the position of deciding on interrogation-
related matters. The role of SO/LIC at the time was to endeavor to
create a transparent process whereby requests made by the Joint Task
Force at GTMO were routed through multiple levels of scrutiny,
including multiple layers of legal review, to ensure that the Secretary
of Defense was provided with a fulsome and considered set of views.
Question. If so, were you aware of the objections of military JAGs
and law enforcement professional interrogators (FBI, NCIS, etc.) to
this technique?
Answer. I depended upon law enforcement and intelligence
professionals, together with legal counsels from multiple organizations
and services, to provide their best advice on interrogation techniques
requested for use at Guantanamo. The purpose of the Working Group, was
to assemble a wide array of individuals to develop a set of
recommendations for the Secretary. As I am not an expert in
interrogation, I relied upon SO/LIC staff to attend various meetings
where differing views were expressed.
Question. Were you aware that some of them believed that this
technique constituted torture?
Answer. I have never supported the use of any interrogation
technique that constituted torture. I do not recall that the various
Working Group draft reports ever defined this technique as torture.
Within SO/LIC, we relied upon determinations by the Department of
Defense's Office of the General Counsel regarding the legality of
proposed measures.
Question. Do you now consider this technique to be abusive? If so,
why did you not consider it abusive at the time?
Answer. I have never supported the use of any interrogation
technique that constituted torture. I do not recall that the various
Working Group draft reports ever defined this technique as torture.
Within SO/LIC, we relied upon determinations by the Department of
Defense's Office of the General Counsel regarding the legality of
proposed measures.
Question. Did you ever advocate for or approve the use of the EIT
known as ``removal of clothing,'' which involved potential removal of
all clothing, to be done by military police if not agreed to by the
subject?
Answer. I was not in the position of deciding on interrogation-
related matters. The role of SO/LIC at the time was to endeavor to
create a transparent process whereby requests made by the Joint Task
Force at GTMO were routed through multiple levels of scrutiny,
including multiple layers of legal review, to ensure that the Secretary
of Defense was provided with a fulsome and considered set of views.
Question. If so, were you aware of the objections of military JAGs
and law enforcement professional interrogators (FBI, NCIS, etc.) to
this technique?
Answer. I depended upon law enforcement and intelligence
professionals, together with legal counsels from multiple organizations
and services, to provide their best advice on interrogation techniques
requested for use at Guantanamo. The purpose of the Working Group, was
to assemble a wide array of individuals to develop a set of
recommendations for the Secretary. As I am not an expert in
interrogation, I relied upon SO/LIC staff to attend various meetings
where differing views were expressed.
Question. Were you aware that some of them believed that this
technique constituted torture?
Answer. I have never supported the use of any interrogation
technique that constituted torture. I do not recall that the various
Working Group draft reports ever defined this technique as torture.
Within SO/LIC, we relied upon determinations by the Department of
Defense's Office of the General Counsel regarding the legality of
proposed measures.
Question. Do you now consider this technique to be abusive? If so,
why did you not consider it abusive at the time?
Answer. I have never supported the use of any interrogation
technique that constituted torture. I do not recall that the various
Working Group draft reports ever defined this technique as torture.
Within SO/LIC, we relied upon determinations by the Department of
Defense's Office of the General Counsel regarding the legality of
proposed measures.
Question. Did you ever advocate for or approve the use of the EIT
known as ``increasing anxiety by use of aversions,'' which involved
introducing factors that create anxiety, such as military working dogs?
Answer. I was not in the position of deciding on interrogation-
related matters. The role of SO/LIC at the time was to endeavor to
create a transparent process whereby requests made by the Joint Task
Force at GTMO were routed through multiple levels of scrutiny,
including multiple layers of legal review, to ensure that the Secretary
of Defense was provided with a fulsome and considered set of views.
Question. If so, were you aware of the objections of military JAGs
and law enforcement professional interrogators (FBI, NCIS, etc.) to
this technique?
Answer. I depended upon law enforcement and intelligence
professionals, together with legal counsels from multiple organizations
and services, to provide their best advice on interrogation techniques
requested for use at Guantanamo. The purpose of the Working Group, was
to assemble a wide array of individuals to develop a set of
recommendations for the Secretary. As I am not an expert in
interrogation, I relied upon SO/LIC staff to attend various meetings
where differing views were expressed.
Question. Were you aware that some of them believed that this
technique constituted torture?
Answer. I have never supported the use of any interrogation
technique that constituted torture. I do not recall that the various
Working Group draft reports ever defined this technique as torture.
Within SO/LIC, we relied upon determinations by the Department of
Defense's Office of the General Counsel regarding the legality of
proposed measures.
Question. Do you now consider this technique to be abusive? If so,
why did you not consider it abusive at the time?
Answer. I have never supported the use of any interrogation
technique that constituted torture. I do not recall that the various
Working Group draft reports ever defined this technique as torture.
Within SO/LIC, we relied upon determinations by the Department of
Defense's Office of the General Counsel regarding the legality of
proposed measures.
Question. Retired U.S. Army Major General Thomas J. Romig, who
served as the Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Army, wrote a letter
to the committee after your hearing stating that:
I, and several other military lawyers, spoke up against
proposals to abuse and torture detainees by using so-called
`enhanced interrogation methods.' During meetings on the
matter, I encountered Mr. Marshall Billingslea, who at the time
was in the very influential role of Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity
Conflict at the Pentagon. I write to you today because I
understand that Mr. Billingslea has been nominated to serve as
Under Secretary of State for Civilian Security, Democracy, and
Human Rights-a position that requires moral courage,
leadership, and credibility on human rights. Yet during the
critical test of our nation's moral courage after 9/11, Mr.
Billingslea failed. He not only failed to stand up for what was
right, but he also went out of his way to advocate for using
abusive interrogation techniques against detainees in our
custody. And he advocated for such abuses despite being told
that his positions were wrong, counterproductive, and unlawful
by a group of senior military lawyers with over 100 collective
years of military experience and nearly that many years of
military law experience.
Do you dispute General Romig's assertion that you ``advocate[d] for
using abusive interrogation techniques against detainees in
[U.S.] custody''? If so, do you know of any documents that can
support your account?
Answer. I do dispute this assertion. The SASC report was conducted
on a bipartisan basis and had access to the full documentary record. At
no point in that report am I accused of advocating for torture.
Question. Do you dispute General Romig's assertion that you were
``told that [your] positions were wrong, counterproductive, and
unlawful by a group of senior military lawyers''? If so, do you know of
any documents that can support your account?
Answer. I depended upon the Department of Defense's Office of the
General Counsel to identify techniques that were unlawful or which
constituted torture. The SASC report was conducted on a bipartisan
basis and had access to the full documentary record. At no point in
that report am I accused of advocating for torture.
Question. You said at your hearing that ``Dr. Mark Jacobson, who
has written letters on [your] behalf . . . has made crystal clear that
[you] did not advocate for torture.'' However, the letter you
referenced was written by Dr. Jacobson in 2017, regarding your
confirmation process for Treasury Assistant Secretary of Terrorist
Financing and Illicit Finance, correct? Please answer yes or no.
Answer. Yes.
Question. Dr. Jacobson did not write that letter for your
nomination as Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and
Human Rights, correct? Please answer yes or no.
Answer. Yes. He has spoken at length with Minority Staff as well
with respect to my current nomination.
Question. Dr. Jacobson's letter says only that you were ``not the
decider as to whether the Pentagon would push forward with aggressive
interrogation techniques.'' Please cite the relevant text in the 2017
letter where he makes it ``crystal clear'' that you did not advocate
for torture.
Answer. Dr. Jacobson's letter speaks for itself. I was focused on
creating a transparent process on all matters relating to GTMO, as the
Department of Defense documents provided to the committee demonstrate.
Question. The day after your hearing, Dr. Jacobson submitted a new
letter to the committee to ``clarify the context of [his] letter of
June 22, 2017 to the Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee.'' He
followed:
I wrote this letter in 2017 in response to a particular set
of news articles published in the 2004-2007 period that I felt
overstated Billingslea's ``central'' or ``directing'' role in
the development of interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay.
I was concerned, based on what the Senate Armed Services
Committee investigation (completed April 2009) had uncovered,
that those articles when taken alone overplayed Billingslea's
role as opposed to that of more senior leaders and could
potentially let those more senior leaders off the hook. In
terms of any other issues regarding Mr. Billingslea's
involvement with the detention and interrogation policies I
stand by the findings and text of the Senate Armed Services
Committee report.
Do you know of any documents that can support your account that you
did not advocate for torture?
Answer. The SASC report was conducted on a bipartisan basis and had
access to the full documentary record. At no point in that report am I
accused of advocating for torture.
Question. Another SASC staffer that worked on the investigation,
Joe Bryan, also submitted a letter to the committee the day after your
hearing. Mr. Bryan's letter states that ``In his September 19, 2019
testimony before your committee Mr. Billingslea referred to a
statement, which he attributed to a third party, that he has `never
supported torture nor anything resembling torture.' The record
established in the SASC investigation does not support that
assessment.'' The letter cites as evidence for this assertion your memo
from April 10, 2003 (see page 131 of the SASC report) and memo from
July 24, 2003 (see page 138 of the SASC report).
Do you know of any documents that can support your account that you
have never supported torture or anything resembling torture?
Answer. The two pages referenced (plus a footnote) are the only
times I am mentioned in a report that is 263 pages long. The SASC
report is the definitive bipartisan assessment of detainee matters
related to Guantanamo.
Question. Mr. Bryan wrote that ``senior military lawyers repeatedly
raised concerns about the legality of interrogation techniques that
[you] endorsed.'' The letter cites as evidence concerns from JAGs prior
to your recommendation to authorize additional techniques (see pages
67-69 and 126-127 of the SASC report). What did you do when senior
military lawyers raised concerns about the legality of interrogation
techniques?
Answer. As a civilian within the Office of the Secretary of
Defense, I depended upon the Office of the General Counsel to evaluate
and provide determinations on the legality of interrogation techniques.
Question. Are there any documents that can support any actions you
took in response?
Answer. The SASC report is the definitive bipartisan assessment of
detainee matters related to Guantanamo, and was based on a review of
the complete documentary history.
Question. If you took no action, why did you ignore the concerns of
those military lawyers?
Answer. As I have indicated, I opposed consideration of the use of
waterboarding at GTMO.
Question. You said at your hearing that the reason SASC staffers
never interviewed you during the course of their investigation into
detainee abuse was because ``they knew that [you] were not involved in
advocating for torture.'' Multiple former SASC staffers who worked on
the detainee report assert that you were not interviewed during the
course of the investigation because the written record you left behind
clearly showed your role in advocating for or approving the use of
enhanced interrogation techniques, and therefore there was no need to
interview you to gain any further information. Do you have any factual
basis for the assertion you made at the hearing?
Answer. I stand by my testimony.
Question. Do any documents or witnesses that can support your
version?
Answer. The SASC report is the definitive bipartisan assessment of
detainee matters related to Guantanamo, and was based on a review of
the complete documentary history.
Question. At your hearing, you stated that at SO/LIC you ``never
provided and did not have the authority to provide policy oversight to
Special Mission Units in Iraq or Afghanistan.'' You said that SO/LIC is
``responsible for engaging with U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM)
in Tampa directly. Those Special Mission Units (SMU) were elements of
the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) and they worked for the
regional Combatant Commanders (COCOMS).''
If the SMUs were elements of JSOC, and JSOC is a component command
of SOCOM, and SOCOM falls under the policy oversight of SO/LIC, how did
SO/LIC not have the authority to provide civilian oversight to SMUs in
Iraq and Afghanistan?
Answer. Geographic combatant commanders, such as U.S. Central
Command, maintain chain of command responsibility for military units
operating within their area of responsibility. For a wide range of
reasons, historically, the civilian staff with the Office of the
Secretary of Defense (Policy) do not intercede within the military
chain of command. SO/LIC engages with U.S. Special Operations Command
and the Joint Staff on policy matters.
Question. If SO/LIC did not provide civilian oversight of the SMUs
in Iraq and Afghanistan, which DOD civilian element did?
Answer. I am unaware that anyone within the Office of the Secretary
of Defense (Policy) intercedes within the military chain of command to
provide direct oversight of Special Mission Units.
Question. While at SO/LIC, which you started at in August 2002,
were you aware that GTMO interrogators traveled to Army Special
Operations Command Joint Personnel Recovery Agency (JPRA) in September
2002?
Answer. I do not recall being aware of that.
Question. If so, did you play any role in that visit or receive any
information about it?
Answer. Not to my recollection.
Question. If so, were you aware that they went to learn
interrogation techniques that U.S. military personnel are taught to
resist as part of SERE (Survive, Evade, Resist, Escape) training, which
are based on techniques used by enemies that did not follow the Geneva
convention, such as those used by the Chinese Communist army against
American POWs during the Korean War to elicit false confessions?
Answer. I do not recall being aware of the visit at the time.
Question. While at SO/LIC, were you aware that on October 2, 2002
the chief counsel of the CIA's Counter-Terrorism Center traveled to
GTMO and sanctioned the use of SERE techniques--including waterboarding
and phobias--in the interrogation of Mohammed Khatani, as recounted in
the SASC report?
Answer. I do not recall being aware of the visit.
Question. If so, did you play any role in that visit or receive any
information about it?
Answer. Not to my recollection.
Question. While at SO/LIC, were you aware that from October 2-10,
2002, the Khatani interrogation occurred at GTMO and included the use
of military dogs for intimidation, sleep deprivation, body placement
discomfort (stress positions), loud music, and bright lights?
Answer. I do not recall being aware of this.
Question. If so, did you play any role in that visit or receive any
information about it?
Answer. Not to my recollection.
Question. While at SO/LIC, were you aware that from October 8-10,
2002, U.S. military personnel from the Afghanistan Special Mission Unit
Task Force (SMU TF) visited GTMO and learn new interrogation
techniques? If so, did you play any role in that visit or receive any
information about it?
Answer. I do not recall being aware of this.
Question. While at SO/LIC, were you aware that on October 11, 2002,
the GTMO commander sent a memo to SOUTHCOM requesting authority for
GTMO interrogators to use the newly-learned SERE techniques from their
September visit to JPRA, which were also used in the interrogation of
Khatani?
Answer. I do not recall being aware of this.
Question. Was the memo you wrote to Secretary Rumsfeld on or about
October 10, 2002, titled ``Detainees at GTMO,'' informed or influenced
in any way by any of the events of the preceding 8 days and the
following day, including either the visit by the CIA CTC chief counsel,
the interrogation of Khatani, the visit of the Afghanistan SMU TF team
to GTMO, and/or the impending request from the GTMO commander for
authority to use more interrogation techniques?
Answer. Not to my recollection.
Question. While at SO/LIC, were you aware that SMUs in Afghanistan
and Iraq were conducting their own interrogations?
Answer. As I indicated in Answers 194 and 195, the Special Mission
Units fell under the military chain of command. I do not recall being
aware of interrogation techniques used by the SMUs, if any.
Question. If not, was another civilian element of DOD?
Answer. Not to my knowledge.
Question. If so, did you ever review or were you ever made aware of
their interrogation policies?
Answer. Not to my recollection.
Question. While at SO/LIC, were you aware of or did you review or
approve the January 2003 interrogation SOP created by Afghanistan SMU
TF?
Answer. Not to my recollection.
Question. If not, did another civilian element of DOD?
Answer. Not to my knowledge.
Question. While at SO/LIC, were you aware of or did you review or
approve the February 2003 interrogation SOP created by Iraq SMU TF?
Answer. Not to my recollection.
Question. If not, did another civilian element of DOD?
Answer. Not to my knowledge.
Question. While at SO/LIC, did intelligence reports you received
from SMU interrogations in Afghanistan and Iraq lead you to believe
that their interrogation methods were effective?
Answer. I do not recall ever receiving ``intelligence reports .
from SMU interrogations.'' We received daily threat stream reporting
from the Defense Intelligence Agency, but sources and methods were not
disclosed.
Question. While at SO/LIC, were you aware of reports that SMU
interrogations in Afghanistan and Iraq were resulting in the abuse of
detainees?
Answer. As I testified, I recall learning of a death at Bagram. I
do not recall being told that it was associated with abuse of
detainees, but I recall asking the SOCOM commander to investigate.
Question. If so, did you take any steps to have the alleged abuse
investigated
Answer. As I stated earlier, I raised the issue with the Commander
of USSOCOM.
Question. While at SO/LIC, did you ever draft or recommend
interrogation techniques or policy, either independently or jointly
with another division or unit?
Answer. Requests for interrogation techniques did not originate
from within SO/LIC. As I have stated, I am not an expert on
interrogation techniques, and had to depend upon the intelligence and
law enforcement communities to describe the techniques they were
requesting, and upon the Office of the General Counsel for
determinations on legality.
Question. You said during your hearing that ``it came to your
attention that in the case of an individual in Bagram, there had been a
death in one of the facilities, and [you] escalated that case
personally to the Special Operations Combatant Commander (SOCOM) and
asked him, in effect, `what is going on here?''' Do you know of any
documents that can support your account?
Answer. I am unaware of any documents.
Question. In November 2002, did you review or approve the Joint
Staff Action Processing Form--which was approved by the Under Secretary
of Defense for Policy's office--for JPRA to train interrogators?
Answer. I do not recall that document.
Question. While at SO/LIC, were you aware that in May 2003 CIA
general counsel Scott Muller told Jim Haynes that Iraq SMU TF
interrogators were more aggressive than the CIA interrogators? Did you
hear any such reports from other sources?
Answer. I do not recall being aware of that conversation.
Question. Where you aware of any objections by military JAGs, law
enforcement professionals, or any others to the techniques used in the
second interrogation of Khatani at the time that you approved the
interrogation plan?
Answer. I do not recall this.
Question. If all of the methods used in the Khatani interrogation
were legal today, would you approve the interrogation plan?
Answer. I strongly support the law enacted by Congress in 2015 to
prohibit use of interrogation techniques beyond those contained in the
Army Field Manual. I would not support use of any technique not
contained in the Manual.
Question. What was your role on the Working Group that Secretary
Rumsfeld established on or around January 15, 2003?
Answer. SO/LIC was asked to participate in the Working Group, along
with a large number of other participants from law enforcement,
intelligence, the uniformed military, and lawyers.
Question. While on the Working Group, did you have any role in
removing the reference to ``SERE schools'' or techniques used in
``military training'' from the February 2nd draft report?
Answer. Not to my recollection.
Question. While on the Working Group, did you have any role in the
insertion of language in the February 2nd draft report that stated the
techniques were ``considered effective by interrogators and for which
USSOUTHCOM and USCENTOM have requested approval''?
Answer. Not to my recollection.
Question. While on the Working Group, did you approve of the
interrogation techniques in the ``Final Report''--which was later re-
characterized as a draft--that was circulated on February 04, 2003?
Answer. As I have testified, I objected to consideration of
waterboarding as a technique for use at GTMO. As the SASC report also
documents, while the Working Group found certain techniques to be
legally permissible, I thought the Secretary of Defense should be
notified prior to use of a number of techniques in order to ensure that
these measures were subject to rigorous oversight.
Question. What is your recollection your role in the March 2003
meeting with Wolfowitz, Haynes, Myers, Cambone, Feith, Captain Dalton,
and yourself to discuss the Working Group's findings?
Answer. I do not recall that meeting.
Question. Why did you disagree with the decision from that meeting
to only authorize 24 techniques?
Answer. I do not recall that meeting.
Question. During your hearing you quoted from a 2017 letter from
Dr. Michael Gelles which states that you ``never condoned the use of
torture, nor did [you] advocate any technique that could constitute
torture.''
Do you disagree with the findings of the Legislative, Executive,
and Judicial branches of the U.S. government that the
techniques you advocated for, such as hooding, threat of
transfer, 20-hour interrogations, forced grooming, sleep
deprivation, face slap/stomach slap, removal of clothing,
increasing anxiety by use of aversions, do in fact constitute
torture? If you do not agree, why not? If you do agree, then
how can you stand by the assertion made in Dr. Gelles letter?
Answer. I strongly support the law enacted by Congress in 2015 to
prohibit use of interrogation techniques beyond those contained in the
Army Field Manual. I would not support use of any technique not
contained in the Manual. At the time, as neither a lawyer nor an expert
in interrogation techniques, I depended upon the Office of the General
Counsel to determine the legality of proposed measures. I have never
advocated for the use of torture.
Question. Dr. Gelles letter also states that you were ``the person
who single-handedly blocked consideration of the use of waterboarding
at GTMO.'' In your meeting with SFRC Democratic staff, you were asked
how Dr. Gelles knew that, and you responded that he was on the Working
Group. But Dr. Gelles was not on the Working Group. Did you tell Dr.
Gelles that you blocked the consideration of waterboarding from being
used at GTMO? If not, how would he know that you blocked the
consideration of waterboarding from being used at GTMO?
Answer. There were many working meetings at the time regarding
GTMO. Most of the meetings I personally attended were focused on
securing agreement to release detainees from GTMO who were of no
further intelligence value and were no longer a threat to U.S. national
security. I made clear my opposition to waterboarding in multiple fora.
Question. While at Deloitte, did you help Dr. Gelles win any
business from the company or profit from the company in any way?
Answer. Dr. Gelles is a Managing Director at Deloitte, as I was. I
routinely partnered with a number of Managing Directors during my
employment at Deloitte.
Question. While at Deloitte, did you hire or help hire Dr. Gelles
son to work at the company?
Answer. Bryan Gelles was hired by Deloitte Financial Advisory
Services and worked within the Business Intelligence Services group,
the business practice which I led.
Question. Did you ask anyone else to write letters supporting your
nomination (or have anyone request on your behalf)? Did anyone refuse?
Answer. I am pleased that so many individuals and representatives
of nonprofits and human rights organizations have supported my
nomination to serve as Under Secretary. In addition to the multiple
letters of support that have already been placed into the hearing
record, on September 18, 14 more human rights and democracy advocates
wrote to the Chairman and Ranking Member in support of my nomination.
Their letter is attached to the QFR responses.
Question. When and how did you allegedly block waterboarding from
being considered at GTMO?
Answer. I raised clear objections in meetings with the Office of
the General Counsel. As the SASC report indicates, waterboarding was
identified as ``red'' by the working group and was not a technique
presented to Secretary Rumsfeld for approval.
Question. Is there any way to independently verify your claim that
you blocked waterboarding from being considered at GTMO?
Answer. I have been clear in my testimony. There is no evidence to
the contrary.
Question. Does the account of the Working Group in Vice Admiral
Church's report support your assertion that you blocked waterboarding
from being considered at GTMO?
Answer. The SASC report is the definitive bipartisan assessment of
detainee matters related to Guantanamo, and was based on a review of
the complete documentary history.
Question. Mark Fallon, who was Deputy Assistant Director for
Counterterrorism for the Navy Criminal Investigative Service while you
were at DOD (and also lead the USS Cole Task Force and was Deputy
Commander of the task force investigating Al-Qaeda before military
commission trials), told a human rights organization after your hearing
that:
In my direct experience, Mr. Billingslea was the single
biggest bureaucratic obstacle at the Pentagon, short of the
Department of Defense's senior-most leaders, to stopping the
use of EITs. He was a vocal advocate for the use of the
techniques and the claim that torture worked. When experienced
investigators and interrogation professionals, like those on
the investigative task force established to bring terrorists to
justice attempted to tell him that the techniques were
ineffective, he told us we didn't know what we were talking
about. If it were not for Mr. Billingslea's full-throated
support for the use of EITs at Guantanamo, we may have been
able to prevent the techniques from being approved by senior
leadership at the Pentagon. And while he may not have intended
that the abusive techniques then be employed at Abu Ghraib and
elsewhere, that is exactly what happened as a direct result of
him pushing for their use at Guantanamo. In all the years
since, despite having mutual friends and contacts, I have never
once heard any suggestion that Mr. Billingslea has since had a
change of heart.
Since the days when you worked to get EITs approved, have you had a
change of heart?
Answer. As I testified, and as I have indicated in multiple answers
to QFRs, I strongly support the law enacted by Congress in 2015 to
clearly identify that only the techniques contained in the Army Field
Manual may be used in interrogations.
Question. If, as you claimed at your hearing, you were not an
``expert on interrogation,'' why did you ignore the opinions of law
enforcement professionals from the FBI, NCIS, etc. who were experts on
interrogation, and, according to government documents such as a
Department of Justice Inspector General report, raised their concerns
about these interrogation techniques directly with you?
Answer. As the Senate Armed Services Committee report makes clear,
there were a wide range of views expressed by the law enforcement,
intelligence, and legal communities on a number of interrogation
techniques.
Question. During your time at SO/LIC, how many memos did you author
regarding general detainee or interrogation policy, or the
interrogation of individual detainees? If you do not know the exact
number, please provide your best estimate (e.g. ``between 5 and 10,
between 10 and 20, between 20 and 30, more than 30,'' etc.).
Answer. I authored very few memos. Most were drafted by SO/LIC
staff. The classified memos furnished to the committee by the
Department of Defense are representative of the fact that, with regard
to GTMO, I spent the majority of my short tenure working to properly
regulate the inflow of detainees and to expedite transfer of detainees
out.
Question. During your time at SO/LIC, how many memos did you
approve regarding general detainee or interrogation policy, or the
interrogation of individual detainees? If you do not know the exact
number, please provide your best estimate (e.g. ``between 5 and 10,
between 10 and 20, between 20 and 30, more than 30,'' etc.).
Answer. As stated in Answer 240, the classified memos furnished to
the committee by the Department of Defense are representative of the
fact that, with regard to GTMO, I spent the majority of my short tenure
working to properly regulate the inflow of detainees and to expedite
transfer of detainees out.
Question. During your time at SO/LIC, how many interrogation plans
for individual detainees did you approve? If you do not know the exact
number, please provide your best estimate (e.g. ``between 5 and 10,
between 10 and 20, between 20 and 30, more than 30,'' etc.).
Answer. I cannot recall a number.
Question. Since the date of your nomination, have you spoken to or
corresponded with anyone at DOD regarding your memos on interrogation
techniques, including any efforts to locate those memos? If so, please
include describe the nature and content of those communications.
Answer. I requested that Legislative Affairs at State Department
press the Department of Defense to provide all memoranda pertaining to
detainee matters and my time in SO/LIC. The classified memoranda
provided clearly show that, far from being an advocate for torture, I
spent a great deal of time trying to bring transparency to a chaotic
process.
Question. Since the date of your nomination, have you reviewed any
memos, interrogation plans, or other records regarding interrogation
techniques or interrogation or detainee policy that you drafted,
reviewed, authored, or approved? If so, please provide a complete list
of those documents and records, includes dates and titles.
Answer. The only documents I have seen were those provided to the
committee, as well as the unclassified Senate Armed Services Committee
report.
Question. Do you have any memos, interrogation plans, or other
records regarding interrogation techniques or interrogation or detainee
policy that you drafted, reviewed, authored, or approved in your
possession or control? If so, please provide a complete list of those
documents and records, includes dates and titles.
Answer. I do not.
Question. Do you think that the approximately 14 memos provided for
review to the committee by DOD capture the full universe of all memos
you authored or approved regarding general detainee or interrogation
policy, or the interrogation of individual detainees, while at SO/LIC?
Please provide a yes or no answer and a justification for your answer.
Answer. As I stated earlier, the classified memos furnished to the
committee by the Department of Defense are representative of the fact
that, with regard to GTMO, I spent the majority of my time working to
properly regulate the inflow of detainees and to expedite transfer of
detainees out. I believe the classified memoranda provided clearly show
that, far from being an advocate for torture, I spent a great deal of
time trying to bring transparency to a chaotic process.
Question. Do you commit to respond promptly to all requests for
information by members of this committee?
Answer. I do.
Question. Do you commit to appear before this committee upon
request?
Answer. I do.
Question. If you become aware of any suspected waste, fraud, or
abuse in the Department, do you commit to report it to the Inspector
General?
Answer. Yes, consistent with all Department of State policies and
procedures.
Question. Please list any outside positions and affiliations you
plan to continue to hold during your term of appointment.
Answer. None. My disclosure forms to the Ethics Office are up to
date.
Question. Have you ever been an officer or director of a company
that has filed for bankruptcy? If so, describe the circumstances and
disposition.
Answer. I have not.
Question. If you leave this position before the completion of your
full term of the next presidential election, do you commit to meeting
with the committee to discuss the reasons for your departure?
Answer. Yes, if requested.
Question. Has anyone ever made a formal or informal complaint or
allegation of sexual harassment, discrimination (e.g., racial, ethnic,
religious, etc.), or inappropriate conduct against you, in a workplace
or any other setting? If so, please describe the nature of the
complaint or allegation, your response, and any resolution, including
any settlements.
Answer. Not to my knowledge.
Question. Have you ever addressed concerns or allegations of sexual
harassment, discrimination (e.g., racial, ethnic, religious, etc.), or
inappropriate conduct made against any employee over whom you had
supervisory authority? If so, please describe the outcome and actions
taken.
Answer. I have not, but those types of behaviors will not be
tolerated. If confirmed, I commit to upholding the Department of
State's policies and regulations relating to sexual harassment,
discrimination, and other inappropriate conduct.
Question. Do you agree that any targeting of or retaliation against
career employees based on their perceived political beliefs, prior work
on policy, or affiliation with a previous administration, is wholly
inappropriate and has no place in the federal government? If confirmed,
what will you do to ensure that all employees under your leadership
understand that any retaliation, blacklisting, or other prohibited
personnel practices will not be tolerated?
Answer. I do. As I have stated in other questions for the record,
if confirmed I will start by creating a leadership climate that makes
clear that the J Family will operate in an inclusive fashion, and that
retaliation, blacklisting, or other prohibited personnel practices will
not be tolerated. If I become aware of such behaviors, appropriate
actions will be undertaken consistent with Department of State policies
and procedures.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted to Hon. Marshall Billingslea by Senator Benjamin L. Cardin
Question. As discussed during your nominations hearing, I have not
had the opportunity to review the classified memos you authored or
authorized related to enhanced interrogation techniques. Will you
commit to providing additional information to me, as well as other
members of this committee, so that we can make informed decisions on
your nomination as soon as possible?
Answer. Senator, I will always be responsive to both you, and your
staff, as well as other members of the committee. I share a deep
admiration for the role of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations,
stemming from my several years as a professional staff member.
Question. Will you commit to meeting with me separately to discuss
this information?
Answer. Yes.
Question. What are the most important actions you have taken in
your career to date to promote human rights and democracy? What has
been the impact of your actions?
Answer. In my capacity as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, I
have made human rights a foundational cornerstone of my work. In this
role, I have advocated for--and driven implementation of--more than 700
sanctions using human-rights and corruption-related authorities. I have
traversed the globe pursuing human rights abusers and their finances,
and a number of them have found their access to the international
financial system cut off due to these actions.
I believe, for example, that our sanctions against a key weapons
trafficker and conflict mineral exploiter in the Democratic Republic of
the Congo directly contributed to the decision by Kabila to allow a
democratic transition in that country. Nowhere have I been more
aggressive than in the cases of Nicaragua and Venezuela. In the former
instance, I drove sanctions against both President Ortega, and well as
the ``First Lady'' Murillo, and their national security advisor, for
ordering the brutal repression and killing of civilians. In the latter,
I am widely known to be one of the fiercest opponents of the Maduro
regime, having spearheaded creation of a number of Executive Orders to
empower the Department of the Treasury to combat the horrific abuses of
the regime.
I was the first U.S. official to decry Maduro's weaponization of
food aid as a form of social control, and have devoted enormous amounts
of time working with Latin American partners in Mexico, Panama,
Colombia, Argentina, Uganda, the United Arab Emirates, and Belgium (to
name a few jurisdictions) to dismantle the abusive CLAP program run by
Alex Saab for the purposes of enriching Maduro and his cronies. Because
of my efforts, Saab's network is in shambles, and he is now a wanted
man. I was also the first U.S. government official to highlight the
ecocide being perpetrated by the Maduro regime against the indigenous
peoples of Venezuela in the rapacious exploitation of the Orinoco
Mining Belt. I presented the ``blood gold'' case to the United Nations
Security Council and have driven efforts to prevent purchasing of
Venezuelan gold in a number of companies. As was noted by the
Associated Press this week, I was also deeply involved in trying to
prevent the Maduro kelptocracy from looting and destroying the cultural
heritage and art of the Venezuelan people. I believe it is for these
reasons that multiple members of the Venezuelan National Assembly--the
only democratic body left in Venezuela--have written in support of my
nomination, as have Venezuelan human rights organizations. I am deeply
humbled that interim President Juan Guaido, despite everything else
with which he must contend, took the time to pen a letter of support
for me to the committee. I believe that all of these actions have been
impactful, but I believe that much more must be done, and I will not
rest until the dictatorships in Venezuela and Nicaragua are fully
dismantled.
Question. What will you do to promote, mentor and support your
staff that come from diverse backgrounds and underrepresented groups in
the Department of State?
Answer. Diversity is exceptionally important. My hiring practices
at Deloitte and the Treasury show that I emphasize having people from
as broad a range of backgrounds and perspectives as possible. This will
be a focus area for me, if confirmed, because I believe that a diverse
staff gives the best and most fully-considered advice. Diversity is the
enemy of group think and go-along get-along conformity. For the J
Family to be effective, it must be willing to sail into strong
headwinds carrying important values-driven messages relating to human
rights, democracy, religious freedom, tolerance, and anti-corruption,
to name a few. We need a diverse staff to best advance this agenda.
Question. What steps will you take to ensure each of the
supervisors in your department are fostering an environment that is
diverse and inclusive?
Answer. Stemming from my time at NATO, and in the Department of
Defense, I believe it starts with setting a healthy ``command
climate.'' If confirmed, I will make clear to each component head that
I expect a diverse and inclusive environment. Moreover, it has long
been my practice in critical decision-making sessions, to task one or
more staff to play the role of contrarian. To argue--no matter what
their personal belief may be--the counterpoint to the prevailing
sentiment in the room. I learned from my time at DoD that I must be
able to fairly represent the opposing view, when asked, and I will
expect the same of the J family leadership. By having a diverse and
inclusive community, we will ensure that opposing views are surfaced
early and discussed robustly.
Question. Do you commit to bring to the committee's attention (and
the Inspector General of the State Department) any change in policy or
U.S. actions that you suspect may be influenced by any of the
President's business or financial interests, or the business or
financial interests of any senior White House staff?
Answer. Yes, in accordance with appropriate procedures.
Question. Do you commit to inform the committee if you have any
reason to suspect that a foreign government, head of state, or foreign-
controlled entity is taking any action in order to benefit any of the
President's business or financial interests, or the interests of senior
White House staff?
Answer. Yes, in accordance with appropriate procedures.
Question. Do you or do any members of your immediate family have
any financial interests in any country abroad?
Answer. No. My financial holdings are fully disclosed to the Office
of government Ethics.
Question. When we met over a year ago, you provided me with letters
from Dr. Michael Gelles and Mark Jacobson indicating that you were not
directly involved in recommending the use of enhanced interrogation
techniques during your time at the Department of Defense. These letters
indicated that groups had overplayed and misstated your involvement in
these areas--since we met, and since my vote to confirm your initial
nomination at the Department of Treasury, more information has come to
my attention regarding these letters. For example, the letter from Dr.
Gelles states ``I also know that Marshall was the person who single-
handedly blocked consideration of the use of waterboarding at GTMO.''
Did you instruct Dr. Gelles to write this letter to the Chair and
Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee in support of
your nomination?
Answer. No, I did not instruct Dr. Gelles.
Question. Can you confirm that Dr. Gelles has personally reviewed
ALL memos you and members of your team at the time prepared on enhanced
interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay? If so, can you provide all
of those memos to this committee, including procedural memos and others
that the Ranking Member has requested?
Answer. That is a question best directed to Dr. Gelles. The
committee has been shown no documents that contradict what is contained
in his letter. It is my understanding that the committee has been
provided every document located by the Department of Defense. Moreover,
the Senate Armed Services Committee had fulsome bipartisan access to
the entire record, and- as I stated in testimony- I was not accused of
advocating torture in that comprehensive assessment.
Question. Publically available reports indicate that in July 2003,
while serving as a senior Pentagon official, you recommended that then-
Defense Secretary Rumsfeld authorize an interrogation plan for
Mohamedou Ould Slahi that included ``sleep deprivation'' and ``sound
modulation.'' The letter you provided to me and others from Mr.
Jacobson on your behalf states: ``Marshall was not the decider as to
whether the Pentagon would push forward with aggressive interrogation
techniques,'' and that ``To my knowledge OSD SO/LIC personnel were not
aware [that DOD General Counsel] Haynes had already made the legal and
policy decisions on aggressive techniques under consideration.'' For
the record, did you at any time recommend or otherwise indicate support
for the use of aggressive interrogation techniques to Secretary
Rumsfeld?
Answer. As the Slahi memo also shows, I penned a handwritten note
that clearly shows that I personally went back to verify with legal
counsel that the requested techniques were legal. I never advocated for
the use of any technique that was described to me as illegal, or as
torture.
Question. Do you agree that sleep deprivation, sound modulation,
and any other techniques that could amount to torture or cruel,
inhuman, or degrading treatment of prisoners are unlawful and
inappropriate?
Answer. As I testified, Congress legislated on this issue in 2015
and made clear that any technique not contained in the Army Field
Manual may not be used. I strongly support the law. In 2002, we did not
have such legislation and, as Dr. Jacobson notes, I was not the decider
on these matters.
Question. Many Trump administration national security and foreign
policy officials have spoken against torture-on several grounds. For
example: CIA Director Gina Haspel has said, ``I don't believe that
torture works.'' Director Haspel also offered the following commitment
``clearly and without reservation'': ``Under my leadership, on my
watch, CIA will not restart a detention and interrogation program.''
FBI Director Christopher Wray has stated, ``My view is that torture is
wrong, it's unacceptable, it's illegal and I think it's ineffective.''
Secretary Pompeo has stated, ``Torture is illegal. It is never
permitted,'' and that ``it would not be lawful to use any interrogation
technique, including waterboarding, that is not among those that the
Army Field Manual lists as permissible.'' Secretary Pompeo has also
expressed his agreement with former Defense Secretary Mattis' statement
that he has never found torture useful. Further, Secretary Pompeo has
stated that he would ``absolutely not'' return to torture techniques if
ordered to do so by President Trump. Will you believe that both torture
and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees are immoral,
illegal, and counterproductive?
Answer. I agree completely and without reservation.
Question. Both war and peacetime atrocities tragically persist
around the globe, from Syria and South Sudan to Burma and Iraq. As you
know, early this year, my and Senator Young's ``Elie Wiesel Genocide
and Atrocities Prevention Act,'' became law. On September 12, the
President submitted to Congress the first Elie Wiesel Genocide and
Atrocities Prevention report. The report announced the launch of a
White House-led interagency mechanism to coordinate efforts on
atrocities prevention--the Atrocity Early Warning Task Force, which
replaces the Atrocity Prevention Board. The Bureau of Conflict and
Stabilization Operations will serve as the Task Force Secretariat. What
are your views on State Department training to address atrocities?
Answer. I recognize the impact mass atrocities have on U.S. global
national security interests and believe that training is an important
component of helping the State Department work to prevent and address
atrocities. If confirmed, I support development of Atrocity Prevention
training that is accessible to Foreign Service Officers worldwide. Such
training is critical for diplomats and staff in countries deemed at-
risk for mass atrocities to better anticipate and respond to early
warning signs of violence.
Question. What are the most effective tools for the Department of
State to implement and monitor early warning systems to prevent
atrocities globally?
Answer. I recognize that mass atrocities rarely occur without
warning, and that the international community has established a set of
broadly accepted early warning indicators, which saves civilian lives
and U.S. financial, diplomatic and other resources. If confirmed, I
support the Department's development and usage of analytical products
to support the U.S. government's ability to track and predict conflict,
instability, and mass atrocities, and enable decision-makers to better
anticipate and respond to early warning signs of violence.
Question. In what areas do you believe the Atrocity Prevention
Board was most/least effective, and how would CSO under your direction
implement these lessons in its role as the Task Force Secretariat?
Answer. It is my understanding that the White House-led Atrocity
Early Warning Task Force will provide technical support for regional
policy discussions at the White House, identify key priority countries
for policy coordination, and provide an interagency toolkit for
atrocity prevention and mitigation. If confirmed, I support the use and
development of data analytics for early warning, recognizing that the
U.S. government's options are most constrained and costly when
atrocities are already taking place.
Question. In an interconnected world, some might argue that the
rule of law and efforts to combat transnational crime are only as good
as the world's weakest links, where entrenched criminality thrives. In
your view, where are the world's criminal hotspots?
Answer. Unfortunately, the multifaceted nature of 21st century
criminality is such that no region is immune. Hotspots and trafficking
routes shift, and growing major crime areas such as cybercrime respect
no border. For example, given that synthetic opioids are not produced
from specific plants grown in delimited geographic areas, that they can
be transacted over the Internet, and that their potency means that
small quantities can be shipped anywhere, the concept of a hotspot is
an ephemeral one. It is incumbent on the Department and its interagency
partners to remain agile and act strategically to identify and pivot to
emerging threats, wherever they may manifest.
Question. What can be done to address crime, corruption, and
impunity in these locales?
Answer. Tackling transnational criminal activity in these locales
relies on building capacity across the entire justice sector continuum
in key countries, while also bolstering cross border cooperation, in
order to reduce the gaps available for criminal organizations to
exploit. With the borderless nature of transnational crime, hotspots
and trafficking routes shift; international cooperation is essential to
countering these crimes and responding effectively to such shifts.
Question. According to the Director of National Intelligence,
``transnational organized crime'' is among the top 10 global threats to
the United States identified in the U.S. intelligence community's 2019
Worldwide Threat Assessment. In your view, what are the most critical
consequences of transnational crime with respect to U.S. national
interests and foreign policy objectives?
Answer. Transnational organized crime not only brings violence and
insecurity to communities across the United States, it also creates
instability and insecurity in countries and regions of vital importance
to U.S. interests. Drug trafficking, human trafficking, gang violence,
financial crimes, corruption, and cybercrime undermine citizen security
and rule of law, threaten public health, and create economic
instability. The administration's E.O. 13773 prioritizes our response
to transnational organized crime and calls for us to strengthen our
efforts around the globe to counter these threats to national security.
Question. In what ways can transnational crime undermine U.S. goals
of civilian security, democracy, and human rights?
Answer. Transnational organized crime exploits weak governance,
fueling corruption and undermining confidence in the ability of
government institutions to uphold the rule of law. Transnational crime
networks compromise democratic institution-building and transparency
and threaten economic stability by creating illicit economies and
infiltrating financial sectors. Because countries with weak governance
are particularly susceptible to transnational crime, U.S. capacity
building efforts to strengthen and professionalize government
institutions, promote the rule of law, and support anticorruption
reform are critical elements of our comprehensive approach.
Question. In your view, is the State Department strategically
positioned to respond to the national security challenges caused by
transnational crime?
Answer. Yes, the Department is strategically positioned to respond
to these challenges. The Department plays a vital role in tackling
transnational crime and implementing Executive Order 13773 on Enforcing
Federal Law with Respect to Transnational Criminal Organizations and
Preventing International Trafficking. Advancing U.S. interests in this
area relies on cooperation with other nations. Where the question is
foreign government know-how, the Department's has great expertise in
managing programs to build capacity. Where pressure needs to be brought
to bear, the State Department wields tools such as the Transnational
Organized Crime Rewards Program and can work with other agencies, or on
its own, to deploy sanctions.
Question. What State Department policy responses are working to
combat transnational crime?
Answer. As the State Department works to build foreign government
know-how to address transnational crimes such as drug trafficking and
human trafficking, there are encouraging signs that this effort has had
a positive impact in the form of stronger laws, greater enforcement,
and enhanced ability and willingness to cooperate with U.S.
authorities. Given the borderless nature of many crimes, and the
financing that fuels it, encouraging international legal and
operational cooperation is an important focus that is bearing fruit.
The Department's efforts to enhance international standards that, among
other benefits, offer tools for international cooperation are critical
as well.
Question. What areas do you think require attention and
improvement?
Answer. Twenty-first century crime is agile and innovative, and
knows no borders. The State Department's response must reflect the
challenges posed by today's transnational crime threats. That includes
maintaining a whole of government posture; ensuring coordination and
complementarity among our operational, sanctions, diplomatic,
intelligence, and other tools will remain critical. Likewise, the
Department's multilateral engagement, bilateral diplomacy, and capacity
building should remain cognizant of emerging challenges, such as new
models for drug production and trafficking; sophisticated schemes to
finance crime and launder profits; corruption as a business model; and
of course cybercrime and cyber-enabled crime.
Question. For FY 2020, President Trump identified, in Presidential
Determination No. 2019-22 of August 8, 2019, 22 countries as major drug
transit or major illicit drug producing countries: Afghanistan, The
Bahamas, Belize, Bolivia, Burma, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican
Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India,
Jamaica, Laos, Mexico, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Venezuela. Of
these, Bolivia and ``the illegitimate regime of Nicolas Maduro in
Venezuela'' were singled out as having ``failed demonstrably during the
previous 12 months'' to adhere to their international drug control
commitments. In your view, is this list of ``drug major'' countries
complete? If not, which additional countries would you recommend adding
next year?
Answer. The list this year represents the consensus view of the
U.S. government, so in my view, it is complete, taking into account the
wide range of perspectives across the executive branch. For next year,
the Department will again consult with relevant interagency
stakeholders, including the Departments of Justice, Defense, and
Homeland Security, before making any recommendation to the President on
how to implement this legal requirement, including whether to add any
new countries.
Question. International drug control is not a new policy issue and,
yet, a durable solution to this global challenge remains elusive. In
your view, what are we doing wrong?
Answer. The hardest part about tackling a problem like this is that
results are never immediate. Steps forward in one country are
overshadowed by steps backward in another. The Department continues to
devote resources to counternarcotics because of those steps forward,
and because it is impossible to know--but easy to imagine--how much
worse the problem would be if we were not working as hard as we are to
solve it. If I would improve anything, I would work to strengthen even
further our international cooperation and technical assistance, because
it is only with the help of other capable, committed governments and
active participation from civil society that we will find an enduring
solution to this challenge.
Question. If confirmed, how would you tackle this seemingly
intractable problem?
Answer. First and foremost, I would build on the work already done
by the Department to strengthen the capacity of foreign partners to
help us combat the supply of illicit drugs. If we have learned anything
from our decades combating drugs overseas, it is that we cannot go it
alone. Strong partners act as force multipliers for our own law
enforcement agencies. I would place special emphasis on building
capacity to target the unique characteristics of drug trafficking in
the 21st century: drug sales on the internet and the dark web,
synthetic drug production, and trafficking by mail, for example. This
is the only way we will keep pace with the traffickers, and help our
partners do the same.
Question. What upcoming narcotics challenges are on the horizon
that the United States should anticipate today?
Answer. Synthetic drugs will continue to be a significant challenge
given their extreme potency and the ability of chemists to create new
synthetics using different precursor chemical combinations. Trafficking
in synthetic drugs offers numerous advantages to criminals, including
the ability to be manufactured almost anywhere and be trafficked in
small quantities, lowering operational costs and risk of arrest. We
should anticipate the continued diversification of source countries and
trafficking routes for synthetic drugs, as well as accelerated
innovations in synthetic drug design and production.
Question. In your view, are U.S. foreign aid programs to counter
illegal narcotics production and trafficking effective?
Answer. U.S. foreign assistance programs have helped partners
across the Western Hemisphere and elsewhere to disrupt the production
of illicit drugs, dismantle clandestine drug laboratories, and
interdict illicit drug trafficking. Still, the effectiveness of
counternarcotics assistance should be assessed within the broader
realities of security and governance challenges, and broader global
drug and crime trends that complicate detection and interdiction
efforts. The most successful foreign assistance programs reflect
sustained U.S. engagement, robust program design, and commitment from
our foreign partners.
Question. If confirmed, how would you prioritize counternarcotics
aid-to which countries and on which programs?
Answer. I would prioritize counternarcotics assistance relevant to
combating illicit drugs most responsible for killing Americans,
consistent with the National Drug Control Strategy. This includes
programming related to the State Department's Five-Year Global Plan of
Action to Combat Emerging Synthetic Drug Threats, and programming in
the Western Hemisphere, the source of the majority of cocaine, heroin,
and methamphetamines used in the United States. This includes working
with Colombian President Duque to achieve the joint goal of reducing
coca cultivation and cocaine production by half by 2023, and with the
government of Mexico to disrupt the business model of transnational
criminal organizations that produce and traffic illicit drugs. An
effective counternarcotics strategy must also reflect the reality of
globalized supply chains, emerging technologies, and the role criminal
facilitation and weak governance plays in enabling drug trafficking.
Question. What aspects of current and recent counternarcotics
programming would you deprioritize?
Answer. The success of our programs relies on the commitment of our
foreign partners to address these shared security challenges. When our
foreign partners commit to specific goals, and direct adequate
resources to achieve those goals, counternarcotics assistance can
deliver results. We should ensure our foreign assistance resources are
applied not only where they are strategically relevant, but also where
the intervention is likely to achieve the desired results.
Question. Beyond foreign aid, what other policy tools available to
the State Department can be used to promote our counternarcotics
objectives?
Answer. Diplomatic engagement has achieved concrete outcomes,
including China's decision to implement class-wide controls on fentanyl
in response to a 2018 request by President Trump. This is a key
milestone in a broader diplomatic effort to ensure the international
community has the architecture necessary for drug control in the 21st
century. The State Department also coordinates security assistance
efforts across the interagency, including for counternarcotics. The
State Department also supports the full utilization of U.S. government
sanctions and deterrence tools that support anti-crime and anti-
corruption efforts. It works through international organizations to
promote and help countries implement global standards based on U.S. law
and practice, including the three U.N. drug conventions, and to
pressure foreign governments to live up to their commitments.
Question. A June 2019 Office of Inspector General (OIG) audit of
the State Department's implementation of policies intended to counter
violent extremism indicated that OIG could not affirm whether State
Department grants and cooperative agreements awarded to counter violent
extremism were achieving desired results in part because the CT Bureau
lacked the authority to ensure such agreements were consistent with the
department's CVE goals. Please describe any efforts that senior
leadership at the State Department is making to designate the Bureau as
the controlling authority on CVE issues with the authority to ensure
broad alignment on policy, strategy, and program design, as recommended
by the OIG.
Answer. CT Bureau senior leadership has been engaged on ensuring
that CVE grants and cooperative agreements are achieving desired
results by overseeing (1) the development of a single definition for
what constitutes CVE programs or projects, and (2) the establishment of
a process to verify that CVE grants and cooperative agreements comply
with that definition. I understand that CT is also working with J and R
family bureaus and offices to make CT the ``controlling authority'' on
CVE issues and policy per the OIG's recommendations. The common
definition and an eventual controlling authority designation by the
Secretary will be mutually reinforcing. If confirmed, I will ensure
that these developments are implemented across J components as
recommended by the OIG.
Question. What has been the impact of U.S. countering violent
extremism (CVE) programming abroad? Where has it been the most and
least successful?
Answer. The Department's CVE work focuses on reaching, and
positively affecting, those who may be vulnerable to terrorist
radicalization and recruitment. CVE programming is based on research
and analysis, which includes identifying vulnerable populations and
communities that we want to partner with or positively affect. Many of
these populations reside in Muslim-majority communities. As an example,
through the Global Counterterrorism Forum (GCTF), the Department
supports government, community, and NGO collaboration to develop good
practices on CVE. The GCTF has endorsed best practice documents that
promote CVE tools, including the Abu Dhabi Memorandum for Education and
CVE; Good Practices on Women and CVE; and the Rome Memorandum on Good
Practices for Rehabilitation and Reintegration of Violent Extremist
Offenders, among others.
Question. How has the State Department sought to evaluate its CVE
programming since a critical 2015 GAO report, and what bureaucratic
hurdles remain?
Answer. I support the Department's efforts to conduct regular and
comprehensive evaluations of CVE programs. I understand that the CT
Bureau employs third-party contractors to perform the majority of CT
and CVE evaluative work, ensuring objective and professional results.
CT evaluations have wide-ranging impacts, from refining projects and
replicating successful approaches, to revising both internal and
external processes that have informed program design, implementation,
and strategy. The findings and recommendations from these evaluations
lead to more effective programs, more productive and analysis-driven
processes, and more efficient management and execution. For example, a
focused evaluation of CT's global CVE prison programming, completed in
2018, directly informed the design and implementation of new prison
reform assistance in Indonesia and Kosovo.
Question. How, if at all, has the U.S. approach to CVE changed
under the Trump administration's counterterrorism strategy?
Answer. The U.S. approach to CVE is becoming more streamlined and
institutionalized as part of the Trump administration's
counterterrorism strategy. The Office of U.S. Foreign Assistance
Resources (F) published guidance that suggests a clear and streamlined
definition governing CVE broadly within State and USAID. As the reports
suggests, other parts of the Department support establishing a common
definition and working together to ensure greater coherence and closer
coordination. If confirmed, I will work to implement the suggestions in
the FAR report, as well as the guidance in the 2018 National CT
Strategy.
Question. How does the administration's CVE strategy address the
issue of weak, predatory and corrupt governments that often feed
violent extremist narratives?
Answer. The Department implements a multi-prong approach to address
violent extremist narratives emanating from weak, predatory and corrupt
governments. This strategy includes but is not limited to: (1) working
diplomatically with governments to develop and implement national CVE
strategies to help themselves organize efforts against radicalization
and recruitment; (2) collaborating with the Global Engagement Center
(GEC) to develop effective counter extremist narratives; (3) working
with international CVE centers on developing alternative messaging to
counter extremist narratives including within governments; and (4)
supporting actors that counter extremist messages online and offline at
government community levels.
Question. Given the Defense Department's significant footprint in
combatting terrorism and countering violent extremism, how are you
coordinating with the Defense Department to ensure mutually reinforcing
efforts to prevent/counter violent extremism?
Answer. CT coordinates CVE efforts and leverages the expertise and
knowledge of our Department of Defense (DoD) colleagues. The CT Bureau
has a cross-cutting staff that includes multiple staff detailed from
various entities within DoD. Their role is to liaise with DoD combatant
commands, Joint Staff, and OSD Policy on a regular basis. If confirmed,
I will work to ensure this working relationship stays robust to counter
terrorism and violent extremism.
Question. The 2018 Worldwide Threat Assessment of the Intelligence
Community found that ``poor governance, weak national political
institutions, economic inequality, and the rise of violent non-state
actors all undermine states' abilities to project authority and elevate
the risk of violent-even regime-threatening-instability and mass
atrocities.'' If confirmed, how will you prioritize efforts to address
the root causes of violent conflict like poor governance, weak
political institutions, and economic inequality? What tools will you
prioritize in addressing this challenge?
Answer. State fragility and violent conflict directly affect U.S.
interests. If confirmed, I support prioritizing our resources on places
clearly tied to U.S. interests, prioritizing prevention to get ahead of
costly crises, recognizing the political nature of conflict, countering
our adversaries' efforts to sow or exploit fragility, and focusing on
intentional burden-sharing and coordination among our partners. In
addition, we must use data analytics, qualitative assessments, and on-
the-ground reporting to identify trends in countries with indicators of
fragility and instability that pose the greatest risks to U.S national
security.
Question. The President's National Security Strategy placed
emphasis on addressing fragile states, recognizing that ``failing
states can destabilize entire regions,'' and threaten American security
and interests. What role do you see the State Department playing in
efforts to reduce instability and prevent state failure? What tools
will you prioritize in addressing this challenge?
Answer. I am aware of the pending bipartisan, bicameral ``Global
Fragility Act'' that calls for the creation of a U.S. government global
fragility strategy, the selection of priority focus countries, the
creation of new appropriation accounts, and the establishment of a new
multilateral funding mechanism (Senate version). The legislation
emphasizes the role of the State Department as the lead actor in
developing fragility strategies. The Bureau of Conflict and
Stabilization Operations is well placed to be the lead actor at the
Department for the implementation of the Act, using its expert
analytical capabilities and deep bench of conflict and stabilization
advisors.
Question. There is a growing body of evidence that poor governance-
marked by high corruption and lack of government transparency-is a key
driver of fragility and political instability in many parts of the
world today. Citizens frustrated by government corruption, repression,
and a loss of dignity and hope are more likely to tolerate or support
violent extremist groups such as Al Qaeda, ISIS and Boko Haram.
Obviously, this jeopardizes both the United States and its allies. Can
you tell this committee what concrete steps you will take, if
confirmed, to promote good governance, anti-corruption, and
transparency efforts around the world to help keep America safe?
Answer. Terrorist groups exploit poor governance and social
divisions to recruit new members. It is critical that we continue to
analyze local conditions and reduce specific pathways to violence and
conflict. I also support prioritizing prevention to get ahead of costly
crises, recognizing the political nature of conflict, countering our
adversaries' efforts to sow or exploit fragility, and focusing on
intentional burden-sharing and coordination among our partners. In
addition, we must use data analytics, qualitative assessments, and on-
the-ground reporting to identify trends in countries with indicators of
fragility and instability that pose the greatest risks to U.S national
security.
Question. During your August 21 testimony before the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, you describe the role and impact of targeted
sanctions on combating malign Russian activity and illicit finance. In
this testimony, you mention Treasury's implementation of
``comprehensive financial diplomacy.'' Will you describe how you plan
to tailor some of the tools you mentioned-engagement with foreign
governments, advancing multilateral efforts, public affairs engagement-
-if confirmed, in your new role as Under Secretary for Civilian
Security, Democracy, and Human Rights?
Answer. If confirmed, I will bring to bear the range of tools
available within the ``J family'' of bureaus and offices to advance
U.S. foreign policy objectives. For example, to disrupt, deter, and
hold accountable perpetrators of human rights violations and abuses, I
will: pursue diplomatic engagement through bilateral and multilateral
channels; shine a spotlight on challenges through public remarks and
reporting; use authorities such as those provided under the Magnitsky
Act and the International Religious Freedom Act to exact costs for
malign actions; target U.S. foreign assistance to empower and defend
frontline activists; and meet with a broad cross-section of civil
society and opposition leaders to signal U.S. support for civic
participation and political competition.
Question. In 2017, former Secretary of State Tillerson referred to
the Tatmadaw's attacks on the Rohingya as ``ethnic cleansing.'' Since
then, the State Department has not issued any statement regarding its
assessment of whether or not those attacks constitute genocide, crimes
against humanity, or war crimes, even though the State Department
commissioned an investigation of the alleged human rights abuses in
Burma, and issued a summary of its findings in September 2018. Do you
believe that the crimes committed against the Rohingya constitute
genocide or crimes against humanity?
Answer. I am appalled by the ethnic cleansing of Rohingya in
northern Rakhine State. Credible reports of massacres, gang rape, and
village and mosque burnings shock the conscience, and I am committed to
promoting accountability for those responsible.The U.S. determination
of atrocity crimes, including genocide or crimes against humanity, is
generally made by the Secretary of State. I would emphasize that there
is no hierarchy of atrocity crimes; they are all equally abhorrent and
shocking. If confirmed, I will consult with experts within the
Department and examine all the information to provide the Secretary
with my best advice.
Question. The administration has placed several Burmese military
officers and two military units on the Global Magnitsky list, and
placed visa restrictions on Commander in Chief Senior General Min Aung
Hlaing and three other Burmese generals. Various organizations have
provided evidence that other Burmese officers and units were
responsible for gross human rights violations in Burma. Do you think
the U.S. government should place similar restrictions or sanctions on
these other officers and units?
Answer. If confirmed, I will prioritize promoting accountability
for those responsible for these abuses, and justice for victims. I will
aim to continue U.S. leadership to promote human rights and efforts to
deter further atrocities in Burma. In this regard, I will consider the
utility of all policy tools at our disposal, including sanctions.
Further, I would work closely with the U.S. Mission to the U.N. and
like-minded countries and regional partners, to press the government of
Burma to grant unhindered access to U.N. mechanisms, including the
International Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar, the U.N. Special
Rapporteur, and the U.N. Special Envoy.
Question. What are the specific actions that the Department will
take to support a vibrant and active civil society in Guatemala,
particularly because this is so tied to regional stability and
migration?
Answer. Protecting and supporting a vibrant and active civil
society, including human rights defenders (HRDs) is a key U.S. foreign
policy priority. The United States supports HRDs as they work
tirelessly--and sometimes at great personal risk--to protect human
rights and fundamental freedoms, advocate for government transparency
and accountability, promote rule of law, and expose corruption.
The fight against corruption and impunity is of critical importance
in Guatemala. The Department takes threats against civil society actors
seriously, and engages with the governments of the region so that they
protect civil society activists and prosecute those who harm them.
Those who are involved in such threats can face consequences from the
U.S. government. including possible economic sanctions and visa
revocations.
Question. Given the administration's recent decision to cut funding
from Guatemala and other Northern Triangle countries, how do you intend
to ensure regional stability without this funding?
Answer. The State Department is working with governments in the
region to achieve the shared goal of reducing irregular migration to
address the humanitarian and security crisis at the U.S. southern
border. The U.S. government coordinates with governments throughout the
hemisphere, including Mexico and Central America, on a broad range of
issues related to migration and management of our border, including
security cooperation, trade, counter narcotics, human rights, and other
regional issues.
Question. Guatemala has made incredible strides in promoting
accountability for abuses of power, including cases of human rights
atrocities and acts of corruption. One of the emblematic institutions
created to address corruption and impunity is the U.N.-backed
International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG). Since
2007, CICIG identified more than 600 elected officials, businesspeople,
and bureaucrats in corruption and broke up 60 criminals' networks in
the country. On January 7, 2019, Morales announced that his
administration would unilaterally cancel the international agreement
that established CICIG, defying Constitutional Court orders in what
amounts to a technical coup. Just two weeks ago, CICG's mandate ended
in Guatemala, and since that time human rights organizations and civil
servants have reported physical insecurity and threats against their
safety. How do you plan to address the ongoing human rights situation
in Guatemala, particularly as CICIG is no longer operating?
Answer. I understand that the departure of CICIG does not affect
the State Department's commitment to continue working with Guatemalan
judicial partners to build their capacity to fight corruption and
impunity. If confirmed, I will be committed to supporting the
Guatemalan people and institutions in their ongoing fight against
corruption and impunity and will use all the tools at the Department's
disposal in order to do so.
Question. Do you pledge to support other justice and anti-
corruption mechanisms in Guatemala through designated U.S. funding?
Answer. From my long experience working closely with the Department
of State, I have seen that the State Department takes corruption very
seriously. Secretary Pompeo fully understands how corruption undermines
the trust of citizens in their governmental institutions, allows both
local and transnational criminal organizations to thrive, and
contributes to irregular immigration to the United States. The
Department continues to use all tools at its disposal to respond to
corruption, which can include utilizing economic sanctions and visa
restrictions where appropriate. We also press for accountability and an
end to impunity for corrupt actors in the countries. The President and
the Secretary believe that the governments of El Salvador, Guatemala,
and Honduras must take clear action to stem migration to the United
States prior to any decisions to restart assistance. The fight against
corruption and impunity is of critical importance in Guatemala.
Question. Will you raise concerns about Morales' attacks on CICIG
or other mechanisms and support foreign policy measures to defend these
bodies?
Answer. I understand that the departure of CICIG does not affect
the State Department's commitment to continue working with Guatemalan
judicial partners to build their capacity to fight corruption and
impunity. If confirmed, I will be committed to supporting the
Guatemalan people and institutions in their ongoing fight against
corruption and impunity and will use all the tools at the Department's
disposal in order to do so.
Question. United Nations human rights experts have expressed deep
concern over the frequency and severity of attacks and other acts of
intimidation against human rights defenders in Guatemala last year.
What concrete measures will you take to protect those individuals who
are on the frontlines of defending human rights in Guatemala?
Answer. I share these concerns regarding attacks and intimidation
against human rights defenders in Guatemala. If confirmed, I will work
with my Department of State colleagues to advance the protection of
human rights defenders in Guatemala and hold human rights abusers to
account. I will support the use of the Bureau of Democracy, Human
Rights, and Labor's rapid response funds to help human rights defenders
worldwide who are under threat. I will also promote the use of
accountability mechanisms such as the Global Magnitsky Act and section
7031(c) of the 2018 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and
Related Programs Appropriation Act, to hold accountable the
perpetrators of abuses. I will also work with Department counterparts
and Embassy Guatemala City to speak out regularly, condemning violence
against and standing with human rights defenders in Guatemala.
Question. You have discussed the connection between the collapse in
oil revenue to the collapse in the Maduro government's ability to
import food, medicine, and other goods. If confirmed, how do you plan
to address the ongoing humanitarian crises in Venezuela and the
spillover to other countries in the region?
Answer. I am deeply concerned about the regional impact of the
current crisis in Venezuela. As the largest donor for the response to
the Venezuela regional crisis, the United States has provided more than
$377 million since FY 2017--including nearly $334 million in
humanitarian assistance and approximately $43 million in development
and economic assistance to reach more than 4.3 million Venezuelans
displaced abroad. If confirmed, I intend to assess options for
leveraging humanitarian assistance to meet Venezuelans' needs and to
reduce the impact of the crisis on both Venezuelans and the countries
that generously host them.
Question. Over the past two years, hundreds of died and nearly
500,000 others have been displaced following violence surrounding the
Anglophone/Francophone linguistic split in Cameroon. The government of
President Biya (in power since 1982) claims that Anglophone separatists
are terrorizing civilians and attacking government forces, while
residents of the Anglophone regions of Northwest and Southwest Cameroon
accuse security forces of committing extrajudicial killings and burning
villages indiscriminately. Please discuss the status and intended
outcomes of CSO's programming in Cameroon, particularly in the context
of the conflict in Cameroon's Anglophone region.
Answer. It is my understanding is that the goal of CSO's program in
Cameroon is to build capacity to increase coordination and become more
effective advocates on behalf on behalf of affected populations. This
capacity building will support dialogue and peace initiatives in the
Anglophone Regions. The program will help identify and build awareness
of champions for peace towards the resolution of the ongoing conflict
in Cameroon's Anglophone regions. CSO awarded the grant at the end of
August to an implementing civil society organization to begin its work.
If confirmed, I support continuing this important work to resolving the
conflict in Cameroon.
Question. What policy insights has CSO drawn from its work in other
conflict settings that might be applicable to Cameroon? What more might
CSO do to promote a peaceful resolution of the crisis?
Answer. Each conflict CSO has worked in is unique. However, we do
know that human rights abuses by fighters make ending conflict more
difficult. We also know that dialogue initiatives will be successful
only if all parties perceive the dialogue and the interlocutors as
legitimate, and if women are included. CSO has technical staff with
experience working with parties to conflicts in over two dozen places.
CSO supports the USG in our efforts to promote a peaceful resolution in
Cameroon, including providing technical support to our Embassy. If
confirmed, I would continue working closely with our international
partners to inform and advance peace initiatives in Cameroon.
Question. As you know, Senator Rubio and I introduced legislation,
alongside Representatives Smith and McGovern in the House, that would
amend the U.S.-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 to require the Secretary of
State to produce an annual report assessing the status of Hong Kong's
autonomy, as well as impose sanctions on officials of China and Hong
Kong who the President determines are responsible for suppressing basic
freedoms in Hong Kong. If confirmed, would you support passage of the
Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act?
Answer. I share Congressional concerns about efforts by Beijing to
erode the autonomy that underpins U.S. special treatment of Hong Kong.
If I am confirmed, I would certainly hope to work closely with the
Senate and would be pleased focus on the legislation.
Question. Many demonstrators have complained of the excessive use
of force by the Hong Kong police. U.S. companies are significant
suppliers of riot control gear and weapons used by the Hong Kong police
forces including tear gas. How do you view proposals for the temporary
ban on the U.S. sale of riot control munitions and equipment to the
Hong Kong police?
Answer. I find allegations of excessive use of force by Hong Kong
police deeply disturbing. I understand that the Department of State and
its partner agencies carefully review relevant license applications for
transactions involving controlled goods on a case by case basis,
weighing the national security and foreign policy implications,
including those related to human rights, of each proposed transaction.
I believe this vigilance continues to be of the utmost importance with
respect to Hong Kong.
Question. In South Sudan where more than 400,000 people have been
killed and 4.2 million displaced since the civil war erupted in 2013,
there is growing risk of renewed violence and displacement of the
formation of an inclusive national unity government is not met by the
upcoming November 12, 2019 deadline. A breakdown in the peace process
and resumption of fighting threatens regional stability, nascent
political transitions in Sudan and Ethiopia, and Ebola preparedness and
prevention. As Under Secretary for Civilian Security, what diplomatic
efforts will you undertake to ensure that the warring parties reach a
political settlement and form an inclusive government of national
unity?
Answer. In addition to the important diplomatic work being carried
out by our Embassy in Juba to advance these goals, I would continue to
work closely with our Norwegian and British allies through the troika
mechanism to continue to convey to all parties in South Sudan the
importance of continuing dialogue to resolve outstanding political
issues that will allow for the formation of an inclusive national unity
government by the November 12, 2019, deadline. I would also continue to
engage with the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development, the
African Union, and key regional players, including Uganda, Sudan,
Kenya, and Ethiopia to ensure that our diplomatic efforts are
complementing the important work that these actors are doing to assist
South Sudan.
Question. What are the contingency options you would mobilize if
parties fail to uphold the agreement and violence escalates?
Answer. In such a scenario, I would work closely with other members
of the U.N. Security Council to determine how best to utilize the U.N.
Mission in South Sudan to ensure civilian protection and humanitarian
access. I would also coordinate with our allies in the troika and with
regional partners including the Inter-Governmental Authority on
Development and the African Union available options to place pressure
on all actors to cease hostilities.
Question. Will you take decisive action using authorities granted
under the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act to ensure
accountability for those who incite violence and threaten peace in
South Sudan?
Answer. The Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act is a
valuable tool, which I will carefully consider with respect to alleged
human rights violations or abuses in South Sudan.
Question. Widespread corruption is a significant driver of conflict
in South Sudan--as civilians suffer from a severe humanitarian crisis
fueled by years of chronic war, the wealth of South Sudanese elites
continues to grow. The United States--by way of State and Treasury--has
commendably sought to isolate corrupt South Sudan actors from the U.S.
financial system by levying sanctions under Global Magnitsky. Under
your leadership, informed by your experience at the Department of
Treasury, what additional measures--diplomatic or otherwise--would you
advise the administration put in place to target the means through
which South Sudanese elites are able to acquire resources to fund
conflict and launder illicit profits through regional and international
financial institutions, including Kenya and Uganda banks and U.S.
correspondent banks?
Answer. I would continue to work closely with our allies to ensure
that we have as full a picture possible of the ways in which South
Sudanese elites are acquiring and moving illicit resources. I would
coordinate closely with both regional and international allies to
ensure that our allies are aware of risks and taking robust steps to
prevent illicit South Sudanese money from moving through their
financial systems. I would also continue to use Global Magnitsky and
South Sudan specific sanctions to continue to deny funding to those
furthering the conflict in South Sudan.
Question. In previous assessments by the State Department in its
annual International Narcotics Control Strategy Report (INCSR), South
Sudan was determined to not have sufficient laws, regulations, or
enforcement capacity in place to address financial crime. As Under
Secretary for Civilian Security, would you advise the State Department
to continue to monitor South Sudan as a country of concern for purposes
of money laundering and financial crime?
Answer. I would advise the State Department to continue to monitor
South Sudan as a country of concern for the purposes of money
laundering and financial crimes.
Question. Senator Rubio and I plan to introduce the Senate
companion legislation to Representative McGovern and Smith's Tibetan
Policy and Support Act of 2019 in the coming days. Among many other
actions, the legislation would require the U.S. open a consulate in
Lhasa. Will you commit to pressing the Chinese authorities to allow for
the opening of a U.S. consulate in Lhasa as highlighted in the Tibetan
Policy and Support Act of 2019 that is before the Congress?
Answer. I am committed to pressing the Chinese government to allow
the opening of a U.S. Consulate in Lhasa, consistent with the Tibetan
Policy Act. I am also committed, if confirmed, to working closely with
Congress in pursuit of our shared goal of seeing Americans have full
access to China, including the Tibetan Autonomous Region and other
Tibetan areas.
Question. To date, no U.S. Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues
has been able to visit Tibet. In 2018, the Reciprocal Access to Tibet
Act was passed to change the situation. Since the Tibetan Policy Act of
2002 mandates that the Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues should
undertake ``regular travel to Tibetan areas of the People's Republic of
China", if designated to the position, how would you promote reciprocal
access to Tibet?
Answer. President Trump has regularly stated his desire for
reciprocity in the U.S.-China relationship. I am committed to pushing
for reciprocity regarding the open access China and many other
countries enjoy in the United States, and raising concerns about the
lack of regular access to the Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR) for U.S.
diplomats, journalists, academics, and others. If confirmed, and if I
am designated to the position of Special Coordinator for Tibetan
Issues, I will work to ensure that U.S. diplomats, including the
Special Coordinator, as well as journalists, civil society,
legislators, religious leaders, and scholars have full access to China,
including the Tibet Autonomous Region and Tibetan areas.
Question. The United States has been a leader for decades in
promoting human rights and ensuring the protection of human rights
defenders across the world. In accordance with this leadership, Global
Magnitsky designations hold individuals and entities who commit serious
human rights violations or who engage in acts of corruption accountable
by freezing their assets and denying their visa requests to the United
States. Do you support the use of Global Magnitsky designations and
calling out human rights abusers as a tool of foreign policy in order
to hold individuals and entities to account?
Answer. Yes. The Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act
is a valuable tool, which I will seek to continue to use with respect
to human rights violations or abuses.
Question. Do you agree that that there should be additional
resources provided to those who review Global Magnitsky designations in
order to ensure a more robust sanctions regime that targets the worst
human rights abusers?
Answer. The Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act is a
valuable tool, which I will seek to use with respect to human rights
violations or abuses. If confirmed, I will review the resources
available for such designations and ensure that the Department supports
those efforts robustly.
Question. Secretary Pompeo stated that the U.S. ``firmly opposes
criminalization, violence and serious acts of discrimination such as
housing, employment and government services directed against LGBTQI
persons.'' What specific actions will you take to support the human
rights of LGBTQI people abroad?
Answer. If confirmed, I am committed to protecting the human rights
and fundamental freedoms of all persons, including historically
marginalized or persecuted populations such as LGBTI persons. The
safety and security of LGBTI persons is of the utmost importance;
therefore, I will ensure our global approach first and foremost does no
harm. LGBTI status or conduct remains criminalized in some seventy
countries, so I will focus on supporting local efforts that may lead to
decriminalization. I will work with DRL and Regional Bureaus to develop
strategies that prioritize regular discussions with local LGBTI
community and civil society partners. I will also raise human rights of
LGBTI persons in the context of larger human rights and democracy
concerns wherever possible.
Question. Do you pledge to prioritize the human rights of LGBTQI
people in your position as the Undersecretary?
Answer. If confirmed, I am committed to protecting the human rights
and fundamental freedoms of all persons, including historically
marginalized or persecuted populations such as LGBTI persons. I will
also raise LGBTI human rights issues in the context of larger human
rights and democracy concerns wherever possible.
Question. In countries around the world, there are criminal
penalties associated with exercising sexual and reproductive health and
rights, including criminalizing same-sex relationships and abortion. As
Undersecretary, would you raise concerns about laws that criminalize
same-sex relationships and women's personal health decisions in public
and private diplomatic settings?
Answer. If confirmed, I am committed to protecting the fundamental
rights and freedoms of all persons, including historically marginalized
or persecuted populations such as women and LGBTI persons. I will also
raise LGBTI human rights, including decriminalization, and women's
human rights issues in the context of larger human rights and democracy
concerns wherever possible.
Question. Will you instruct DRL to report on LGBTI rights and
access to sexual and reproductive health services in the Human Rights
Report?
Answer. If confirmed, I will support DRL's approach to the Human
Rights Report, which includes reporting on the rights of LGBTI
individuals. I understand that the HRR subsection entitled
``Reproductive Rights'' by the previous administration was renamed
``Coercion in Population Control'' consistent with the requirement of
U.S. law to report ``wherever applicable, practices regarding coercion
in population control, including coerced abortion and involuntary
sterilization.'' Additional material on maternal mortality, access to
contraception, and similar issues is available via hyperlink in the
text of each country chapter and in an appendix to the HRR. If
confirmed, I will ensure the State Department continues to comply with
statutory reporting requirements and delivers objective, evidence-
based, rigorous human rights reports.
Question. One International entity designed to help countries fight
transnational organized crime is INTERPOL. Some observers, however,
have alleged that institutions like INTERPOL are being manipulated by
autocratic regimes to facilitate repression and target political
opponents through the misuse of INTERPOL red notice and other law
enforcement information-sharing databases. In your view, are
allegations of INTERPOL abuse and misuse cause for U.S. concern?
Answer. The United States is aware of such allegations, shares
concerns, and remains vigilant and committed to countering attempts by
any INTERPOL member state to misuse the INTERPOL red notice mechanism
or other law enforcement information-sharing databases to target
political opponents or for other political purposes.
Question. How can the United States and the State Department in
particular use its voice in international institutions like INTERPOL to
promote U.S. Values and thwart U.S. Adversaries?
Answer. The State Department, working closely with the Department
of Justice, engages with members of the INTERPOL Executive committee
and the general INTERPOL membership to raise concerns about
politicization and to support positions and candidates for leadership
positions whom we believe best reflect the technical, objective, non-
political nature of the organization's work.
We support and encourage INTERPOL's efforts to enhance its legal
review of all red notices prior to publication to ensure compliance
with its Constitution and governing rules.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted to Hon. Marshall Billingslea by Senator Jeanne Shaheen
Question. You said in your confirmation hearing before the
committee that the administration did not support the sanctioning of
companies constructing the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline from Russia to
Europe. What actions is the administration undertaking in order to
prevent its construction?
Answer. The United States continues to oppose Nord Stream 2. The
administration believes Nord Stream 2 does nothing to advance Europe's
energy security goals and would provide Russia another tool for the
political coercion of European countries, especially Ukraine.
The administration supports Europe's efforts to develop more
competitive, transparent, and resilient energy markets so that Russia
cannot use Europe's reliance on its energy resources as a source of
political and economic leverage. Without this leverage, European
countries will be able to better respond to possible disruptions.
Though much work remains to be done, some European energy markets
are becoming more competitive, challenging Russia's historically
dominant position in those markets. In part this is because exports of
U.S. LNG are making global LNG markets more liquid, providing countries
with greater choice.
Question. In a hearing before this committee on September 18, 2019,
Assistant Secretary of State David Stilwell discussed the cooperation--
or lack thereof--between China and the U.S. on stopping to flow of
synthetic opioids into our country. If confirmed, you will oversee the
Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement (INL). How would
you instruct INL and the State Department to work with other agencies
and departments like DOJ and DHS to coordinate its efforts to address
this issue? How will you work with countries like Mexico and China to
stop the flow of illegal drugs into the United States?
Answer. If confirmed, I will direct efforts at the State
Department, particularly within INL, to continue supporting U.S. law
enforcement agencies and other interagency partners involved in the
fight against synthetic opioids in their overseas engagement, and to
draw upon their expertise in the provision of foreign assistance to
opioid source and transit countries. I plan to continue our work under
the Merida Initiative to build the capacity of Mexican authorities to
interdict drug shipments, dismantle clandestine labs, track precursor
chemicals, and investigate and prosecute drug traffickers. I will also
give top priority to engaging Beijing to ensure China follows through
on strict enforcement of new regulations on fentanyl and precursor
chemicals.
Question. Over the 2,000 foreign fighters in Northeast Syria are in
the custody of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). While the SDF has
been doing a remarkable job, it is unclear how much longer the SDF can
manage this situation. In particular, I am worried about the fate of
the British Beatles who remain in Syria and have been identified as
suspects in the kidnappings, torture and deaths of several Americans.
If confirmed, would you direct the Counterterrorism Bureau to deal with
this issue differently?
Answer. I salute the SDF's success in subduing the remnants of the
so-called territorial ``caliphate''. I also understand the challenges
associated with the ongoing detention of FTFs. I believe CT is taking
the right steps in addressing the case of the Beatles, who are
suspected of involvement in terrorist acts against Americans, by
continuing to engage UK partners for updates as the case wends its way
through the courts and encouraging the UK to share relevant evidence
with the United States. If confirmed, I will work with CT to continue
engaging the UK as well as reiterating our preference to try these
individuals in a U.S. court. I will also work with CT to continue its
interagency coordination help SDF partners address detention
challenges.
Question. Given the number of national security agencies involved
in this work, how would you ensure that all Agencies involved were
sharing info not just with each other, but with the families of those
Americans who have been harmed by ISIS?
Answer. The interagency Hostage Recovery Fusion Cell, the Office of
the Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs, and the Bureau of
Consular Affairs have the primary responsibility for supporting
hostages and their families, including hostages held or killed by ISIS.
While U.S. government agencies, of necessity, protect sources, methods
and the integrity of the work process, under Presidential Policy
Directive--30 the Hostage Recovery Fusion Cell coordinates
declassification of information to share with families of hostages held
by ISIS. If confirmed, I will respect professional requirements to
maintain controls on information but will encourage appropriate sharing
of information with the families while protecting ongoing activities.
Question. I worked on legislation that will soon become law to
establish an ISIS Detainee Coordinator. The legislation authorizes this
new position to be housed at State. Critical responsibilities of the
Coordinator will include pushing countries to repatriate foreign
fighters and communicating with American families about suspects held
as detainees who may be responsible for crimes against their loved
ones. If the position is eventually placed at State, it will likely
either fall under your jurisdiction or perhaps even directly report to
you. If that is the case, will you commit to ensuring that this
position be adequately staffed, resourced and able to carry out the
responsibilities detailed in the legislation?
Answer. I am aware of your legislation to establish an ISIS
Detainee Coordinator at the Department of State. If confirmed, I will
work to ensure that this position and the associated offices possess
adequate staff, resources, and capacity to carry out the
responsibilities detailed in the legislation. The Bureau of
Counterterrorism and Countering Violent Extremism (CT), part of the J
family, has developed capabilities to lead the interagency coordination
necessary to encourage countries to repatriate FTFs from Syria, and
leads coordination with other bureaus to communicate with American
families about cases involving their loved ones. As such, if confirmed,
I would also recommend that the office of the coordinator reside within
CT.
Question. Earlier this year, the State Department released its
Congressionally-mandated 2018 Country Reports on Human Rights
Practices. I continue to be disappointed that the administration does
not consider reproductive rights to be worthy of inclusion in these
influential reports and has significantly scaled back reports on
gender-based violence. If confirmed, you would oversee the Bureau in
charge of these reports. Do you consider gender-based violence to be a
human rights violation? Will you commit to reporting on the prevalence
of gender-based violence in these country reports? Will you commit to
restoring the reproductive rights section of the human rights reports?
Answer. The National Security Strategy states that the U.S.
government will support efforts to advance women's equality and protect
the rights of women and girls. Reporting on violence against women and
girls is an important component and complements other U.S. efforts to
press governments to protect women and girls from such violence.
The Country Reports on Human Rights Practices (HRR) continues to
cover gender-based violence throughout each country chapter and
particularly in Section 6. I understand that the HRR subsection
entitled ``Reproductive Rights'' by the previous administration was
renamed ``Coercion in Population Control'' consistent with the
requirement of U.S. law to report ``wherever applicable, practices
regarding coercion in population control, including coerced abortion
and involuntary sterilization.''
Additional material on maternal mortality, access to contraception,
and similar issues is available via hyperlink in the text of each
country chapter and in an appendix to the HRR. If confirmed, I will
ensure the State Department continues to comply with statutory
reporting requirements and delivers objective, evidence-based, rigorous
human rights reports.
Question. For nearly four decades, the United States has been a
world leader in refugee protection. This leadership has been critical
to advancing U.S. foreign policy interests around the world. Former
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, who served
under President George W. Bush, has written that ``Our values and our
national security interests argue for raising our refugee ceiling, not
lowering it. The president should seize the mantle of Reagan and
fortify U.S. leadership on refugees.'' Do you agree with this
statement?
Answer. I understand that the United States remains one of the
largest resettlement countries in the world. I am also aware that the
United States exercises international leadership as the single largest
donor of humanitarian assistance worldwide, last year delivering more
than $8 billion in life-saving aid around the world. If confirmed, I
will support the President's efforts to emphasize the importance of
coordinated, effective, and efficient international responses, as well
as the need for other governments, and other actors in the private
sector, to step in to contribute to humanitarian efforts.
Question. Do you believe that it is important for the United States
to continue to serve as a global leader in refugee protection,
including resettlement?
Answer. Yes. I understand that the United States offers
humanitarian protection to the most vulnerable of those who have
experienced persecution or who fear persecution, while prioritizing the
safety and security of the American people. The December 2017 National
Security Strategy says that the United States will prioritize
``support[ing] displaced people close to their homes to help meet their
needs until they can safely and voluntarily return home.'' U.S.
humanitarian assistance reaches millions of refugees and displaced
people worldwide every year, including those who will never be
considered or qualify for resettlement.
Question. How do the administration's severe reductions in refugee
admissions over the past three years, including the proposal from some
administration officials that zero refugees be resettled next year,
harm U.S. interests at home and abroad?
Answer. The United States anticipates resettling up to 30,000
refugees in FY 2019 under the refugee ceiling. They will join hundreds
of thousands of asylum seekers who are already inside the United States
awaiting adjudication of their claims. The refugee admissions program
must take into account this operational reality. In consideration of
both the U.S. national security interest and the urgent need to restore
integrity to an overwhelmed asylum system, the administration is
focusing on addressing the humanitarian protection cases of those
already in the country. Moreover, it is important that the refugee
ceiling number should not be viewed in isolation from America's other
expansive humanitarian programs. In FY 2018, the United States provided
more than $8 billion in humanitarian assistance, including to refugees.
Question. In your current role at Department of Treasury, you work
with other departments and agencies on the implementation of
coordinated sanctions packages. Do you regard sanctions as a tool that
can be used to change another state's behavior? What is the importance
of coordinating U.S. sanctions with European allies? Is it ever
appropriate to delay coordination of sanctions with allies for
political purposes? What are your views on the effectiveness of Global
Magnitsky sanctions and other target sanctions?
Answer. I believe sanctions are a fundamental tool of diplomacy and
are best used as part of a whole-of government strategy. The purpose of
the sanctions is to modify malign actors' behavior by targeting their
assets and access to the U.S. financial system in an effort to change
their calculus. These sanctions have the greatest impact when partners
and allies also undertake similar measures.
I have spent my time at Treasury working hard to ensure our
partners have the tools they need to work with the United States on
sanctions actions across a wide swath of programs. In recent years, the
U.S. government has used sanctions to target actors within economies
that are more complex and more integrated into the global financial
system. As a result, we have developed new methods for targeting malign
actors to minimize collateral consequences, as well as strategic use of
licensing and implementation authorities. Our European allies are
critical sanctions partners, as are our friends and allies in the
Pacific and Canada. The effectiveness of sanctions is dependent upon
their ability to deter, constrain, disrupt, and identify bad behavior,
all of which is augmented through a multilateral approach.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted to Hon. Marshall Billingslea by Senator Edward J. Markey
Question. Twenty-one human rights and civil rights groups are
opposing your nomination because of your advocacy for harsh
interrogation practices you claimed were ``not controversial from
either a legal, or policy standpoint.'' Military JAGs and law
enforcement had repeatedly raised seriously legal and policy concerns
about these practices, including violation of the Unified Code of
Military Justice and domestic criminal law--even while you were at the
Department of Defense. How do you define torture? How does it differ
from enhanced interrogation techniques?
Answer. I defer to the Department of Justice and legal counsel on
the definition of torture as it applies to interrogation techniques. As
I stated in my testimony, if ever called upon again to be involved in
interrogation policy, I would not support use of any technique not
identified as allowable in the Army Field Manual, as set forth by a law
enacted by Congress in 2015.
Question. Do you think it's important for the United States, as one
of the world's moral leaders, to stand against torture?
Answer. Yes. Torture is prohibited under international law and is
incompatible with the values that define us as a people. As Secretary
Pompeo stated ``The United States is unambiguous. We never conduct
torture, period. Full stop.''
Question. How would you assuage fears in foreign countries that
your work at the Department of Defense on interrogation would undermine
American credibility on opposing torture and supporting key human
rights?
Answer. I am unaware of any such fears. As I repeatedly stated in
the hearing, I have never supported the use of torture. Foreign nations
around the world know that I have actively promoted human rights in my
Department of Treasury role and have driven use of sanctions
authorities against hundreds of individuals and entities involved in
human rights abuses. My work against the dictatorships in Venezuela and
Nicaragua are two good examples, where Venezuala-focused human rights
organizations and opposition members have written the committee in
strong support of my nomination.
Question. How would you pursue a robust human rights agenda if
foreign governments declined to meet with or otherwise engage in
substantial discussions with the J Bureau based on the belief that you
supported torture techniques?
Answer. I do not anticipate any such situation arising. I have
never supported the use of torture. In fact, the classified documents
provided to the committee staff show that I was greatly concerned with
slowing and regulating the inflow of detainees into Guantanamo, and in
expediting the transfer of detainees out. Also, as shown in the
documents, I was concerned that allegations of human rights abuses
raised by detainees be fully documented. If confirmed, I will
aggressively press the human rights agenda around the world and
reiterate the position of the United States: Torture is prohibited
under international law and is incompatible with the values that define
us as a people.
Question. The human rights of LGBTQI people are under attack around
the world. Reports have shown that many are regularly persecuted,
prosecuted, and incarcerated in places like Indonesia, Chechnya, and
Egypt. At the same time, trans people are also prosecuted worldwide in
at least 26 countries. Even recently, the United States has substituted
language like ``gender equity'' with ``equality between girls and
boys'' in international agreements. These are gross human rights
violations. How can the administration claim to support LGBTQI rights
externally while undermining the rights of LGBTQI people through its
policy and diplomacy?
Answer. The administration continues to seek to advance the human
rights of LGBTI individuals globally through public and private
diplomacy.
Question. What specific actions will you take to prioritize the
human rights of LGBTQI people abroad?
Answer. If confirmed, I am committed to protecting the human rights
and fundamental freedoms of all persons, including historically
marginalized or persecuted populations such as LGBTI persons. The
safety and security of LGBTI persons is of the utmost importance;
therefore, I will ensure our global approach first and foremost does no
harm. LGBTI status or conduct remains criminalized in some seventy
countries, so I will focus on supporting local efforts that seek to
achieve decriminalization. I will work with DRL and Regional Bureaus to
develop strategies that prioritize regular discussions with local LGBTI
community and civil society partners. I will also raise human rights of
LGBTI persons in the context of larger human rights and democracy
concerns wherever possible.
Question. In August 2017, the Burmese military forces increased
their attacks against the Rohingya in Rakhine State in a coordinated
and widespread campaign of indiscriminate killing, rape, and razing of
villages. Following a series of investigations, including by the United
Nations Fact Finding Mission and the State Department, there have been
credible reports documenting the egregious human rights violations that
have occurred in Rakhine State. These reports noted that legal
determinations should be considered, including crimes against humanity
and genocide. However, Secretary Pompeo has declined to issue a
genocide determination regarding the atrocities committed against the
Rohingya. Do these atrocities constitute genocide? If so, will you
encourage the Secretary to issue such a determination? If not, will you
encourage the Secretary to issue some other determination?
Answer. I am appalled by the ethnic cleansing of Rohingya in
northern Rakhine State. Credible reports of massacres, gang rape, and
village and mosque burnings shock the conscience, and I am committed to
promoting accountability for those responsible.
The U.S. determination of atrocity crimes, including genocide or
crimes against humanity, is generally made by the Secretary of State. I
would emphasize that there is no hierarchy of atrocity crimes; they are
all equally abhorrent and shocking. If confirmed, I will consult with
experts within the Department and examine all the information to
provide the Secretary with my best advice.
Question. Do you believe that there are negative consequences to
the global human rights campaign by not issuing a determination of any
kind?
Answer. In November of 2017, the Department of State concluded that
the atrocities committed in Northern Rakhine State constituted ethnic
cleansing. The United States has taken a leading role in promoting
justice and accountability for these atrocities and other human rights
abuses and violations in Burma, using both bilateral and multilateral
tools. If confirmed, I will continue to prioritize promoting
accountability for those responsible for these abuses, justice for
victims, and broader efforts to promote and defend human rights.
Question. Should the United States target military leaders in Burma
with Global Magnitsky sanctions, or are visa bans sufficient to send a
message about the importance of the human rights in the face of foreign
governments that are intent on persecuting ethnic minorities?
Answer. If confirmed, I will prioritize promoting accountability
for those responsible for these abuses, and justice for victims as part
of larger efforts to promote and defend human rights. I will aim to
continue U.S. leadership of the international response to the Rakhine
State crisis and efforts to deter further atrocities. In this regard, I
will consider the utility of all policy tools at our disposal,
including sanctions. Further, I would work closely with the U.S.
Mission to the U.N. and like-minded countries and regional partners, to
press the government of Burma to grant unhindered access to U.N.
mechanisms, including the International Investigative Mechanism for
Myanmar, the U.N. Special Rapporteur, and the U.N. Special Envoy.
Question. Recently the Guardian reported the State Department's
Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) pressured the
International Organization for Migration (IOM) to censor documents and
remove references to climate change or risk losing funding from the
bureau. It is unacceptable for the administration to extort recipients
of U.S. funding into toeing the administration's climate-denial line.
Do you believe it is good public policy to require IOM or any other
PRM-funded entity to engage in self-censorship in exchange for U.S.
government support? If yes, why?
Answer. The International Organization for Migration (IOM) is an
important partner for the United States around the globe. It is my
understanding that IOM receives 97% of its funding through voluntary
contributions to specific projects. Donors--including the United
States--fund those IOM projects and activities that are consistent with
each donor's foreign policy goals and objectives.
Question. On what basis would PRM be able to lawfully cut or
withhold funding from IOM if its program activities are not in line
with Trump administration foreign policy objectives?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Bureau of Population,
Refugees, and Migration issues requests for proposals consistent with
foreign policy priorities and federal funding guidelines. If confirmed,
I would work to ensure proposals received in response to these requests
are evaluated rigorously.
Question. Do you support the United States rejoining the 2018
Global Compact on Migration? Why or why not?
Answer. I do not support the United States rejoining the 2018
Global Compact on Migration (GCM). The United States regularly engages
with other countries on many immigration issues and will continue to do
so. A migration compact is not needed to facilitate this type of
engagement.
Question. Do you support the United States rejoining the 2018
Global Compact on Refugees? Why or why not?
Answer. I support much of what is contained in the Global Compact
on Refugees, including improving responses to refugee crises by the
U.N. Refugee Agency (UNHCR) as well as facilitating the work of UNHCR
in refugee hosting countries. In particular, I support a basis for
predictable response and greater burden sharing among U.N. member
states and other stakeholders, including development actors, refugee-
hosting communities, and the private sector. I understand that the
Global Compact on Refugees is not legally binding, and states retain
the sovereign right, subject to their international legal obligations,
to determine their own immigration laws, policies, and practices.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted to Adam Seth Boehler by Senator John Barrasso
Question. Under you leadership, are you committed to ensuring the
International Development Finance Corporation promotes projects
involving all forms of energy?
Answer. Yes, to the extent permissible by applicable law.
Question. Why is it in the U.S. taxpayers interest for the U.S.
government to become an equity investor in private and public
businesses in foreign countries?
Answer. Congress provided DFC with equity authority for it to
further its development mandate and advance foreign policy. OPIC has
had difficulty working in partnership with--and leveraging the
investment of--other DFIs because of its lack of equity authority. This
authority will put the United States on equal footing with other DFIs
so that we can invest alongside our allies such as Germany, Japan, and
the UK and not lose attractive deals that drive development as well as
provide economic return. Finally, equity authority provides an
additional and important, way for the DFC to mobilize private sector
capital.
Question. Do you believe the International Development Finance
Corporation should provide equity investments in a foreign state-owned
enterprise? If yes, under what circumstances?
Answer. DFC is designed to help bring private sector investment to
the developing world. As such, these are not the type of investments
that I anticipate.
Question. With the increased risks and exposure of equity
investments, what specific requirements must be in place in place to
ensure adequate oversight and risk management?
Answer. The BUILD Act lays out several requirements related to its
equity authority which I will follow. All equity investments will be
reviewed in full by investment professionals with a full risk/return
analysis. Any investment recommendation will then be reviewed in full
by the Board of Directors. In addition, the legislatively mandated
position of Chief Risk Officer will analyze the risk of the portfolio
to ensure that appropriate decisions are being made across the
organization. Finally, DFC will have its own independent Inspector
General to ensure appropriate oversight.
Question. How are the investments of the International Development
Finance Corporation going to specifically counter international
investment strategies like China's Belt and Road Initiative?
Answer. DFC will be a critical tool in American foreign policy to
address the growing influence of China and other authoritarian
governments. American values--transparency, rule of law, respect for
people and environment-afford us a unique competitive advantage. We
will not pursue the same strategy as China or others but our own. We
will collaborate with other U.S. government agencies such as State and
USAID to ensure that our investment strategy is furthering American
foreign policy goals.
Question. Do you believe it is appropriate for the International
Development Finance Corporation to provide equity or investment
financing to upper-middle income countries like Brazil, China, Mexico,
Russia, and Turkey? If yes, under what circumstances?
Answer. The BUILD Act prioritizes the work of DFC in low-income and
low-middle income countries. DFC support in upper-middle income
countries is restricted. OPIC has been closed in China since the 1980s
and Russia for several years. I do not anticipate that that would be
any different for DFC.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted to Adam Seth Boehler by Senator Robert Menendez
Overview of Expanded Development Mandate
Question. As you are aware, the United States International
Development Finance Corporation (DFC) is set to replace the Overseas
Private Investment Corporation. The new institution has additional
legislative mandates, like women's economic empowerment, a focus on
lower income countries, and a stronger development focus.
Could you describe how you plan to ensure these and other new
mandates are successfully implemented throughout the DFC
especially in a flat funding environment?
Answer. Congress gave DFC a clear development mandate that I am
committed to implementing. The new authorities, such as equity
investment and technical assistance, will put the United States on
equal footing with the current authorities of other international DFIs
and remove barriers that have stood in the way of OPIC investing
alongside allies. I intend to collaborate closely with these allies to
identify opportunities. I also look forward to working closely with
other U.S. government agencies such as USAID and State to leverage
resources in local markets to identify and monitor projects. Finally, I
look forward to working closely with the Chief Development Officer and
Development Advisory Council.
Question. Do any of your plans require additional staff to ensure
that the new DFC can successfully implement, monitor, and evaluate all
the mandated areas?
Answer. As I noted during the hearing, fully utilizing resources
and leveraging other government agencies abroad to advance our mission
is essential for success. This type of cooperation is envisioned by the
coordination report recently submitted by the head of OPIC and USAID to
the committee. It notes that USAID will use its global presence and
depth of technical expertise to assist in monitoring DFC-funded
transactions, which will enable the DFC to provide a deeper level of
monitoring of development impact on its projects than previously
possible. If confirmed, I also intend to continually monitor the
success and resources of DFC to assess any staffing needs and commit to
working with the Administration and Congress to ensure that DFC has the
resources it needs to meet the vision the committee has intended for
the agency.
Question. In addition to existing efforts, how will you ensure that
the DFC is prioritizing higher-impact investments that potentially
incur higher risk and lower reward?
Answer. As a development finance agency, the focus of the agency's
support is to assist private sector investments to maximize development
impact. In the BUILD Act, it is clear that Congress intends DFC to be
more forward leaning and proactive in its investment support. I
understand OPIC has been working with USAID, MCC, and other development
experts to modernize the way it evaluates development impact of
potential supported investments. I look forward to working with the
Chief Development Officer to finalize this system so that supported
projects can be better evaluated on their development impact.
Question. How do you plan on managing and prioritizing limited
resources while also attempting to maximize the potential of the new
DFC?
Answer. I believe that collaboration with our allies--examples
include the recently signed agreements with Japan and Australia--will
yield significant return. DFC will also leverage other government
agencies abroad to advance our mission. I also believe that the
flexibilities in the BUILD Act will allow for support of more projects
in lower income countries helping to maximize DFC's potential. I will
work to ensure that new statutory positions such as Chief Development
Officer, Chief Risk Officer and the Inspector General are adequately
resourced. If confirmed, I commit to working with the Administration
and Congress to ensure DFC has the resources it needs to meet the
vision the committee has intended for the agency.
Question. Will you commit to ensuring that Development outcomes
drive the mission and agenda for OPIC?
Answer. Yes. I am committed to the clear development mandate that
Congress has given DFC.
Question. How do you plan on empowering the Office of the Chief
Development Officer?
Answer. I believe in recruiting top talent and empowering those
individuals. The Chief Development Officer is a key position which will
be responsible for infusing development throughout the organization and
ensuring DFC meets its development mandate across the portfolio. Before
coming into government service, I founded what became the largest home
physician group in the country. I am not a clinician but hired and then
partnered closely with the Chief Medical Officer at the company. I will
bring the same organizational philosophy to DFC.
Question. OPIC has been at work developing an `impact quotient'
intended to maximize the development impact of DFC investments. How do
you intend to prioritize development impact from the top in this
leadership position?
Answer. Congress has given DFC a clear development mandate and I am
committed to this mandate. The flexibilities in the BUILD Act will
allow DFC to support more projects. I plan to use the modernized
development impact assessment tool to prioritize support of projects
with the greatest development impact.
Question. How do you think about the DFC's priorities-particularly
where they might sometimes be in conflict?
Answer. As a development finance agency, the focus of support of
projects is to maximize development impact. If confirmed I will also
prioritize the role DFC can play in helping to advance U.S. foreign
policy in concert with other U.S. government agencies. We will follow
an objective process in order to identify and analyze opportunities
that create the largest development impact in countries of interest
from a foreign policy perspective.
Question. How will you measure progress against these three
objectives to ensure balance in the portfolio?
Answer. The BUILD Act requires DFC to establish performance metrics
that will help measure progress against these key areas. Additionally,
the Chief Development Officer and Chief Risk Officer will be working to
ensure these objectives are being met and balanced across the portfolio
with a particular emphasis on our new development impact assessment
tool.
Economic Statecraft
Question. I am increasingly concerned that the United States is not
well positioned to engage in economic statecraft for the twenty-first
century, including promoting U.S. jobs, business and economic
interests, engaging in development financing for infrastructure and
other needs, including climate change-related resiliency, and setting
standards for emergent technologies and the digital economy.
Can you expand upon how you view your role and your institutions
role, if you are confirmed, in helping to renew and replenish
U.S. economic statecraft instruments?
Answer. I share your concern about the United States role in the
world in this regard. I believe American values-transparency, rule of
law, respect for people and the environment-afford us a unique
competitive advantage. The BUILD Act addressed barriers that will
enable DFC to be more proactive and strategic. I believe that DFC will
serve an important role, in combination with other government agencies,
to drive global development while promoting U.S. interests abroad in
developing countries. BUILD Act firmly places DFC in the United States
foreign policy architecture where it can serve as a key instrument of
economic statecraft as part of a wholistic government approach.
Question. Where do you see the biggest challenges? Biggest
opportunities?
Answer. The BUILD Act has created a modernized DFI. Our main
challenge will be confronting the ongoing and vast effort by countries
such as China that are using inexpensive capital to exert influence on
the developing world. DFC is well designed to encourage large sources
of private capital in the United States to back investments in the
developing world that support innovative American technology and know-
how that will give these countries the best chance to power their
economies forward. Our competitors, such as China's BRI, have made a
number of decisions as of late that make it clear that their capital
comes with a number of strings attached, such as a heavy debt load,
infrastructure failures, and loss of control of critical projects. I
believe that DFC's role mobilizing U.S. private business, people,
values, and innovations overseas is a strategic opportunity and
advantage. The time is now to emphasize our competitive advantages and
partner with our allies.
Question. Have you considered developing an internal incentive
structure to reward staff for positive development outcomes and the
avoidance of negative environmental and social impacts?
Answer. As I understand it, part of the modernized development
impact scoring would evaluate and elevate projects that have positive
development impact over negative environment and social impacts. I
believe that incentives are important tools to influence behavior and
will evaluate our incentive programs if confirmed.
Question. The (BUILD Act) places an increased emphasis on
development outcomes and impact, how do you plan to help guide this
cultural shift?
Answer. The combining of OPIC and DCA will certainly invoke a
culture shift, and the increased mandate on development outcomes will
be part of this shift. As noted above, if confirmed, one of my
priorities will be ensuring a smooth transition and the amplification
of a strong culture that supports the diverse expertise and experience
to advance the new mission. Further, one of the jobs of the Chief
Development Officer will be to infuse development throughout the
organization and ensure DFC meets its development mandate across the
portfolio. I will also ensure that goals and incentives are aligned to
meet our mission where I am able.
Question. Have you considered developing an internal incentive
structure to reward staff for positive development outcomes and the
avoidance of negative environmental and social impacts?
Answer. As I understand it, part of the modernized development
impact scoring would evaluate and elevate projects that have positive
development impact over negative environment and social impacts. I
believe that incentives are important tools to influence behavior and
will evaluate our incentive program if confirmed.
Countering Chinese Development Influence
Question. The DFC is often cited as part of the administration's
response to China's Belt and Road Initiative, but while the DFC cannot
compete with China's investments dollar for dollar, with the help of
the DFC's enhanced toolkit the U.S. will be better positioned to offer
an alternative to China's investment model-a key feature of which is
opacity. Under provisions of the BUILD Act, the DFC will need to make
public detailed project-level information to the extent practical.
Recognizing there are issues of commercial confidentiality to
navigate, if confirmed will you commit to working to ensure the
DFC is best in class when it comes to DFI transparency?
Answer. Yes. I believe that transparency is a value that sets the
United States apart from autocratic governments and should be
considered an advantage, while striking the right balance of working
with the private sector to ensure business confidentiality.
Question. Would that include considering publishing financial terms
(even if on a time delay) or working with other DFIs to release
anonymized contract data?
Answer. If confirmed, the DFC will carefully evaluate what
information may be made public to ensure transparency while maintaining
business confidentiality and compliance with other applicable legal
requirements.
Equity Investment
Question. The BUILD Act granted the DFC limited equity authority, a
key enhancement over its predecessor OPIC.
How important is equity authority to achieving DFC's goals? What
barriers to you see to deploying equity?
Answer. Congress provided DFC with equity authority to further its
development mandate. This is particularly important when investing in
challenging, credit constrained environments. Debt service requirements
create the prospect of taking cash out of a company--which is often
operating in some of the toughest markets on earth--when it possibly
can least afford it.
For all its strengths, OPIC has difficulty working in partnership
with--and leveraging the investment of--other DFIs because of its lack
of equity authority. Therefore, this authority would also allow the
United States to be ``economically interoperable'' with our allies such
as Germany, Japan, and the UK, that have the ability to provide support
in this manner.
DFC will need to ensure that the appropriate processes and
procedures are in place to deploy equity. I understand this work is
ongoing at OPIC and I will ensure that it is successfully implemented
if I am confirmed. I will also work with the administration to ensure
that Congress' intent is implemented.
Question. What can Congress do to ensure DFC has the tools it needs
to fulfill its mandate?
Answer. While DFC has been established in law, it needs an
appropriation from Congress that funds all of its new authorities.
Transparency
Question. The DFC must comply with the transparency requirements of
the Foreign Aid Transparency and Accountability Act (FATAA) as well as
the BUILD Act.
How do you think about the need to balance commercially sensitive
information with the importance of transparency?
Answer. I believe that transparency is a value that sets the United
States apart from our competitors and should be considered as an
advantage, while striking the right balance of working with the private
sector to ensure business confidentiality.
Question. Will you commit to hearing, and providing forums for
engagement and discussion, from all stakeholders with concerns about
projects the IDFC is considering--well before any decisions are made by
the IDFC's board to approve or reject proposals?
Answer. Yes. I believe that stakeholder engagement is a critical
pillar in helping the DFC to advance its mission.
Interagency Cooperation
Question. The committee sees the mission of the DFC is enhanced
when aligned with other government agencies and allies.
Would you support having officers from other agencies, like USAID,
serve details at the IDFC?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Will you ensure and encourage USAID to use tools, like
the Development Credit Authority, that are being moved to the IDFC?
Answer. Yes. As the DFC increases its ability to mobilize private
capital, and USAID places more emphasis on its engagement with the
private sector, coordination between USAID and the DFC to pursue U.S.
development objectives is essential. The DFC and USAID must forge and
maintain strong linkages for the United States to maintain its
leadership in international development.
Question. How do you intend to ensure intergovernmental access to
the IDFC's financing tools and mechanisms?
Answer. The DFC will regularly convene meetings of interagency
partners. These meetings will serve as a venue to share information on
the DFC's transactions and policies; identify priority countries,
sectors, and initiatives for engagement; and identify specific ways
interagency partners can support DFC. Many State Department and USAID
initiatives could be bolstered by DFC's investment tools.
Question. What are your thoughts regarding partnership with
agencies such as USAID, State, and MCC as well as partnering with the
investment organizations of allies such as the Japan Bank for
International Cooperation or JBIC?
Answer. I believe that this is essential and I am encouraged by the
introductory conversations I have already had with each of these
agencies. Many State Department and USAID initiatives could be
bolstered by DFC's investment tools, giving them greater heft. There
are also likely ways that DFC supported projects can complement and
leverage MCC compacts. Likewise, we must work closely with
international partners to tackle development challenges.
Administration Coordination Report
Question. We received the Administration's Coordination Report, as
required under the BUILD Act, earlier this year.
Does the Coordination Report sufficiently reorganize our
development finance instruments?
Answer. I am familiar with the Coordination Report recently
submitted to Congress by the heads of OPIC and USAID. I believe the
report includes many encouraging aspects such as greater interagency
coordination to enhance the United States' use of development finance
to pursue development and foreign policy goals.
Question. Do you have any recommendations or suggestions as to what
you would like to see implemented differently?
Answer. DFC is a new agency of the United States government. If
confirmed, I will view DFC operations with fresh eyes to ensure the
agency is maximizing its potential as Congress intended.
Question. Do you believe that the $21 billion in Sovereign Loan
Guarantees (SLG), which were previously housed at USAID and are
currently up in the air on where they will fall after the
reorganization, would severely harm the capacity of the USDFC if that
money would be counted on its books?
Answer. Under the BUILD Act, the current SLG exposure is expected
to count against the DFC maximum contingent liability if responsibility
for SLGs is assigned to the DFC. The administration has stated that
this is an outcome the Administration would like to avoid and I agree.
Question. How would you suggest the administration goes about
transferring this money?
Answer. The administration has stated that it would like to avoid a
situation in which this exposure counts against the DFC's maximum
contingent liability.
Overall Commitment to Gender Equality and Integration
Question. As it replaces the Overseas Private Investment
Corporation, the DFC has additional legislative mandates, like women's
economic empowerment, a focus on lower income countries, and a stronger
development focus.
Could you describe how you plan to ensure these and other new
mandates are successfully implemented throughout the DFC
especially in a flat funding environment?
Answer. I am committed to the clear development mandate that
Congress has given to DFC. As studies have shown, a focus on
economically empowering and investing in women is bound to bring
increased development impact. I am encouraged by the work OPIC has done
to focus on women's economic empowerment to date and look forward to
continuing and further strengthening that focus. I was excited to hear
that OPIC has been working with USAID, MCC, and other development
experts to modernize the way it evaluates development impact of
potential supported investments and leverage the full capabilities of
the U.S. government in unison. I look forward to working with the Chief
Development Officer to expand our cooperation as well as partner with
our allies
Question. Do any of your plans require additional staff to ensure
that the new DFC can successfully implement, monitor, and evaluate all
the mandated areas?
Answer. As I noted during the hearing, fully utilizing existing
resources and leveraging other government agencies to advance our
mission is critical to success. This type of cooperation is envisioned
by the coordination report recently submitted by the heads of OPIC and
USAID to the committee. Indeed, it notes that USAID will use its global
presence and depth of technical expertise to assist in monitoring DFC-
funded transactions, which will enable the DFC to provide a deeper
level of monitoring of development impact on supported projects than
previously possible. I was also pleased to hear about State support for
a number of additional DFC positions overseas. If confirmed, I will
further evaluate staffing needs and work with Congress and the
Administration to ensure that the intent of Congress in establishing
the DFC is preserved.
Women's Equality
Question. How do you plan to ensure that the DFC fully meets its
mandate in the Better Utilization of Investments Leading to Development
Act of 2018 (BUILD Act) [Sec. 1451 (f)] to ``prioritize the reduction
of gender gaps and maximize development impact by working to improve
women's economic opportunities''throughout the DFC's entire portfolio?
Answer. I am committed to the clear development mandate that
Congress has given to DFC. As studies have shown, a focus on women's
economic empowerment is bound to bring increased development impact. I
am encouraged by the work OPIC has done to focus on women's economic
empowerment to date and look forward to continuing and strengthening
that focus. Women's economic empowerment will also be a key aspect that
the DFC team evaluates in analyzing development impact on any project.
Question. Monitoring, evaluation, and learning are important
components to ensuring that the DFC's projects positively impact on
both men and women. The BUILD Act [Sec. 1443 (b) (3) (A)], calls for
genderdisaggregated data. How do you plan to ensure that this is
consistently done across the entire portfolio and for all indicators or
metrics that are about people?
Answer. If confirmed, I am committed to leading an organization
that learns and grows from its experiences. An essential part of
learning is data collection which can help inform future investments.
As you note, the BUILD Act calls for genderdisaggregated data which
will be useful as DFC seeks to reduce gender gaps.
Question. Ensuring women have equal access to economic
opportunities has the potential to increase women's rights, power,
autonomy, and also can be a catalyst for growth and change around the
world. However, there can also be unintended negative consequences for
women both in the community and the workplace. The United States
International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) currently has a
process to identify environmental and social risk and create plans to
mitigate them, do you plan to build on and enhance these efforts to
ensure that the wide array of risks to women are comprehensively
included and monitored throughout the full project cycle and across the
entire portfolio?
Answer. I was pleased to hear that part of OPIC's 2X women's
initiative has been training OPIC investment officers to view
transactions through a ``gender lens''which is intended in part to
ensure such unintended negative consequences are avoided. DFC will
commit to ensuring that environmental and social risks are evaluated
and monitored.
Question. In your role as the Chief Executive Officer of the United
States International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), you will be
tasked with recommending members for the Development Advisory Council
to the board. What are your plans to ensure that membership includes a
diverse group, including women's rights organizations so that DFC has
access to a critical cross section of expertise to most successfully
spend United States' tax payer dollars?
Answer. The Development Advisory Council promises to be a key body
in which the Board and I, if confirmed, will rely upon to make
recommendations on how DFC can better meet its development mandate. I
am committed to working with the Chief Development Officer to recommend
individuals to the Board representing diverse points of view to better
inform our thinking and ensure that the DFC has access to the right
expertise to most successfully deploy capital based on the mandate
established by Congress with the Build Act.
Question. I understand Overseas Private Investment Corporation
(OPIC) staff has been looking into EDGE Certification-a global
certification standard for gender equality, which development finance
institutions such as the International Financial Corporation and Inter-
American Development Bank have pursued. If confirmed, will you commit
to continuing to explore certification as well as to actively working
to identify partners who prioritize gender equality?
Answer. Yes.
Development Impact, Monitoring, Evaluation, and Reporting
Question. The BUILD Act includes an increase in the legislative
mandates around monitoring, evaluation, and reporting in part due to
the conforming amendment that applies the Foreign Aid Transparency and
Accountability Act of 2015 (FATAA) [Title IV Sec. 1470-(l)] to the DFC.
When evaluating projects how important do you think it is for the
agency to assess, if the project holistically improved the
lives of people in the intended communities, versus focusing on
specific project outcomes like increasing the number of jobs
available?
Answer. I am committed to the clear development mandate that
Congress has given to DFC. I understand OPIC has been working with
USAID, MCC, and other development experts to modernize the way it
evaluates development impact of potential investments both specifically
and holistically. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the
Chief Development Officer to finalize this system so that projects can
be better evaluated on their development impact and our work can be
more focused.
Question. When evaluating projects how important do you think it is
for the agency to assess, if holistically the project improved the
lives of people in the intended communities versus focusing on specific
project outcomes like increasing the number of jobs available?
Answer. I am committed to the clear development mandate that
Congress has given to DFC. I understand OPIC has been working with
USAID, MCC, and other development experts to modernize the way it
evaluates development impact of potential investments both specifically
and holistically. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the
Chief Development Officer to finalize this system so that projects can
be better evaluated on their development impact and our work can be
more focused.
Question. Due to the FATAA conforming amendment, 50% of the DFC's
portfolio will now have to be evaluated, what are your plans to ensure
this mandate is met?
Will this go beyond having partners fill out a self-report
questionnaire? If yes, can you briefly explain what an
evaluation at the DFC would look like under your leadership,
and how lessons learned would be incorporated into future
planning?
Answer. Yes. Monitoring and evaluation mandates in the BUILD Act
are new and important aspects of the changes for DFC. I am committed to
using best in class tools to monitor transactions efficiently. My
management practice is to continually learn from experience to guide
future planning and lessons would be regularly incorporated.
Question. What are the plans to address the gaps in monitoring
practices identified in recent reports from USAID's Office of Inspector
General (2019 and 2015), OPIC's Office of Accountability (2018), and
the government Accountability Office (2015)?
Answer. I take oversight reports seriously. If confirmed, I commit
to better understand the recommendations contained in these reports and
to identify if and where additional work is needed to address any gaps.
Climate Change
Question. Do you believe the scientific consensus that human
activity from burning fossil fuels is driving global warming?
Answer. While I am not an expert in this area, from what I have
read and understand I believe human activity is contributing to changes
in our climate.
Question. You come from the healthcare industry with a strong
record of promoting public health. Do you believe climate change is a
factor that is exacerbating public health crises around the world?
Answer. Yes, I believe that climate change can have a meaningful
impact on public health.
Question. OPIC has a strong environmental and social policy
statement that demonstrates the agency's commitment to transparency,
accountability, and environmental and social performance-including
performing climate-related vulnerability assessments on certain
projects. Do you intend to carry-over this policy to the new DFC? If
not, why not?
Answer. Yes.
Question. The OPIC board recently approved the Vaca Muerta ``Dead
Cow'' fracking project in Argentina. The extraction and combustion of
natural gas poses a myriad of problems for clean air, clean water,
wildlife, landscapes and ecosystems, human health, local communities,
and our climate. Leaking natural gas infrastructure is a source of
unaccounted climate and toxic air emissions which creates emissions
hotspots, negative human health impacts, and environmental justice
issues.
How can OPIC or the new DFC justify funding a project like Vaca
Muerta if it poses a threat to the public health of local
communities and lock them into decades of climate-warming
pollution?
Answer. I am not a current officer at OPIC, so I cannot speak to
this project. If confirmed, I will ensure that projects that have
potential significant adverse environmental impacts go through detailed
analysis and assessment by the career professionals at DFC before
receiving any support from the organization.
Question. OPIC continues to weigh approval of the Kosovo e Re
lignite burner coal fired power plant. The World Bank has rejected
financing for this project nearly a year ago out due to the greenhouse
gas emissions that would be associated with this project.
Do you believe that this project is the best and most responsible
energy option for the U.S. to support in Kosovo?
Answer. I do not currently have enough information about this
particular project to make such a determination.
Question. Do you believe that the World Bank made a prudent
decision to withdraw from the Kosovo e Re lignite burner project as
explained in the following statement made by Jim Yong Kim last year:
``We are required by our by-laws to go with the lowest cost option and
renewables have now come below the cost of coal. So without question,
we are not going to [support the plant].''
Answer. I do not currently have enough information about this
particular project to make such a determination.
Question. Will commit to working with the Kosovo government, and
investors interested in pursuing renewable and low carbon energy
solutions for Kosovo, as means of finding energy alternatives to the
Kosovo e Re lignite burner project?
Answer. I do not currently have enough information about this
particular project to make such a determination.
Responsiveness
Question. Do you commit to respond promptly to all requests for
information by members of this committee?
Answer. Yes
Question. Do you commit to appear before this committee upon
request?
Answer. Yes
Question. If you become aware of any suspected waste, fraud, or
abuse in the Department, do you commit to report it to the Inspector
General?
Answer. If confirmed, I commit to comply with all relevant federal
ethics laws, regulations, and rules, and to raise any concerns that I
may have through appropriate channels.
Administrative
Question. Has anyone ever made a formal or informal complaint or
allegation of sexual harassment, discrimination (e.g., racial, ethnic,
religious, etc.), or inappropriate conduct against you, in a workplace
or any other setting? If so, please describe the nature of the
complaint or allegation, your response, and any resolution, including
any settlements.
Answer. No
Question. Have you ever addressed concerns or allegations of sexual
harassment, discrimination (e.g., racial, ethnic, religious, etc.), or
inappropriate conduct made against any employee over whom you had
supervisory authority? If so, please describe the outcome and actions
taken.
Answer. Over the course of my career, I have had thousands of
people under my direct or indirect supervisory authority. Anytime an
issue has been brought to my attention, I have insisted upon swift
response and fully complied with appropriate policies.
Question. Do you agree that any targeting of or retaliation against
career employees based on their perceived political beliefs, prior work
on policy, or affiliation with a previous administration, is wholly
inappropriate and has no place in the federal government? If confirmed,
what will you do to ensure that all employees under your leadership
understand that any retaliation, blacklisting, or other prohibited
personnel practices will not be tolerated?
Answer. Yes, I agree. I will clearly state this policy. In
addition, I will create an environment that does not support
retaliation, blacklisting, or other prohibited personnel practices by
rectifying any situation, whether in public or in private,
expeditiously and in a manner that ensures that it will not be
tolerated.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted to Adam Seth Boehler by Senator Todd Young
Question. The BUILD Act and our own American economic model varies
greatly from the state driven model presented in China. We cannot
compete directly with BRI but in your view, what sectors or industries
are most critical for the United States to support in Asia and Africa
to provide a counter weight to the influence China is exerting under
BRI?
Answer. DFC will be a critical tool in American foreign policy to
address the growing influence of China and other authoritarian
governments. American values--transparency, rule of law, respect for
people and environment--afford us a unique competitive advantage. We
will not pursue the same strategy as China or others but our own. We
will collaborate with other U.S. government agencies such as State and
USAID to ensure that our investment strategy is furthering our foreign
policy goals.
I am excited by the opportunities in a number of sectors in Asia
and Africa including critical infrastructure, energy, investments in
small and women-owned businesses, technology, and health care.
Question. In your view, how should the United States go about
building a coalition to counter China's economic activities in a way
that strengthens multilateral relationships and provides a viable off-
ramp for industries and countries who may feel trapped in unescapable
ties with China and Chinese institutions?
Answer. Our relationships with our allies will be critical in our
approach, particularly given the difference in funds allocated to
development between the United States and China. If I am confirmed, I
will build on the recent relationships with Japan and Australia as well
as Western European and Latin American DFIs.
DFC's new equity authority will put the United States on equal
footing with other DFIs so that we can invest alongside our allies and
not lose attractive deals that drive development as well as economic
return.
Question. What challenges do you anticipate encountering as DFC
gets up and running?
Answer. If confirmed, I will lead the talented staffs of OPIC and
USAID's Development Credit Authority, which together will combine to
form DFC and a more explicit development mandate. Such a melding of
staffs will involve a culture shift. It will also be critical that DFC
forge strong relationships with other U.S. government agencies like MCC
and the Department of State.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted to Adam Seth Boehler by Senator Benjamin L. Cardin
Human Rights
Question. What are the most important actions you have taken in
your career to date to promote human rights and democracy? What has
been the impact of your actions?
Answer. My first professional experience was in South Africa. I
worked for the Financial and Fiscal Commission, an agency set up by the
South African Parliament to advocate on behalf of the provinces. During
my tenure there, we made recommendations to parliament designed to
ensure the fiscal accountability and transparency of every province--a
key ingredient in ensuring a free society.
In my career, I also employed hundreds of people in developing
countries. We had a very high retention rate because I believe that
fair compensation, dignity, and respect create a strong work
environment and engender loyalty.
Diversity
Question. What will you do to promote, mentor and support your
staff that come from diverse backgrounds and underrepresented groups in
the International Development Finance Corporation?
Answer. I believe in empowering others and that diverse viewpoints
drive successful innovation. I have a strong history in private and
public sectors of teams that come from diverse backgrounds and
underrepresented groups. I will continue my commitment to promote and
mentor this talent if I am confirmed.
Question. What steps will you take to ensure each of the
supervisors in the International Development Finance Corporation are
fostering an environment that is diverse and inclusive?
Answer. I believe that a culture of diversity and inclusion comes
from the top. My actions and focus in this area will set the tone for
the organization. In addition to leading by example, I will adhere to
all employment laws and processes.
Conflicts of Interest
Question. Do you commit to bring to the committee's attention (and
the Inspector General of the International Development Finance
Corporation) any change in policy or U.S. actions that you suspect may
be influenced by any of the President's business or financial
interests, or the business or financial interests of any senior White
House staff?
Answer. If confirmed, I commit to comply with all relevant federal
ethics laws, regulations, and rules, and to raise any concerns that I
may have through appropriate channels.
Question. Do you commit to inform the committee if you have any
reason to suspect that a foreign government, head of state, or foreign-
controlled entity is taking any action in order to benefit any of the
President's business or financial interests, or the interests of senior
White House staff?
Answer. If confirmed, I commit to comply with all relevant federal
ethics laws, regulations, and rules, and to raise any concerns that I
may have through appropriate channels.
Question. Do you or do any members of your immediate family have
any financial interests in any country abroad?
Answer. No.
Countering China's Belt and Road Initiative
Question. As you know, a key policy rationale for the BUILD Act was
to respond to China's Belt and Road Initiative and China's growing
economic influence in developing countries.
If confirmed, how will you use your role and the new DFC to counter
China's growing influence in developing countries? With this in
mind, what countries and/or regions would you target first? How
specifically do you think the DFC can play a role in these
countries/regions?
Answer. DFC will be a critical tool in American foreign policy to
address the growing influence of China and other authoritarian
governments. American values--transparency, rule of law, respect for
people and environment, afford us a unique competitive advantage. We
will not pursue the same strategy as China or others but our own. We
will collaborate with other U.S. government agencies such as State and
USAID to ensure that our investment strategy is furthering our foreign
policy goals.
We will need allies and partners. I am encouraged by the recent
cooperation agreements that OPIC has signed with Japan and Australia,
which are intended to drive economic growth in emerging markets and
provide an alternative to state-directed initiatives. I believe that
there is significant opportunity in the Indo-Pacific to leverage these
relationships and counter China's influence in these regions. I also
note the opportunity to work with our allies to counter China in Africa
and Latin America. There is a significant pipeline of deals in these
regions and the new DFC flexibility will allow for further investment.
Small Business Participation
Question. As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small
Business and Entrepreneurship, I'm pleased that the law creating the
International Development Finance Corporation includes my amendment
requiring the corporation to ``broaden the participation of United
States small businesses and cooperatives.in the development of small
private enterprise in less developed friendly countries or areas.'' My
amendment also requires that the Corporation--to the maximum extent
possible--give preferential consideration to projects sponsored by or
involving U.S. small businesses, and that those projects comprise at
least 50 percent of all projects for which the Corporation provides
support and that involve United States persons. Under the previous OPIC
requirement, that percentage was just 30 percent.
What actions will you take to ensure the broad participation of
U.S. small businesses in DFC projects?
Answer. Thank you for working to ensure that small businesses
continue to be a focus of DFC. I share your commitment to small
businesses as they are often the most valuable, innovative, and agile
partners in achieving development goals. I know this firsthand because
I started three of them from the ground up. I will work with you and
with other partners to ensure that the small business community is
aware of and involved with our development projects abroad.
Women and Minority Owned Businesses
Question. The Corporation is required to collect data on the
involvement of women and minorityowned businesses in projects supported
by the Corporation, including: (1) the amount of insurance and
financing provided by the Corporation to such businesses in connection
with projects supported by the Corporation; and (2) the involvement of
such businesses in procurement activities conducted or supported by the
Corporation.
Question. Mr. Boehler, if confirmed, will you provide this
information to Congress as required? What steps will you take to reach
out to women and minority owned businesses?
Answer. Yes, I will follow all applicable reporting requirements.
As you know, a primary goal of OPIC's 2X women's initiative is to
support women-owned, women-led companies that provide a product or
service that intentionally empowers women. I look forward to continuing
and expanding on this work.
I also believe the vibrant diaspora communities in the United
States could be a good source of project sponsors and investors for
DFC. Diaspora investors often understand the investment environment in
developing countries and thus feel more comfortable taking on risk in
these regions.
Small Business Workshops
Question. Over the past 15 years, OPIC has held more than 40
workshops and seminars throughout the United States to educate U.S.
small business owners and entrepreneurs on how to expand into the
global marketplace. In 2016, more than 170 small businesses
participated in an OPIC workshop in Baltimore--so I can tell you there
is great interest and demand for this type of outreach.
Do you plan to conduct similar workshops and seminars for U.S.
Small Businesses?
Answer. Yes. Given the small business focus that you mention in
your question earlier, I believe it is important to ensure that there
is an outreach campaign to businesses and stakeholders to educate them
and build awareness about DFC's products and mandate.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted to Adam Seth Boehler by Senator Jeanne Shaheen
Question. Last November, the U.S. government's National Climate
Assessment found that more frequent and extreme weather events are
already severely damaging the environment and economy at a cost of tens
of billions of dollars while increasing harm to human health and loss
of life. Meanwhile, a 2016 Oxford study found that for the world to
have a 50% chance of staying within internationally agreed limits for
global warming, no new fossil fuel plants could be built after 2017. Do
you believe that climate impacts should be a major consideration for
every energy, transportation, agriculture, and forest related project
that the DFC--as a development finance institutions--considers? What
will you do to ensure that climate risk is made an integral part of the
DFC's risk management policy and practice?
Answer. Yes. I believe that we must be good stewards of our
environment. As I noted in my written testimony, respect for the
environment is one of the aspects that sets us apart from our
competitors and is a reason why United States engagement in the
developing world is so critical.
If confirmed, I will ensure that DFC will complete rigorous
environmental analyses prior to pursuing any project Any projects with
potentially significant adverse environmental impact will go through
detailed analysis and assessment by the career professionals at DFC
before receiving support from the organization.
OPIC has not financed coal projects for about a decade. Given the
climate emergency and that coal is an extremely dirty form of energy,
would you agree that coal financing should be banned at the DFC?
I believe that projects with potentially significant adverse
environmental impacts need to go through detailed analysis and
assessment and the bar is far higher to receive support from the
organization.
Given climate change and DFC's appropriate emphasis on lower and
lower-middle income countries, would you support DFC financing another
gas pipeline in Argentina, an upper middle income country that just
received $688.1 million worth of financing at OPIC's final board
meeting? In addition, would you support fossil fuel financing in other
upper middle income countries?
I am not aware of the specific circumstances of the deal referred
to above. That said, the BUILD Act prioritizes the work of DFC in low-
income and low-middle income countries. DFC support in upper-middle
income countries is restricted and any potential significant adverse
environmental impact would need to be analyzed very carefully and face
a high bar.
Question. Congressional action in 2009 mandated OPIC adopt a
climate change mitigation policy (i.e., carbon cap) to reduce GHG
emissions associated with projects and sub-projects in the agency's
portfolio by at least 30% over a ten year period and 50% over a 15 year
period. With the DFC coming on board in 2019, how will you ensure that
it becomes a first-in-its-class development finance institution in
tackling climate change? How will you push the DFC to adhere to the
carbon cap and what will you do to improve upon OPIC's climate change
policies and make them more in line with a world that urgently needs to
decarbonize?
Answer. I was pleased to learn that OPIC is considered first-in-its
class when it comes to efforts to reduce portfolio emissions. Under the
BUILD Act, these same rigorous environmental standards transfer to DFC.
I further believe that advances in U.S. technology may present an
opportunity to finance advances in renewable energy in the developing
world and look forward to evaluating investments in these areas.
Question. OPIC has supported over $1 billion in renewable energy
projects over the past decade, providing integral support to the
renewables industry and helping improve access to clean electricity all
over the world. If confirmed, what would you do to continue and
increase support for renewables projects?
Answer. Over the past five years, about 80 percent of OPIC's energy
projects were in renewables. If confirmed, I will continue to support
our renewable energy portfolio.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted to Adam Seth Boehler by Senator Edward J. Markey
Northern Triangle Projects
Question. In July, per the administration's request, the State
Department cut millions of dollars in aid to Central America.
How does the administration's current policy of cutting foreign
assistance to the Northern Triangle affect OPIC (and soon) the
U.S. Development Finance Corporation's (DFC) risk assessment of
current and potential projects in the Northern Triangle?
Answer. I believe that investment in developing countries can have
a stabilizing effect on their society. OPIC has worked within the past
two years to significantly ramp up its support in this critical region.
The administration has halted OPIC investments in the Northern
Triangle. If confirmed, I look forward to engaging in a discussion on
this topic with the administration given the new capabilities and
mandate of DFC.
Question. Is it possible to continue implementation of those
projects in light of the administration's aid cuts in the region? If
so, how?
Answer. The investments backed by OPIC prior to the
administration's funding stance are still honored by the Corporation.
Question. Will you and DFC advocate for the administration to
reestablish full levels of foreign assistance to the Northern Triangle,
to address root causes of migration out of the region?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to engaging on this topic as
part of the administration.
Question. How many projects (if any) does DFC plan to fund or
evaluate in the Northern Triangle region in the coming year?
Answer. As I understand it, there are approximately $1 billion
worth of projects that the DFC could pursue in the northern triangle in
the near-term.
Question. Do you believe that climate change is a root cause of
migration to the United States from the Northern Triangle and elsewhere
in Central America? If so, do you believe that the DFC can better take
into account the effects of climate change when developing
infrastructure in the region?
Answer. Projects that potentially have significant adverse
environmental impacts--no matter the income level of the country--will
go through detailed analysis and assessment by the career professionals
at DFC. Over the past five years, about 80 percent of OPIC's energy
projects were in renewables. If confirmed, I will continue to support
our renewable energy portfolio.
Question. If costs appear to be too high in development projects
that substantially account for the negative effects of climate change,
how would you instruct the DFC to move forward?
Answer. I believe that we must be good stewards of our environment.
As I noted in my written testimony, respect for the environment is one
of the aspects that set us apart from other autocratic governments
competitors and a reason why United States engagement in the developing
world is so critical. If confirmed, I will ensure that the DFC will
conduct a rigorous environmental analysis to ensure that projects that
have potential significant adverse environmental impacts go through
detailed assessment by the career professionals at DFC.
Argentina
Question. OPIC is about to provide $450 million in financing for
oil and gas fracking in Argentina, without a thorough environmental &
social impact assessment.
If you are confirmed, will DFC insist on a full environmental and
social impact assessment for every investment? If not, why not?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I will ensure that the DFC will conduct
a rigorous environmental analysis to ensure that projects that have
potential significant adverse environmental impacts go through detailed
assessment by the career professionals at DFC.
Question. Argentina has some of the world's best wind resources and
excellent opportunities for solar energy deployment.
What were the factors that led OPIC to choose this fossil-fuel
project over possible wind and solar energy projects?
Answer. I am not an OPIC official today, so I can not speak to the
factors that led to the support of this project.
Question. Would you support fossil fuel project financing in other
upper middle income countries?
Answer. The BUILD Act prioritizes the work of DFC in low-income and
low-middle income countries. DFC support in upper-middle income
countries is restricted. If confirmed, I will ensure that the DFC will
conduct a rigorous environmental analysis to ensure that projects that
have potential significant adverse environmental impacts go through
detailed assessment by the career professionals at DFC.
Climate Change
Question. Congressional action in 2009 mandated OPIC to adopt a
climate change mitigation policy (i.e., carbon cap) to reduce GHG
emissions associated with projects and sub-projects in the agency's
portfolio by at least 30% over a ten year period and 50% over a 15-year
period.
Will you push the DFC to adhere to the carbon cap?
Answer. Yes. Under the BUILD Act, these same standards transfer to
DFC.
Question. What will you do to improve upon OPIC's climate change
policies and make them more in line with a world that urgently needs to
decarbonize?
Answer. I was pleased to learn that OPIC is considered first-in-its
class when it comes to efforts to reduce portfolio emissions. Under the
BUILD Act, these same rigorous environmental standards will transfer to
DFC. I believe that advances in U.S. technology may present further
opportunity to finance advances in renewable energy in the developing
world.
Question. How will you convince the administration of the need for
these improvements to OPIC's climate change policy to the
administration?
Answer. Respect for and stewardship of the environment is one of
the aspects that sets us apart from our competitors--a competitive
advantage--and is a reason why United States engagement in the
developing world is so critical.
Relations with International Financial Institutions and the Private
Sector
Question. How do you view the DFC's relationship with multilaterals
like the World Bank in defining global standards for development
finance?
Answer. I believe it is important that DFC projects meet
international best practices--including IFC performance standards--for
environmental and social sustainability, treatment of workers, and
respect for human rights. We will work closely with these organizations
in this area.
Question. Will the DFC fully explore opportunities to partner with
private sector and multilateral institutions, such as the World Bank
and others, to promote universal access to reliable electricity in the
Indo-Pacific? If so, how?
Answer. Yes. I believe access to electricity is essential for
economic growth and development. If confirmed, I look forward to
working with multilateral and other partner organizations in the region
such as the World Bank and JBIC to further this goal.
China and the Indo-Pacific
Question. Does the current statutory framework enable the DFC to
respond effectively to U.S.strategic concerns in the Indo-Pacific?
Answer. Yes. It is important to note that, DFC is one part of what
must be a whole-of-government approach to this critical region.
Question. What are DFC's goals and approaches relative to China's
Belt and Road initiative? How will you determine that the DFC has been
successful--particularly in the Indo-Pacific itself--in comparison to
China's BRI projects in the same region?
Answer. DFC will be a critical tool in American foreign policy to
address the growing influence of China and other authoritarian
governments. American values--transparency, rule of law, respect for
people and environment--afford us a unique competitive advantage. We
will not pursue the same strategy as China or others but our own. We
will collaborate with other U.S. government agencies such as State and
USAID to ensure that our investment strategy is furthering American
foreign policy goals. Success in the IndoPacific will be based on
extending our relationships with Japan and Australia to identify and
complete new investments (as well as support existing) in critical
regions of strategic importance to the United States such as Indonesia,
Vietnam, and the Philippines.
Question. Through what mechanisms will you engage Southeast Asian
countries to advocate for renewable energy projects?
Answer. OPIC has one representative based in Bangkok and is working
with the State Department to boost its regional presence. We will also
work closely with USAID missions and our embassies in these countries
to identify and source new deals. I was pleased to learn that OPIC
recently backed Indonesia's first wind power project, which will
provide 75MW of installed generating capacity and support the country's
clean energy goals.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted to Michael Pack by Senator James E. Risch
Question. Do you believe that there is a congressionally-mandated
``firewall'' between USAGM's political leadership and USAGM's networks,
particularly Radio Free Asia (RFA), Middle East Broadcasting Networks
(MBN), and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL)?
Answer. I believe that the credibility of USAGM broadcasting
entities rest on the belief that the reporters at all the networks are
independent. As I stated during the committee hearing, the Agency would
be completely undermined if there was political influence telling these
journalists how to report the news and what to say.
Question. Do you believe the ``firewall'' is a good thing? Why or
why not?
Answer. The protection of the independence of USAGM is more than a
good thing, it is absolutely essential to the USAGM's fulfilling its
mission. I expect the reporters at each broadcasting entity to do their
job with the utmost professionalism, without bias, and free from
political interference telling them how to report the news and what to
say.
Question. Do you believe that it is important for the non-federal
grantees--RFA, MBN, and RFE/RL--to remain separate independent entities
with their own management structures and full editorial independence
from USAGM?
Answer. I have no plans to change the current structure. I do think
that part of my job is review the current management structure and
practice, in every aspect. As I mentioned at my hearing, ``The hope was
that a CEO would provide the leadership and vision to ramp up the
impact of the five broadcasting entities and to create a more effective
U.S international broadcasting effort on the world stage. That won't be
easy or fast. I will confer extensively with the talented and dedicated
men and women of USAGM and will consult with all stakeholders,
including here in Congress.'' So, this is a long, complex process.
Question. Given the expanded powers of the next Senate-confirmed
CEO, do you intend to remove any heads of USAGM's networks? If yes,
which positions? Under what conditions would it be appropriate to
remove the head of a network?
Answer. It is premature for me to anticipate any changes at any
USAGM networks at this juncture. However, all USAGM and network staff
will be held to the highest standards. As I mentioned in my previous
answer, I expect to conduct a thorough review of the Agency. There will
likely be changes that result from that review, but I cannot anticipate
what they would be in advance.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted to Michael Pack by the Committee's Minority Staff
Question. How much did Manifold receive from the Claremont
Institute for fundraising? (California Attorney General database lists
nearly $80,000 in 2016 out of $170,000 raised and nearly $30,000 in
2017 out of the same amount raised--2017 data also available here)
Answer. Manifold Productions, Inc. was paid a monthly fee of $6,250
per month to provide development and fundraising services to the
Claremont Institute, a fee in line with that paid other entities
providing development and fundraising services to Claremont.
Question. Did Claremont's board convene to review the contract with
Manifold and determine whether it was the best choice for fundraising
and whether the terms and conditions were at no more than fair market
value?
Answer. Claremont's Board of Directors' Compensation Committee
reviewed the contract. Although I was an ex officio member of the
Compensation Committee, I absented myself from that entire committee
meeting and review. I personally did not advocate for the contract, had
no involvement in the negotiations of the contract, and did not review
the contract. I also refrained from any role in the approval of the
contract by Claremont. Once the contract was approved by Claremont, I
refrained from the ongoing evaluation and enforcement of the contract.
Question. Why did you not recuse yourself from any involvement in
the contract with Manifold?
Answer. By not attending the meeting of Claremont's Board of
Directors' Compensation Committee and by not having any involvement in
the review of the contract (as mentioned in the answer above), I in
effect recused myself. I removed myself from the entire process of the
consideration and approval of the contract. Once the contract was
approved by Claremont I refrained from the ongoing evaluation and
enforcement of the contract.
Question. What fundraising services did Manifold perform for the
Claremont Institute? Had Manifold ever performed fundraising services
for any other organization prior to its contract with the Claremont
Institute?
Answer. The services performed by Manifold for Claremont included
the following: (i) event planning support, (ii) developing
relationships with high capacity donors, (iii) maintaining and
increasing donations of existing donors, (iv) overall support to the
development department such as expanding client profiles for inter-
departmental communication, and (v) administrative support,
particularly for the newly opened Washington, DC offices of Claremont.
The Manifold contract with Claremont required the services of Gina
Cappo Pack. Before joining Manifold in 1987, Mrs. Pack worked
extensively in marketing and new product development in New York. At
Manifold, Mrs. Pack helped raise millions of dollars for documentary
and educational film projects. In addition, she volunteered for close
to eight years as part of a fundraising team for Annual Giving for the
St. Albans School in Washington, DC.
As a result of the Manifold contract Claremont maintained and
increased the giving of existing donors in the seven figures,
cultivated relationships with new donors in the six figures, and
Claremont's Washington, DC office was successfully launched and
established.
Question. Why were you provided a severance package of nearly
$130,000 from the ClaremontInstitute?
Answer. To answer this question more fully and provide some
context, I have incorporated the answer to this question into the
answer to the following question.
Question. Please describe the circumstances of your departure from
the Claremont Institute. If you were asked to leave the Claremont
Institute, please explain why.
Answer. My departure from the Claremont Institute was a mutual
decision. The Board of Directors and I decided to end my contract with
Claremont early. For me, it made sense to return to Washington DC full
time. My employment contract with Claremont contained certain severance
and other obligations and the Board honored those contractual
obligations. To this date, I remain a Senior Fellow of the Claremont
Institute.
Question. Who are the other officers/members of Manifold?
Answer. As of this date, these are the officers of Manifold
Productions, Inc.: Michael Pack, President; Gina Cappo Pack, Secretary/
Treasurer.
Question. What is Public Media Lab's purpose? How has Public Media
Lab fulfilled that purpose?
Answer. The purpose of the Public Media Lab (PML) is to: receive
grants and funding to develop, promote, and support educational
documentary films and filmmakers, and to conduct related public
education and information activities in the United States and abroad;
engage in other charitable and educational activity as determined by
the Board of Directors consistent with the mission of PML; and, assist
and support other charitable and educational organizations in the
conduct of similar activities.
To fulfill this purpose, PML supports the production of educational
documentary films; provides advice and counseling to young, up and
coming filmmakers, such as reviewing treatments, production budgets,
rough cuts and other materials; advises other foundations about how to
make successful grants to documentary filmmakers; and endeavors to
involve leaders in public media, academia and other nonprofits to
collaborate and support training programs in the arts and humanities.
Question. How many awards has Public Media Lab made to Manifold?
How much do those awards add up to?
Answer. Manifold and PML together approach a third-party funder to
support a documentary film project. The grant is given by the funder to
PML, and Manifold produces the film in accordance with the proposal and
the grant agreement. PML serves as the fiscal agent and manager of the
film project in accordance with the grant agreement. From 2008 through
2019, Manifold and PML developed seven projects, and received 38
grants, totaling $4.28 million.
Question. Has Public Media Lab ever made awards to any recipients
besides Manifold? How much do those awards add up to?
Answer. PML has offered its services as a fiscal agent and manager
to several other filmmakers. For example, PML formally applied to the
National Endowment for the Humanities for a film project to be produced
by another film company, but the project was not selected by the NEH
for a grant. While there have yet to be occasions for PML to perform
fiscal agent and manager services for other filmmakers besides
Manifold, PML continually looks for projects that can further fulfill
its mission. PML also continues to look for opportunities to launch
other initiatives to further its mission.
Question. Did you fill out the grant application for Manifold's
$250,000 award from Arthur Vining Davis in 2013? If not, who did?
Answer. My staff and I filled out the grant application and
proposal to the Arthur Vining Davis Foundation.
Question. Did the grant application claim that Manifold was a
public charity? (See page 18 of Arthur Vining Davis's 990 from that
year, which lists Manifold as a ``public charity'') Or was there an
Exercising Expenditure Responsibility contract between Arthur Vining
Davis and Manifold?
Answer. At no time in the process of applying for the Arthur Vining
Davis grant did Manifold claim that it was a public charity or request
that the funding go to Manifold. On the contrary, the request was that
funding from the grant from Arthur Vining Davis go to PML.
Question. Did you fill out the grant application for Manifold's
$40,000 award from the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation? If not, who
did?
Answer. My staff and I filled out the grant application to the
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.
Question. Did the grant application claim that Manifold was a
public charity? (See page 261-2 of the Lynde and Harry Bradley
Foundation's 990 from that year, which lists Manifold as a ``public
charity'') Or was there an Exercising Expenditure Responsibility
contract between the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation and Manifold?
Answer. At no time in the process of applying for the Lynde and
Harry Bradley Foundation grant did Manifold claim that it was a public
charity. The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation grant in fact went to
PML, which is a public charity.
Question. What percentage of the nearly $800,000 grant from the
Sloan Foundation to Public Media Lab was subsequently awarded by Public
Media Lab to Manifold?
Answer. As is customary, the PML grant application to the Sloan
Foundation identified Manifold as the production company for the film
described in the application. The grant application and proposal to the
Sloan Foundation from PML stated that the entire grant would support
the production of a documentary about Admiral Rickover, father of the
Nuclear Navy, which was distributed by the Public Broadcasting Service
(PBS).
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted to Michael Pack by Senator Ron Johnson
Question. Authoritarian governments use internet firewalls to block
the free flow of information to their citizens in order to maintain
control. Do you believe that the rapid bypass of closed society
internet firewalls should be a priority for the United States? If so,
and if confirmed, what actions would you take at the U.S. Agency for
Global Media to achieve the bypass of internet firewalls in
authoritarian states? If confirmed, would you commit to reporting to me
and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the steps you are taking
to implement a robust set of policies designed to rapidly achieve the
bypass of these firewalls? Will you commit to spend the funding that
Congress appropriates to accomplish this goal?
Answer. Successfully circumventing firewalls in closed societies,
especially China, would strike a great blow for freedom. I can think of
few actions of greater consequence. Far too many people live behind
firewalls in China, Iran, Vietnam, Cuba, and other autocracies are
denied unfettered access to internet content for which they yearn for.
Rapidly assessing and rebalancing USAGM's investment strategies on
these most important tools will become a priority and, as I said in our
brief conversation during my committee hearing, I will endeavor to keep
you and the SFRC fully informed as we proceed. You can expect to hear
from me often.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted to Michael Pack by Senator Robert Menendez
Question. In your hearing I asked you how you would protect the
firewall between journalists and political influence. You did not seem
aware of the mechanisms in place to ensure that firewall.
As you will be charged with leading this agency, can you please
clarify how specifically you will protect journalistic
integrity at the USAGM?
Answer. We spoke briefly about this issue in our private meeting as
well as the hearing, and as I said to you privately and publicly, I
firmly believe that the credibility of USAGM broadcasting entities rest
on the belief that the reporters at all the networks are independent.
As I stated during the committee hearing, the Agency would be
completely undermined if there was political influence telling these
journalists how to report the news and what to say. I expect the
reporters at each broadcasting entity to do their job with the utmost
professionalism, without bias, and adhering the highest standards of
journalism. In my briefing by USAGM leadership, my mechanisms to
preserve these goals were described to me. If confirmed, I will review
those closely and look for ways to strengthen them.
Question. How do you see the missions differing between the
grantees and the networks of USAGM? Do you believe this structure is
the best way for each of these entities to pursue their missions?
Answer. While the overall mission for all USAGM networks remains
the same, ``to inform, engage, and connect people around the world in
support of freedom and democracy,'' the approach differs greatly
between the federal organizations and the grantees. The Voice of
America (VOA) has the primary role of telling America's story
throughout the world, and it does so as a federal broadcaster while the
grantees serve as local independent media, focusing primarily on
domestic news for areas where accurate, timely local news and
information is otherwise unavailable.
As I mentioned at my hearing, ``The hope was that a CEO would
provide the leadership and vision to ramp up the impact of the five
broadcasting entities and to create a more effective U.S international
broadcasting effort on the world stage. That won't be easy or fast. I
will confer extensively with the talented and dedicated men and women
of USAGM and will consult with all stakeholders, including here in
Congress.'' Part of that process would be to examine and evaluate the
current management structure and practice, in every aspect--but that
does not mean, necessarily, a change in structure. Any change would
involve a good deal of consultation, including with Congress.
Question. The Office of Cuba Broadcasting has an important mission
of bringing free and independent media to a population under
totalitarian control. Recently, as I hope you are aware, there have
been a number of incidents that have potentially compromised its
mission.
What do you think is the best path forward for the Office of Cuba
Broadcasting?
Answer. As I stated in my written testimony, if confirmed, I will
address the scandals hampering USAGM. These are just a few of the
scandals reported, and I will make certain that the Agency is doing
everything it can to make sure such scandals cease and put processes in
place to prevent such situations in the future. Doing so will
inevitably contribute to making USAGM more effective.
I have read the USAGM May 21st report ``Embarking on Reform of the
Office of Cuba Broadcasting,'' which resulted, in part, from the
incidents you refer to. I was very impressed by the report: the
sterling qualifications of its panelists, the depth of its analysis,
and its concern to be fair. However, it would be premature for me to
endorse its conclusions. If confirmed, I would need to look into the
situation at OCB for myself, as part of my overall review of USAGM's
work, and confer with the concerned parties and stakeholders as well as
USAGM staff and the reports panelists.
Question. What is your plan for technological upgrades for the
Agency?
Answer. In my briefing by USAGM staff, I have been made aware of an
existing proposal being considered at USAGM for technological upgrades.
Before committing--or dismissing--an existing plan based on limited
knowledge of the needs or the specifics of the plan itself, I commit to
evaluate the strategy currently under consideration based on the needs
of the Agency and the broadcasters.
Question. In the context of whole of government efforts, what role
do you think the USAGM has to play in countering disinformation,
Russian or otherwise?
Answer. Before proposing changes to current broadcasting strategy
for countering disinformation or foreign propaganda, I would assess to
what extent the five USAGM networks are successfully achieving the
Agency's statutory responsibility, mission and strategic goals by
meeting with the leadership and staff of each and fully investigating
the implementation realities.
Question. How do you plan to address annual performance reviews?
Answer. As I said in my hearing, one of my three goals is ``to
raise employee morale at the Agency. USAGM consistently ranks at or
near the bottom in surveys of mid-sized Agencies in terms of morale. I
will make it a priority to change that.'' Properly implementing and
responding to annual performance reviews is an important part of
restoring morale. Without clear expectations, individuals cannot strive
for personal or professional success.
Question. How do you asses the success of relatively new
initiatives like CurrentTime and Radio Farda? Do you think these are
appropriately constructed and what do you view as their fundamental
missions?
Answer. Based on the information I have received from USAGM
leadership, CurrentTime is available through 92 distributors in 20
countries, and world-wide via over-the-top (OTT) media services and
online. Individual Current Time programs are available in 14 countries
via more than 50 affiliates, including nine inside Russia. Current
Time's digital products and strong social media presence have helped
tap into key markets. In 2018, the network logged more than 520 million
online views--more than half from inside Russia, an increase from 2017
of 30 percent.
Radio Farda has partnered with the Voice of America in the launch
of its global Farsi-language digital network, VOA365. This is an effort
to reach Farsi-speaking audiences globally and utilize their social
networks to share information back into Iran, as well as reaching
USAGM's traditional audiences in Iran. According to a 2018 national
survey of Iran managed by Gallup on behalf of USAGM, 15.7% of Iranian
adults use Radio Farda weekly. 76.8% of past-week listeners told Gallup
that they trust Radio Farda as a news source; the figure rises to 83.8%
when asking multi-platform Farda users. Through briefings, I've been
told that despite a government ban, Farda logged a monthly average of
12.2 million visits to its website and almost 22 million-page views.
Almost two-thirds of all website traffic originated inside Iran. Farda
has more than 3.5 million combined followers on Facebook, Instagram,
Twitter and Telegram.
I have been very impressed by all the data I have received about
these initiatives. But, based on what I know now, I cannot fully assess
if CurrentTime and Radio Farda are appropriately constructed. As part
of my thorough review of USAGM operations and products, referred to
above, I will certainly be looking closely at these initiatives. I will
most certainly report back to you after I assess their missions and
current structures, if confirmed.
Question. Do you believe network and grantee heads should have
editorial independence? How do you plan to enforce this? How do you
plan to handle disputes should they arise?
Answer. As USAGM CEO, I would be required to ``respect the
professional independence and integrity'' of USAGM's broadcasting
services and grantee broadcasters. As I have stated, I believe that
USAGM broadcasting entities' credibility rest on the belief that the
reporters at all the networks are independent and free of political
interference, without anyone telling them how to slant the news. As I
said at the hearing, in response to a question of yours, if someone in
the government or elsewhere tried to direct the coverage of USAGM
journalists, it would be my responsibility to say ``no.''
Question. How do you see the missions differing between the
grantees and the networks of USAGM?
Answer. While the overall mission for all USAGM networks remains
the same, ``to inform, engage, and connect people around the world in
support of freedom and democracy,'' the approach differs greatly
between the federal organizations and the grantees. The Voice of
America (VOA) has the primary role of telling America's story
throughout the world, and it does so as a federal broadcaster while the
grantees serve as local independent media, focusing primarily on
domestic news for areas where accurate, timely local news and
information is otherwise unavailable.
Question. Do you believe this structure is the best way for each of
these entities to pursue their missions?
Answer. As I mentioned at my hearing, ``The hope was that a CEO
would provide the leadership and vision to ramp up the impact of the
five broadcasting entities and to create a more effective U.S
international broadcasting effort on the world stage. That won't be
easy or fast. I will confer extensively with the talented and dedicated
men and women of USAGM and will consult with all stakeholders,
including here in Congress.'' Part of that process would be to examine
and evaluate the current management structure and practice, in every
aspect--but that does not mean, necessarily, a change in structure. Any
change would involve a good deal of consultation, including with
Congress.
Question. The Office of Cuba Broadcasting has an important mission
of bringing free and independent media to a population under
totalitarian control. Recently, as I hope you are aware, there have
been a number of incidents that have potentially compromised its
mission. What do you think is the best path forward for the Office of
Cuba Broadcasting?
As I stated in my written testimony, if confirmed, I will address
the scandals hampering USAGM. These are just a few of the scandals
reported, and I will make certain that the Agency is doing everything
it can to make sure such scandals cease and put processes in place to
prevent such situations in the future. Doing so will inevitably
contribute to making USAGM more effective.
I have read the USAGM's May 21st report ``Embarking on Reform of
the Office of Cuba Broadcasting,'' which resulted, in part, to the
incidents to which you refer. I was very impressed by the report: the
sterling qualifications of its panelists, the depth of its analysis,
and its concern to be fair. However, it would be premature for me to
endorse its conclusions. If confirmed, I would need to look into the
situation at OCB for myself, as part of my overall review of USAGM's
work, and confer with the concerned parties and stakeholders as well as
USAGM staff and the reports panelists.
Question. What is your plan for technological upgrades for the
Agency?
Answer. In my briefing by USAGM staff, I have been made aware of an
existing proposal being considered at USAGM for technological upgrades.
Before committing--or dismissing--an existing plan based on limited
knowledge of the needs or the specifics of the plan itself, I commit to
evaluate the strategy currently under consideration based on the needs
of the Agency and the broadcasters.
Question. In the context of whole of government efforts, what role
do you think the USAGM has to play in countering disinformation,
Russian or otherwise?
Answer. Before proposing changes to current broadcasting strategy
for countering disinformation or foreign propaganda, I would assess to
what extent the five USAGM networks are successfully achieving the
Agency's statutory responsibility, mission and strategic goals by
meeting with the leadership and staff of each and fully investigating
the implementation realities.
Question. How do you plan to address annual performance reviews?
Answer. As I said in my hearing, one of my three goals is ``to
raise employee morale at the Agency. USAGM consistently ranks at or
near the bottom in surveys of mid-sized Agencies in terms of morale. I
will make it a priority to change that.'' Properly implementing and
responding to annual performance reviews is an important part of
restoring morale. Without clear expectations, individuals cannot strive
for personal or professional success.
Question. How do you asses the success of relatively new
initiatives like CurrentTime and Radio Farda? Do you think these are
appropriately constructed and what do you view as their fundamental
missions?
Based on the information I have received from USAGM leadership,
CurrentTime is available through 92 distributors in 20 countries, and
world-wide via over-the-top (OTT) media services and online. Individual
Current Time programs are available in 14 countries via more than 50
affiliates, including nine inside Russia. Current Time's digital
products and strong social media presence have helped tap into key
markets. In 2018, the network logged more than 520 million online
views--more than half from inside Russia, an increase from 2017 of 30
percent.
Radio Farda has partnered with the Voice of America in the launch
of its global Farsi-language digital network, VOA365. This is an effort
to reach Farsi-speaking audiences globally and utilize their social
networks to share information back into Iran, as well as reaching
USAGM's traditional audiences in Iran. According to a 2018 national
survey of Iran managed by Gallup on behalf of USAGM, 15.7% of Iranian
adults use Radio Farda weekly. 76.8% of past-week listeners told Gallup
that they trust Radio Farda as a news source; the figure rises to 83.8%
when asking multi-platform Farda users. Through briefings, I've been
told that despite a government ban, Farda logged a monthly average of
12.2 million visits to its website and almost 22 million-page views.
Almost two-thirds of all website traffic originated inside Iran. Farda
has more than 3.5 million combined followers on Facebook, Instagram,
Twitter and Telegram.
I have been very impressed by all the data I have received about
these initiatives. But, based on what I know now, I cannot fully assess
if CurrentTime and Radio Farda are appropriately constructed. As part
of my thorough review of USAGM operations and products, referred to
above, I will certainly be looking closely at these initiatives. I will
most certainly report back to you after I assess their missions and
current structures, if confirmed.
Question. Do you believe network and grantee heads should have
editorial independence? How do you plan to enforce this? How do you
plan to handle disputes should they arise?
Answer. As USAGM CEO, I would be required to ``respect the
professional independence and integrity'' of USAGM's broadcasting
services and grantee broadcasters. As I have stated, I believe that
USAGM broadcasting entities' credibility rest on the belief that the
reporters at all the networks are independent and free of political
interference, without anyone telling them how to slant the news. As I
said at the hearing, in response to a question of yours, if someone in
the government or elsewhere tried to direct the coverage of USAGM
journalists, it would be my responsibility to say ``no.''
Question. How much did Manifold Productions, LLC receive from the
Claremont Institute for fundraising?
Answer. Manifold Productions, Inc. was paid a monthly fee of $6,250
per month to provide development and fundraising services to the
Claremont Institute, a fee in line with that paid other entities
providing development and fundraising services to Claremont.
Question. Did Claremont's board convene to review the contract with
Manifold and determine whether it was the best choice for fundraising
and whether the terms and conditions were at no more than fair market
value?
Answer. Claremont's Board of Directors' Compensation Committee
reviewed the contract. Although I was an ex officio member of the
Compensation Committee, I absented myself from that entire committee
meeting and review. I personally did not advocate for the contract, had
no involvement in the negotiations of the contract, and did not review
the contract. I also refrained from any role in the approval of the
contract by Claremont. Once the contract was approved by Claremont, I
refrained from the ongoing evaluation and enforcement of the contract.
Question. Why did you not recuse yourself from any involvement in
the contract with Manifold?
Answer. By not attending the meeting of Claremont's Board of
Directors' Compensation Committee and by not having any involvement in
the review of the contract (as mentioned in the answer above), I in
effect recused myself. I removed myself from the entire process of the
consideration and approval of the contract. Once the contract was
approved by Claremont I refrained from the ongoing evaluation and
enforcement of the contract.
Question. What fundraising services did Manifold perform for the
Claremont Institute? Had Manifold ever performed fundraising services
for any other organization prior to its contract with the Claremont
Institute?
The services performed by Manifold for Claremont included the
following: (i) event planning support, (ii) developing relationships
with high capacity donors, (iii) maintaining and increasing donations
of existing donors, (iv) overall support to the development department
such as expanding client profiles for inter-departmental communication,
and(v) administrative support, particularly for the newly opened
Washington, DC offices of Claremont.
The Manifold contract with Claremont required the services of Gina
Cappo Pack. Before joining Manifold in 1987, Mrs. Pack worked
extensively in marketing and new product development in New York. At
Manifold, Mrs. Pack helped raise millions of dollars for documentary
and educational film projects. In addition, she volunteered for close
to eight years as part of a fundraising team for Annual Giving for the
St. Albans School in Washington, DC.
As a result of the Manifold contract Claremont maintained and
increased the giving of existing donors in the seven figures,
cultivated relationships with new donors in the six figures, and
Claremont's Washington, DC office was successfully launched and
established.
Question. Why were you provided a severance package of nearly
$130,000 from the Claremont Institute?
Answer. To answer this question more fully and provide some
context, I have incorporated the answer to this question into the
answer to the following question.
Question. Please describe the circumstances of your departure from
the Claremont Institute. If you were asked to leave the Claremont
Institute, please explain why.
Answer. My departure from the Claremont Institute was a mutual
decision. The Board of Directors and I decided to end my contract with
Claremont early. For me, it made sense to return to Washington DC full
time. My employment contract with Claremont contained certain severance
and other obligations and the Board honored those contractual
obligations. To this date, I remain a Senior Fellow of the Claremont
Institute.
Question. Who are the other officers/members of Manifold?
Answer. As of this date, these are the officers of Manifold
Productions, Inc.: Michael Pack, President; Gina Cappo Pack, Secretary/
Treasurer.
Question. What is Public Media Lab's purpose? How has Public Media
Lab fulfilled that purpose?
Answer. The purpose of the Public Media Lab (PML) is to: receive
grants and funding to develop, promote, and support educational
documentary films and filmmakers, and to conduct related public
education and information activities in the United States and abroad;
engage in other charitable and educational activity as determined by
the Board of Directors consistent with the mission of PML; and, assist
and support other charitable and educational organizations in the
conduct of similar activities.
To fulfill this purpose, PML supports the production of educational
documentary films; provides advice and counseling to young, up and
coming filmmakers, such as reviewing treatments, production budgets,
rough cuts and other materials; advises other foundations about how to
make successful grants to documentary filmmakers; and endeavors to
involve leaders in public media, academia and other nonprofits to
collaborate and support training programs in the arts and humanities.
Question. How many awards has Public Media Lab made to Manifold?
How much do those awards add up to?
Answer. Manifold and PML together approach a third-party funder to
support a documentary film project. The grant is given by the funder to
PML, and Manifold produces the film in accordance with the proposal and
the grant agreement. PML serves as the fiscal agent and manager of the
film project in accordance with the grant agreement. From 2008 through
2019, Manifold and PML developed seven projects, and received 38
grants, totaling $4.28 million.
Question. Has Public Media Lab ever made awards to any recipients
besides Manifold? How much do those awards add up to?
Answer. PML has offered its services as a fiscal agent and manager
to several other filmmakers. For example, PML formally applied to the
National Endowment for the Humanities for a film project to be produced
by another film company, but the project was not selected by the NEH
for a grant. While there have yet to be occasions for PML to perform
fiscal agent and manager services for other filmmakers besides
Manifold, PML continually looks for projects that can further fulfill
its mission. PML also continues to look for opportunities to launch
other initiatives to further its mission.
Question. What percentage of the nearly $800,000 grant from the
Sloan Foundation to Public Media Lab was subsequently awarded by Public
Media Lab to Manifold?
Answer. As is customary, the Public Media Lab grant application to
the Sloan Foundation identified Manifold as the production company for
the film described in the application. The grant application and
proposal to the Sloan Foundation from PML stated that the entire grant
would support the production of a documentary about Admiral Rickover,
father of the Nuclear Navy, which was distributed by the Public
Broadcasting Service (PBS).
Political Targeting
Question. As you know, there have been troubling reports of
targeting and retaliation against career employees in this
Administration, based on their perceived political affiliation or work
on policy initiatives under the previous administration.
Do you agree that such actions have no place in federal government?
Answer. Yes, I do.
Question. If confirmed, do you commit to familiarize yourself with
these allegations, including reading the recent Inspector General
report regarding the International Organizations Bureau in the State
Department?
Answer. Yes, I do.
Question. What will you do to ensure that all employees under your
leadership understand that any retaliation, blacklisting, or other
prohibited personnel practices will not be tolerated?
Answer. Pursuant to statutory and regulatory guidelines, I will
ensure that all personnel practices are followed without exception. I
will work with the Office of Personnel Management, USAGM human
resources, and general counsel's office. I will employ a zero tolerance
regarding targeting and/or retaliation of any kind.
Responsiveness
Question. Do you commit to respond promptly to all requests for
information by any member of this committee?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you commit to appear before this committee upon
request?
Answer. Yes.
Question. If you become aware of any suspected waste, fraud, or
abuse in the Department, do you commit to report it to the Inspector
General?
Answer. Yes.
Administrative
Question. Has anyone ever made a formal or informal complaint or
allegation of sexual harassment, discrimination (e.g., racial, ethnic,
religious, etc.), or inappropriate conduct against you, in a workplace
or any other setting? If so, please describe the nature of the
complaint or allegation, your response, and any resolution, including
any settlements.
Answer. No.
Question. Have you ever addressed concerns or allegations of sexual
harassment, discrimination (e.g., racial, ethnic, religious, etc.), or
inappropriate conduct made against any employee over whom you had
supervisory authority? If so, please describe the outcome and actions
taken.
Answer. No.
Question. Do you agree that any targeting of or retaliation against
career employees based on their perceived political beliefs, prior work
on policy, or affiliation with a previous administration, is wholly
inappropriate and has no place in the federal government? If confirmed,
what will you do to ensure that all employees under your leadership
understand that any retaliation, blacklisting, or other prohibited
personnel practices will not be tolerated?
Answer. Yes, I do agree. Pursuant to statutory and regulatory
guidelines, I will ensure that all personnel practices are followed
without exception. I will work with the Office of Personnel Management,
USAGM human resources, and general counsel's office. I will employ a
zero tolerance regarding targeting and/or retaliation of any kind.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted to Michael Pack by Senator John Barrasso
Question. In your opinion, is the United States Agency for Global
Media (USAGM) effectively promoting U.S. foreign policy goals and
national security interests?
Answer. From my view as a private citizen, USAGM could be more
effective in the promotion of U.S. foreign policy goals and national
security interests, in the very broad sense that such promotion is an
existing goal of USAGM. However, I am not privy to any interagency
communications on strategy and programs. It is important to note,
however, as I communicated in my written testimony and during my
committee hearing, one of my three goals, if confirmed as CEO, would be
to make the Agency more effective. ``The hope was that a CEO would
provide the leadership and vision to help ramp up the impact of the
five broadcasting entities and to create a more effective U.S
broadcasting effort on the world stage. Fulfilling that hope won't be
easy or fast. I will confer extensively with the talented and dedicated
men and women of USAGM and will consult with all stakeholders, most
definitely including here in Congress.''
Question. Are there better and more cost efficient ways for the
United States to be get our message out across the globe?
Answer. As I said at my hearing, one of my first orders of business
will to ``confer extensively with the talented and dedicated men and
women of USAGM and will consult with all stakeholders, including here
in Congress.'' Once I conduct a thorough review, I be able to assess
what USAGM is doing now and whether there is a better and more cost-
efficient way to get our message out.
Question. What is the USAGM's broadcasting strategy for countering
foreign propaganda from countries like China and Russia?
Answer. I have been told in my briefings by the Agency that in
underserved and information-denied areas, USAGM seeks to introduce
services in selected new languages; serve as a conduit for the
transmission of reporting from inside closed societies lacking press
freedom to outside audiences; ensure strong local news coverage, as
warranted by events, to meet urgent audience needs in areas of crisis;
and draw on the experiences of the world's many models of free
societies. In Russia, USAGM broadcasts in Russian through the Voice of
America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, along with hyper-local
websites in languages like Tatar-Bashkir. In China, USAGM broadcasts in
Mandarin, Cantonese, Uighur, and Tibetan. USAGM also supports two fact-
checking websites in Russian and English, called Factograf and
Polygraph respectively, that call out and investigate disinformation
campaigns.
Question. What changes would you make to current USAGM's
broadcasting strategy for countering foreign propaganda?
Answer. Before proposing changes to current broadcasting strategy
for countering foreign propaganda, I would assess how successful five
USAGM networks are in achieving the Agency's statutory responsibility,
mission and strategic goals by meeting with the leadership and staff of
each and fully investigating their current efforts.
Question. How should the USAGM coordinate with other government
agencies who are also working on countering foreign propaganda and
disinformation like the Global Engagement Center in the States
Department?
Answer. USAGM should communicate regularly with other government
agencies on its strategy and programs while protecting the professional
integrity of its cadre of journalists, consistent with the Agency's
current practices.
Question. How would you ensure all U.S. international broadcasting
is being consistent with the broad foreign policy objectives of the
United States and counterbalancing antiAmerican sentiment?
Answer. If confirmed, I would confer regularly with the State
Department and other government agencies who have a role in U.S.
foreign policy, including Congress. I understand this is USAGM's
current policy. This process will ensure that USAGM targets its
resources strategically to provide accurate and credible news and
information for audiences impacted by state-sponsored disinformation. I
understand USAGM currently conducts mandated annual language service
reviews that evaluate all broadcast languages, and potential languages,
with input from the State Department and others.
``Telling America's story'' truthfully and fairly is the best way
to counter anti-American sentiment. The principles and ideals of this
country, toward which we strive however imperfectly, should be a light
to all nations.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted to Michael Pack by Senator Benjamin L. Cardin
Human Rights
Question. What are the most important actions you have taken in
your career to date to promote human rights and democracy? What has
been the impact of your actions?
Answer. As a documentary filmmaker, I have spent my career
``telling America's story,'' which includes human rights and democracy.
This may be most evident in our two films on founding fathers,
Rediscovering George Washington and Rediscovering Alexander Hamilton,
but it is a theme throughout my work. Since my fifteen plus films have
been nationally broadcast to high ratings and excellent review, as well
as used extensively in schools, I believe the impact is significant.
These values underlie all my other work as well, including serving
as Senior Vice President for Television Programming at the Corporation
for Public Broadcasting; at the National Council on the Humanities;
President and CEO of The Claremont Institute; and Director of WORLDNET,
then the U.S. Information Agency's global satellite network. For
example, while at CPB, I launched two major initiatives. The first was
America at a Crossroads, a series of prime-time documentaries examining
challenges facing America after September 11th, from a variety of
perspectives. Many of these films dealt directly with issues involving
democracy and human rights. The second was the History and Civics
initiative, employing all media, from traditional TV to video games, to
address middle and high schoolers' declining knowledge of our nation's
past-including the nature of American democratic values.
Diversity
Question. What will you do to promote, mentor and support your
staff that come from diverse backgrounds and underrepresented groups in
the Broadcasting Board of Governors?
Answer. As a manager, supervisor, and CEO--if confirmed--I will
continue to expect that not only policies be in place to mentor and
support a diverse staff, but that every manager and supervisor embrace
a culture of diversity. I value each person contributing to the success
of the organization, and I expect my employees to do the same. In
addition to the legal responsibility, I see it as a human
responsibility.
Question. What steps will you take to ensure each of the
supervisors in the Broadcasting Board of Governors are fostering an
environment that is diverse and inclusive?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review the policies and procedures in
place now regarding diversity and inclusion and will work with USAGM
leadership to strengthen them and effectively implement them.
Conflicts of Interest
Question. Do you commit to bring to the committee's attention (and
the Inspector General of the Broadcasting Board of Governors) any
change in policy or U.S. actions that you suspect may be influenced by
any of the President's business or financial interests, or the business
or financial interests of any senior White House staff?
Answer. Yes, I do.
Question. Do you commit to inform the committee if you have any
reason to suspect that a foreign government, head of state, or foreign-
controlled entity is taking any action in order to benefit any of the
President's business or financial interests, or the interests of senior
White House staff?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you or do any members of your immediate family have
any financial interests in any country abroad?
Answer. No.
Technology
Question. What, in your opinion, is the best mix of technologies to
use in broadcasting to countries with repressive governments? Should
USAGM be focused primarily on increasing audience size with its
platform choice, or on increasing the resilience of such broadcasting
against government interference and tracking?
Answer. The complement of countries targeted by the USAGM
represents the most diverse mix of media markets in existence. As such,
the mix of technological solutions deployed by the USAGM needs to craft
each country's distribution tactics with the needs, desires and
capabilities of each country-including those with highly repressive
governments. In some cases, for example North Korea and Cuba,
increasing the resilience of our broadcasting is particularly
important.
Importance of Professional Independence and Integrity
Question. As USAGM CEO, you would be required to ``respect the
professional independence and integrity'' of USAGM's broadcasting
services and grantee broadcasters.
As a presidential appointee statutorily required to seek guidance
from the Secretary of State, do you see any potential problems
carrying out this requirement?
Answer. I do not anticipate problems. There would be a problem if
the Secretary of State, or anyone else, tried to direct the coverage of
USAGM journalists. As I said to Senator Menendez at my hearing, it
would be my responsibility to say ``no.''
Question. How do you plan to meet this requirement while at the
same time promoting the foreign policy goals of the United States?
Answer. As I said at my hearing, if confirmed, I will communicate
and consult with all stakeholders--including the State Department and
including Congress--and confer extensively with the talented and
dedicated men and women of USAGM. I believe that you can both maintain
the independence and integrity of the journalists working for USAGM and
also promote the broad foreign policy goals of the United States-and
both are stated goals of USAGM.
Importance of Complete and Balanced Coverage
Question. U.S. international broadcasters are required under U.S.
law to provide complete and balanced coverage that examines all sides
of important issues and related U.S. government policies, not just the
official U.S. government position, and to provide an opportunity for
debate on such issues and policies in their programming.
Should U.S. international broadcasters fashion their reporting to
promote U.S.interests?
Answer. Reporters and journalists are independent and should not be
told to slant their coverage. This does not conflict with the USAGM's
mission of supporting freedom and democracy and communicating America's
democratic experience and values.
Question. If not, do you agree that U.S. international media can
only be successful if the broadcast entities act as objective providers
of information?
Answer. USAGM's media need to be objective, fair, and without bias-
and to be perceived that way. To ensure that result, journalists must
employ the highest level of professional standards, ethics, and
accountability.
Question. Should other U.S. foreign policy actors, including the
State Department, have a greater say in directing or coordinating U.S.
international media?
Answer. As I stated above, if confirmed, I will regularly consult
with all stakeholders, include the State Department and the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, as is current USAGM practice.
Issues with Office of Cuba Broadcasting
Question. In 2018 reports surfaced that the Office of Cuba
Broadcasting had disseminated a story attacking George Soros that was
deemed anti-Semitic and ``unjournalistic.'' Other stories targeting the
Cuban population included an opinion piece decrying the
``Islamization'' of Europe and its threat to the United States. It was
reported on February 27, 2019 that USAGM is seeking to terminate the
employment of eight journalists, editors, and anchors in response to
these broadcasts.
What steps can be taken by USAGM to better protect against such
lapses in journalistic standards, and what will be your
approach to prevent and respond to these types of problems
across the broadcasters you supervise?
Answer. As I stated in my written testimony, if confirmed, I will
address the scandals besetting USAGM. This is just one of the scandals
reported. I will make certain that the Agency is doing everything it
can to make sure such scandals cease and put processes in place to
prevent such situations in the future. Doing so will inevitably
contribute to making USAGM more effective.
Countering Russian Propaganda
Question. Congress has authorized substantial funding to counter
foreign propaganda, especially messaging from Russia, including
creating the Countering Russian Influence Fund, and expanding the
mandate of the Global Engagement Center in the State Department,
significantly increasing its available resources. Meanwhile, USAGM has
increased resources and created targeted programming to counter Russian
messaging.
How does USAGM coordinate with other government agencies to best
counter foreign propaganda?
Answer. Based my briefings by USAGM staff, USAGM conducts a
mandated annual language service review that evaluates all broadcast
languages, and potential languages. The State Department provides its
input to USAGM on this process and how these languages fit into the
foreign policy priorities of the Department.
Question. Do you believe USAGM should have a larger role, or more
resources from Congress, to meet the challenge presented by such
foreign messaging?
Answer. I would need to conduct a thorough review of the current
operations before I had an informed opinion on whether USAGM should
change its strategy or seek more resources to counter foreign
propaganda. However, I reaffirm what we discussed during our meeting,
and again stated during my hearing, that you will hear from me often.
Countering Propaganda (General)
Question. USAGM has been criticized for a perceived failure in some
cases to counter propaganda from certain countries of vital interest to
U.S. foreign policy, including Russia and China.
In your opinion, has USAGM been deficient in meeting these
challenges, and if so, what must USAGM do to improve
broadcaster effectiveness in these and other places?
Answer. As I said in my oral testimony, ``my mission will be to
make the Agency more effective. There was bi-partisan support to create
this new CEO position. The hope was that a CEO would provide the
leadership and vision to ramp up the impact of the five broadcasting
entities and to create a more effective U.S international broadcasting
effort on the world stage. That won't be easy or fast. I will confer
extensively with the talented and dedicated men and women of USAGM and
will consult with all stakeholders, including here in Congress.''
However effective USAGM has been to date, my mission, if confirmed,
would be to make it more effective.
Question. What, in your opinion, is the best mix of technologies to
use in broadcasting to countries with repressive governments?
Answer. The complement of countries targeted by the USAGM
represents the most diverse mix of media markets in existence. As such,
the mix of technological solutions deployed by the USAGM needs to craft
each country's distribution tactics with the needs, desires and
capabilities of each country. Accomplishing my goal to increase USAGM's
effectiveness will involve evaluating the mix of technologies.
Question. Should USAGM be focused primarily on increasing audience
size with its platform choice, or on increasing the resilience of such
broadcasting against government interference and tracking?
Answer. I am confident USAGM can do better in terms of both
increasing audience size and increasing resilience, especially in
countries like Cuba and North Korea where circumventing government
interference and tracking is especially important.
Firewall
Question. While the ``firewall'' represented by the former
Broadcasting Board of Governors is no longer in place legislatively,
the U.S. International Broadcasting Act of 1994 still requires U.S.
international broadcasting to meet standards and principles of
journalistic integrity and independence.
How do you plan to ensure these standards and principles are
upheld?
Answer. I expect the thousands of journalists representing the
USAGM broadcasting entities to practice the highest standards of
professional journalistic ethics, accountability, and integrity. If
confirmed, I will ensure management processes are in place at the
Agency to support the intent of the U.S. International Broadcasting Act
of 1994.
Separate Missions
Question. As you know, U.S. international media operates under a
bifurcated mission, with VOA informing the world about the United
States and its policies, and the surrogate broadcasters taking the role
of an otherwise absent free media.
In your view, why maintain these separate missions?
Answer. As I mentioned in my hearing and above, I will conduct a
thorough review of existing practices and operations in consultation
with stakeholders and USAGM leadership and staff. While I have no plans
to make any structural changes, the question of how the five
broadcasters should coordinate their missions will be part of the
process of review and evaluation.
Question. Do you believe that U.S. international media can only be
successful if the broadcast entities act as objective providers of
information, or should U.S. international broadcasters fashion their
reporting to promote U.S. interests?
Answer. USAGM can both provide objective information and promote
U.S, interests. Far from being an either/or proposition, the two goals
are very compatible. I understand that the current leadership USAGM is
explicitly dedicated to achieving both goals. I also believe that
maintaining both the reality and perception of USAGM media as
objective, fair, and non-biased is essential to the success of the
agency-it is its bedrock.
Question. Should other U.S. foreign policy actors, including the
State Department, have a greater say in directing or coordinating U.S.
international media?
Answer. I have been informed in my staff briefing that USAGM
regularly communicates and coordinates with the State Department and
other foreign policy actors, while maintaining the independence of its
broadcasters. I do not see any reason to change that balance.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted to Michael Pack by Senator Jeanne Shaheen
Question. Access to online sources of information is crucial,
especially in a closed society where information is carefully
controlled by the government. The USAGM plays an important role in
supporting internet freedom and anti-censorship activities by funding
the activities and operation of tools used to evade the Chinese
firewall and all other such barriers to unfettered internet access
throughout the world. Will you commit to making circumvention of
internet firewalls a priority and provide immediate funding to add
capacity to field-tested systems by increasing IP addresses and
servers?
Answer. As I mentioned to you in our brief discussion at my
hearing, I consider internet freedom of vital national importance. In
fact, I can think of few greater blows for freedom worldwide than
successfully circumventing firewalls in closed societies, especially
China but others as well. If confirmed, I will definitely commit to
making it a priority, and I will rapidly review what is currently being
done at USAGM in this area and how it can be improved.
Question. Mr. Pack, over the last three years we have heard
repeated complaints that the USAGM/BBG has smeared, and eventually
defunded the most effective tools for evading the Chinese firewall and
all other such barriers to unfettered Internet access throughout the
world. This has left millions in China, Vietnam, Iran, and other closed
societies unable to evade their country's firewalls. Will you commit to
investigating these allegations, and if true remedy the situation?
Answer. Yes, I will commit to investigating these allegations and
correcting any problems.
Question. I am concerned that USAGM will focus on preserving the
old radio broadcast model of communicating with individuals in closed
societies rather than embracing the power of a free Internet to
accomplish agency goals. What is your vision of the role that internet
freedom and firewall circumvention should play in fulfilling the
USAGM's mission to ``inform, engage and connect with people around the
world in support of freedom and democracy?'' How do you plan to counter
these outdated and change-resistant forces at the USAGM?
Answer. The opportunity to provide internet access to citizens
operating behind firewalls in places like China, Iran, Vietnam and
other countries dominated by autocratic regimes, is one of the best
opportunities to truly implement the USAGM's charter. While I do
believe that radio broadcasts are still effective in certain very
closed regimes or where FM is still viable, I also understand that the
media consumption patterns throughout the world continue to change with
increased opportunities on digital platforms including Mobile, Social
Media, Web, and Digital Television. I will explore those opportunities
to maximize USAGM's effectiveness.
Question. Since 2014, Congress has directed USAGM/BBG spend a
minimum of $25 million of its annual nearly $800 million appropriation
on firewall circumvention technologies to promote democracy in closed
societies. However, USAGM has consistently spent less than $10 million
on these technologies. Will you pledge to spend not less than $25
million to fund existing field tested, scalable circumvention
technologies that provide access to millions of users daily, and to do a
so on an annual basis?
Will you commit to investigating concerns that USAGM/BBG has not
adequately funded some of the most effective tools for evading
the Chinese firewall and other firewall circumvention tools,
and if true remedy the situation?
Answer. Yes. I have heard those reports myself and, if confirmed, I
will ensure that we quickly assess the situation, establish
accountability and swiftly remedy the situation.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted to Michael Pack by Senator Edward J. Markey
The Mission of U.S. Agency for Global Media
Question. The U.S. International Broadcasting Act of 1994 requires
U.S. international broadcasting to meet standards and principles of
journalistic integrity and independence.
How do you plan to ensure these standards and principles are upheld
at the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), if confirmed?
Answer. I expect each reporter at the five USAGM broadcasting
entities to embrace the standards and principles of journalistic
integrity and independence with the utmost professionalism. Any lapse
will be addressed and rectified immediately.
Question. Will you respect the professional independence and
integrity of the agency's broadcasting services and grantee
broadcasters? Specifically, how will you ensure their professional
independence and integrity?
Answer. Yes. I believe that USAGM broadcasting entities'
credibility rest on the belief that the reporters at all the networks
are independent. As I stated during the committee hearing last week,
the Agency would be completely undermined if there were political
influence telling these journalists how to report the news and what to
say.
Question. Should the State Department have a greater say in
coordination in at USAGM, or will you maintain the independence,
substantive balance and integrity of the agency's broadcasting services
and grantee broadcasters?
Answer. If confirmed, I will most certainly maintain the
independence, substantive balance and integrity of USAGM's federal
broadcasters and grantees while communicating and coordinating with the
State Department and other stakeholders and partners, as is the current
practice.
Question. Do you believe U.S. international media can only be
successful if the broadcast entities act as objective providers of
information, or should U.S. international broadcasters fashion their
reporting to promote U.S. interests?
Answer. I believe USAGM can provide objective information while
promoting our nation's interests. Far from being and either/or
proposition, the two goals are very compatible. I understand that the
current leadership USAGM is explicitly dedicated to achieving both
goals.
Question. At the moment, the USAGM CEO is required to seek guidance
from the Secretary of State. Do you think there are potential problems
fulfilling this requirement? How do you plan to reconcile this
requirement while at the same time promoting the foreign policy goals
of the United States?
Answer. I do not see this as a potential problem. If confirmed, I
will confer regularly with the State Department as well as other
stakeholders, including the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. A
problem would only arise if the Secretary of State, or anyone else,
tried to direct the coverage of USAGM journalists. As I said at my
hearing, it would be my responsibility to say ``no.''
__________
Letters Submitted Supporting Hon. Marshall
Billingslea's Nomination
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
NOMINATIONS
----------
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2019
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m. in Room
SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Cory Gardner,
chairman of the committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Gardner, Barrasso, Young, Shaheen, and
Markey.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CORY GARDNER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO
Senator Gardner. The committee will come to order.
Welcome, all, to today's full committee hearing on
nominations. We have a full slate today with five nominees for
very important posts, including three nominees for
ambassadorships in the Indo-Pacific region. I am grateful for
these nominees and their families who are here with us today,
for their willingness to serve and sacrifice on behalf of our
great country.
Senator Markey is a bit delayed today, but with his
permission, we will go ahead and begin with the testimonies
from the nominees and he will deliver his opening statement
upon arrival.
But before we get into the nominees, I know Senator Young
is here with an introduction. Senator Young, why do you not
proceed with your introduction.
STATEMENT OF HON. TODD YOUNG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM INDIANA
Senator Young. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an
honor to introduce Michael DeSombre today.
Mr. DeSombre has spent the past 20 years living and working
in Hong Kong. So he is well versed in how to get things done in
Asia. Mr. DeSombre began gathering his knowledge of Asia as he
studied quantitative economics, then East Asian studies at
Stanford University. He went on to study at Harvard Law School
where he graduated magnum cum laude.
In addition to his academic work on law and economics, he
has also mastered speaking Mandarin, which is very impressive
for someone who is still working on English. Right?
[Laughter.]
Senator Young. Speaking Chinese has opened a number of
doors for Mr. DeSombre. It has given him a unique position in
his business interactions. He is an expert on mergers and
acquisitions and a partner in the law firm of Sullivan and
Cromwell since 2004. He has honed his negotiation skills,
representing U.S. businesses opposite Chinese and other
counterparties.
Needless to say, having someone with Mr. DeSombre's
extensive Asia experience, living and working throughout the
region will serve the United States very, very well in
Thailand.
What also sets Mr. DeSombre apart from others in his
efforts to give back to others is he serves on several boards
that do meaningful and important work in Asia. As a board
member of the Hong Kong Forum, he has sought to promote greater
interaction and sharing of ideas between scholars and
policymakers worldwide. As we look at the news coming out of
Hong Kong right now, there is no question we need better
dialogue to help resolve the crisis there.
Mr. DeSombre has also been on the board of Save the
Children Hong Kong since 2015. In that role, he has furthered
the organization's goal of becoming more professional and
responsive to the important mandate of helping each child
achieve their full human potential.
I am grateful he has accepted the call to serve his
country. I know it is something that he and his wife discussed
even before they were married. And his lovely bride is present
today with three of his four children. I know they are all very
proud of him. We are grateful for his desire to serve, his
heart for service. We know he will be a true asset to the State
Department, to the President, and to the nation.
I look forward to supporting his nomination before this
committee and on the Senate floor.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Senator Gardner. Thank you, Senator Young. Thank you very
much for that kind introduction.
I am going to go ahead and introduce each and every one of
the other witnesses before we begin with the testimony. So I
will go ahead and start. Since Mr. DeSombre has already been
introduced graciously by Senator Young, I will begin with the
introduction of Ms. Cantor.
Our next witness is Ms. Carmen Cantor, nominated to serve
as Ambassador to the Federated States of Micronesia. Ms. Cantor
is a career member of the Senior Executive Service and
currently serves as Director of the Civil Service Human
Resource Management at the Department of State.
Previously Ms. Cantor served in various roles within the
Department of State, including as the Executive Director of the
Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs and Bureau of
International Information Programs and as Executive Director of
the Bureau of Counterterrorism.
Welcome to the committee, and thank you very much for your
service.
Our next witness is Ambassador Kelley Eckels Currie, who is
nominated to serve as Ambassador at Large for Global Women's
Issues. Ambassador Currie currently serves as Deputy to the
Ambassador-at-Large and Senior Bureau Official at the Office of
Global Criminal Justice.
From 2017 to 2019, she served as U.S. Representative to the
Economic and Social Council at the U.S. mission to the United
Nations.
Thank you. Welcome back, Ambassador Currie. Thank you for
your service as well.
Ambassador Kim, our next witness nominated to serve as the
Ambassador to Indonesia. Ambassador Kim is a career member of
the Senior Foreign Service and currently serves as Ambassador
to the Philippines. Ambassador Kim has an extensive history of
public service, including as Ambassador to the Republic of
Korea, Special Envoy for the Six Party Talks, Director of the
Office of Korean Affairs, Special Representative for North
Korea Policy, and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in the
Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs.
Welcome back, Ambassador Kim, and thank you for your long
and distinguished career.
And our final witness today is Mr. Morse Tan, who is
nominated to serve as Ambassador at Large for Global Criminal
Justice. Mr. Tan is an associate professor and professor of law
at Northern Illinois University College of Law.
Previously, he served as an assistant associate professor
of law at Florida Coastal School of Law and visiting professor
of law at the University of St. Thomas and a visiting scholar
at both the University of Texas Law School and Northwestern
University Pritzker School of Law.
Welcome to you as well, and thank you, all of you, for your
willingness to serve.
So we will go ahead and begin with Ms. Cantor, if you would
like to start. But I would remind all witnesses that we have a
long day of this panel, as well as a subcommittee hearing
following this, and in the middle somewhere, there are a number
of votes that are about to occur beginning at 4:00 or so. I
would kindly ask that you limit your testimony, your remarks to
no more than 5 minutes. Your full written statement obviously
will be made a part of the record.
With that, Ms. Cantor, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF CARMEN G. CANTOR, OF PUERTO RICO, A CAREER MEMBER
OF THE SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE, TO BE AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY
AND PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO THE
FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA
Ms. Cantor. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
distinguished members of this committee. I am honored to appear
before you today as the President's nominee to be the next
United States Ambassador to the Federated States of Micronesia,
the FSM.
I am grateful for the confidence that President Trump and
Secretary of State Pompeo have placed in me with this
nomination.
If confirmed, I pledge to do my utmost to uphold this trust
and to advance our nation's interests in the FSM and in the
vital Indo-Pacific region.
Over the past 29 years, I have been privileged to serve our
nation in different roles and agencies: the Postal Service, the
Federal Maritime Commission, the Foreign Agricultural Service,
and the Department of State. Any measure of success that I
achieved during these appointments would not have been possible
without the support of my family. So I would like to start by
expressing my heartfelt gratitude to them.
I come from a very large Puerto Rican family. My father, an
Army veteran, is one of 18 siblings. My mother is one of nine
siblings. I have one sister and many uncles, aunts, and
cousins. I will not name them all, but I do want to recognize
my husband Carlos, a public servant at the Postal Service and
Department of Health and Human Services for the last 35 years
who is here with me today.
Our daughters are here as well. Ashley is a public servant
at NASA. Amanda is a student at the University of Maryland, and
Adriana at Annapolis High School.
As the FSM President David Panuelo highlighted in his
inauguration speech, the U.S. is the FSM's most important
partner. And from our perspective, the FSM is an important
longtime partner, a stronghold of freedom in the Indo-Pacific.
We share a distinctive partnership based on mutual values
enshrined in the Compact of Free Association.
The FSM's geopolitical importance is clear. The FSM shares
our vision for an open and free Indo-Pacific that respects
sovereignty, rule of law, and transparency.
With that solid foundation in place, the reality is that we
are at a historic moment. We have an opportunity to act as a
positive alternative to China's growing presence in the FSM and
the region. If confirmed, I will work to ensure the U.S.
continues to support the FSM's peace, prosperity, democracy,
and freedoms. I will continue to foster an interagency
environment of collaboration with U.S. agencies, including
Interior, Defense, USAID, Health and Human Services,
Agriculture, and others.
Pursuant to the Compact, the U.S. government provides
economic assistance and access to federal programs and
services, including the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,
Postal Service, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, to name a few. The U.S. is also responsible for
security and defense matters in and relating to the FSM and has
special and extensive access to operate in the FSM's territory,
as well as the authority to deny access to the FSM by other
countries' militaries and their personnel.
In August, Secretary Pompeo became the first Secretary of
State to visit the FSM where he announced our intent to begin
negotiations on agreements to amend certain provisions of the
compact. If confirmed, I will continue working on solidifying
our bonds with the FSM by facilitating efficient negotiations
to advance our mutually beneficial partnership.
FSM's sons and daughters, citizens representing all four
states, serve in the U.S. military at per capita rates higher
than most U.S. States. 10 citizens of the FSM have paid the
ultimate price and died in combat while serving in the U.S.
armed forces. Many FSM citizens join our military and put their
lives at risk on behalf of freedom and democracy around the
world. If confirmed, I will work with our Department of
Veterans Affairs and the Department of Defense to improve the
assistance veterans in the FSM receive.
The FSM is highly vulnerable to natural disasters. I am not
a stranger to the issues and challenges surrounding natural
disasters in an island environment. Living in Puerto Rico, I
remember very vividly Hurricane Hugo in 1989 and saw from afar
the damage caused by Hurricanes George in 1998 and Maria in
2017. I am aware of the loss caused by Typhoon Wutip in the FSM
this past winter. If confirmed, I will work with the FSM
government to strengthen resilience to disasters through
preparedness and I will make the safety of our embassy staff a
top priority.
In closing, I cannot envision a greater honor other than to
lead the U.S. mission to the FSM.
Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, I look forward to working with
you and the honorable members of this committee to advance U.S.
interests in the FSM and to sustain and expand the progress we
have achieved in our unique, long-term, and positive
relationship with this extremely important partner.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today. I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Cantor follows:]
Prepared Statement by Carmen G. Cantor
Thank you very much Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and distinguished
members of the committee. I am honored to appear before you today as
the President's nominee to be the next United States Ambassador to the
Federated States of Micronesia, the FSM. I am grateful for the
confidence that President Trump and Secretary of State Pompeo have
placed in me with this nomination.
If confirmed, I pledge to do my utmost to uphold this trust and to
advance our nation's interests in the FSM and in the vital Indo-Pacific
region.
Over the past twenty-nine years, I have been privileged to serve
our nation in different roles and agencies: the U.S. Postal Service,
the Federal Maritime Commission, the Foreign Agricultural Service, and
the U.S. Department of State. Any measure of success that I achieved
during these appointments would not have been possible without the
support of my family, so I would like to start by expressing my
heartfelt gratitude to them.
I come from a very large Puerto Rican family. My father, Anibal
Castro Justiniano, an Army National Guard veteran, was one of 18
siblings. My mother, Zoraida Laracuente Ramirez, was one of 9 siblings.
I have one sister and many uncles, aunts and cousins. I won't name them
all, but I do want to recognize my husband, Carlos, a public servant
for the last 35 years, who is with me today. Carlos spent most of his
career in the U.S. Postal Service and now works in the U.S. Department
of Health & Human Services.
Our daughters are here with us as well. Ashley is a public servant
working at NASA, Amanda is a college senior at the University of
Maryland, and Adriana is a freshman at Annapolis High School.
As the Federated States of Micronesia President David Panuelo
highlighted in his inauguration speech, the United States is the FSM's
most important partner. And, from our perspective, the FSM is an
important longtime partner and, as Secretary Pompeo said during his
recent visit, a stronghold of freedom in the Indo-Pacific. We share a
distinctive partnership based on mutual values enshrined in the Compact
of Free Association (Compact), as amended.
The FSM's geo-political importance is clear:
The FSM shares our vision for an open and free Indo-Pacific that
respects sovereignty, the rule of law, and transparency.
The FSM supports international efforts to advance the
denuclearization of North Korea, in particular by ensuring the
full implementation of U.N. sanctions.
The FSM votes with the United States at the United Nations at rates
higher than most countries, especially to combat anti-Israel
bias.
With that solid foundation in place, the reality is that we are at
a historic moment in our unique and special partnership. We have an
opportunity to act as a positive alternative to China's growing
presence in the FSM and the region. If confirmed, I will work to ensure
the United States continues to support the FSM's peace prosperity,
democracy, and freedoms. I will continue to foster an interagency
environment of collaboration with agencies including Department of the
Interior, U.S. Agency for International Development, Department of
Health and Human Services, and Department of Agriculture.
Pursuant to the amended Compact, the U.S. government provides
economic assistance and access to U.S. federal programs and services,
including the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, U.S. Postal
Service, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, to name a
few. The United States is also responsible for security and defense
matters in and relating to the FSM and has special and extensive access
to operate in the FSM's territory, as well as the authority to deny
access to the FSM by other countries' militaries and their personnel.
In August, Secretary Pompeo became the first Secretary of State to
visit the FSM where he announced the United States' intent to begin
negotiations on agreements to amend certain provisions of the Compacts
with the FSM, the Marshall Islands, and Palau. If confirmed, I will
continue working on solidifying our bonds with the FSM by facilitating
efficient negotiations to advance our mutually beneficial partnership.
FSM's sons and daughters, citizens representing all four states,
serve in the United States military at per capita rates higher than
most U.S. States. Ten citizens of the FSM have paid the ultimate price
and died in combat while serving in the U.S. armed forces. Many FSM
citizens join our military and put their lives at risk on behalf of
freedom and democracy around the world. If confirmed, I will work with
our Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Defense to
improve the assistance veterans in the FSM receive.
The FSM is highly vulnerable to natural disasters. I am not a
stranger to the issues and challenges surrounding natural disasters in
an island environment. Living in Puerto Rico, I remember very vividly
Hurricane Hugo in 1989 and saw from afar the damage caused by Hurricane
George in 1998 and Hurricane Maria in 2017. I've seen landslides,
flooded roads, devastation, and destruction. I'm aware of the loss
caused by Typhoon Wutip in the FSM this past winter. If confirmed, I
will work with the government of the Federated States of Micronesia to
strengthen the FSM's resilience to disasters through disaster
preparedness and I will make the safety of our embassy staff a top
priority.
In closing, I can't envision a greater honor other than to lead the
U.S. Mission to the Federated States of Micronesia, working with our
friends in the FSM and representing our nation during this vital time.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, if confirmed, I look forward to
working with you and the honorable members of this committee to advance
U.S. interests in the FSM and to sustain and expand the progress we
have achieved in our unique, long-term, and positive relationship with
this extremely important partner.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I
would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Gardner. Mr. DeSombre?
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL GEORGE DeSOMBRE, OF ILLINOIS, TO BE
AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA TO THE KINGDOM OF THAILAND
Mr. DeSombre. Chairman, Ranking Member, Senators, I thank
you for the opportunity to appear before you today as the
nominee for the Ambassador to the Kingdom of Thailand.
I want to thank President Trump for nominating me to be his
personal representative to the Kingdom of Thailand, and I wish
to thank Secretary Pompeo for his strong support.
I am grateful to all members of this committee for the
opportunity today to speak with you about my qualifications and
intentions.
I want to thank my wife and four children for their support
of my desire to enter public service. My wife Jean and I
recently celebrated our 27th wedding anniversary. Jean has
always been my inspiration and in the last 27 years, we have
managed to build our respective professional careers while
together raising four wonderful children, Winnona, Gabrielle,
Michael Ray, and Phoenix. Notwithstanding the logistical
challenges of two continents and three cities, I am very
pleased to be joined here today by my wife Jean, my two
daughters, and my youngest son Phoenix. My eldest son Michael
Ray plays scrum half on his rugby team in Hong Kong and is
critical to their success at two matches during this period and
thus was not able to make it here today. If I am confirmed, my
son looks forward to playing rugby in Bangkok.
I also would like to thank my parents, Eugene and Nancy,
for their support. Mom and Dad were not able to make it here in
person, but I know they are watching the livestream back in
Chicago.
Since a young age, I have been motivated to serve my
country. I believe that my experience in legal, economic, and
strategic matters over the past 30 years is directly relevant
to the position for which I have been nominated.
I have been a practicing lawyer for almost 25 years. I
fundamentally believe in the importance of the rule of law,
transparency, and good governance. This is true both for
corporations and for countries.
As the head of Sullivan & Cromwell's acquisitions practice
in Asia, I have advised many Western corporations on complex
investments in many different Asian countries, including
Thailand. I also am frequently engaged by corporations to
provide training on high-stakes negotiations.
I have been a student of strategic issues between the
United States and China since the late 1980s when I received my
master's degree in East Asian Studies focused on China's
military and foreign policy. While living and working in Hong
Kong and China for the past 2 decades, I have had a front row
seat to the challenges and opportunities presented by China's
economic and military modernization.
If confirmed, I will apply my background in law, commerce,
and strategic issues in Asia to work with our longtime ally
Thailand to advance a free and open Indo-Pacific, including
promoting the rule of law and good governance, strengthening
the economic partnership with Thailand, and further enhancing
the U.S.-Thai military alliance. In that regard, I would like
to thank Senator Gardner and Senator Markey for their
leadership on the Asia Reassurance Initiative Act, which
reflects very clearly the administration's foreign policy
priorities in Asia.
Thailand and the United States share an enduring
friendship. Last year marked the 200th anniversary of Thailand
and the United States as great and good friends, as President
Lincoln told His Majesty Rama IV back in 1862. 2019 has already
been a historic year for our Thai friends. Thailand saw the
coronation of His Majesty, King Rama X, and also saw the long-
awaited elections that stood up a new civilian government led
by Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha. The resumption of elected
civilian governance presents an opportunity for the U.S. to
raise its cooperation with Thailand to a new level.
Thailand is a major non-NATO ally and the only United
States ally in mainland Southeast Asia. We have a broad,
multifaceted relationship with Thailand that is both bilateral
and regional in scope. The U.S.-Thai alliance helps Thailand in
the lower Mekong countries maintain their sovereignty while
protecting their security, supporting their economies, and
safeguarding their rich cultures and environment. Our deep
partnership with Thailand also includes more than a half
century of extensive cooperation on public health issues of
common concern in Thailand and in the region.
United States and Thailand have a growing economic and
commercial relationship and, if confirmed, it will be a
priority of mine to focus on expanding this relationship. I am
particularly excited by the opportunities available by the
creation of the Development Finance Corporation under the BUILD
Act.
Thailand is making democratic strides. However, more
progress is needed. If confirmed, I will consult closely with
Congress to ensure we continue to promote the rule of law,
transparency, human rights, democracy, and good governance in
Thailand. I am confident that Thailand will become an even
stronger ally as it strengthens its democratic institutions.
If confirmed, I will dedicate myself to the U.S.
government's highest priority, the protection of U.S. citizens
in Thailand. I will also have the honor and privilege of
leading the dedicated Americans and local staff of the State
Department and the many other U.S. government agencies that
make up Mission Thailand. As Secretary Pompeo emphasized before
this committee in April of last year, the State Department's
responsibility and one of my top priorities, if confirmed, is
to empower the staff of Mission Thailand and provide them with
the necessary support to apply their capabilities and ideas to
further U.S. foreign policy goals. I have spent the last 15
years leading teams and organizations in the private and NGO
sectors in Asia and would hope to bring this experience to the
management of Mission Thailand.
Finally, Chairman, Ranking Member, and Senators, I would
like to respectfully ask you for your support for my
nomination.
I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. DeSombre follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael George DeSombre
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, Senators, I thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today as the nominee for the
Ambassador to the Kingdom of Thailand.
I want to thank President Trump for nominating me to be his
personal representative to the Kingdom of Thailand and I wish to thank
Secretary Pompeo for his strong support.
I am grateful to all members of this committee for the opportunity
today to speak with you about my qualifications and intentions.
I want to thank my wife and four children for their support of my
desire to enter public service. My wife Jean and I recently celebrated
our 27th wedding anniversary. Jean has always been my inspiration and
in the last 27 years we have managed to build our respective
professional careers while together raising four wonderful children--
Winnona, Gabrielle, MichaelRay, and Phoenix. Notwithstanding the
logistical challenges of two continents and three cities, I am very
pleased to be joined here today by my wife Jean, my two daughters and
my youngest son Phoenix. My eldest son Michael Ray plays scrum half on
his rugby team in Hong Kong and is critical to their success at two
matches during this period and thus was not able to make it here today.
If I am confirmed, my son looks forward to playing rugby in Bangkok.
I also would like to thank my parents Eugene and Nancy for their
support. Mom and Dad were not able to make it here in person but I know
they are watching the livestream back in Chicago.
Since a young age I have been motivated to serve my country. I
believe that my experience in legal, economic, and strategic matters
over the past thirty years is directly relevant to the position for
which I have been nominated.
I have been a practicing lawyer for almost 25 years. I
fundamentally believe in the importance of the rule of law,
transparency and good governance. This is true both for corporations
and for countries.
As the head of Sullivan & Cromwell's acquisitions practice in Asia,
I have advised many Western corporations on complex investments in many
different Asian countries, including Thailand. I also am frequently
engaged by corporations to provide training on high-stakes
negotiations.
I have been a student of strategic issues between the United States
and China since the late 1980s when I received my Master's degree in
East Asian Studies focused on China's military and foreign policy.
While living and working in Hong Kong and China for the past two
decades, I have had a front row seat to the challenges and
opportunities presented by China's economic and military modernization.
If confirmed, I will apply my background in law, commerce and
strategic issues in Asia to work with our long-time ally, Thailand, to
advance a free and open Indo-Pacific, including promoting the rule of
law and good governance; strengthening the economic partnership with
Thailand; and further enhancing the U.S.-Thai military alliance. In
that regard I would like to thank Senator Gardner and Senator Markey
for their leadership on the Asia Reassurance Initiative Act, which
reflects very clearly the administration's foreign policy priorities in
Asia.
Thailand and the United States share an enduring friendship. Last
year marked the 200th anniversary of Thailand and the United States as
great and good friends, as President Lincoln told His Majesty Rama IV
back in 1862. Two thousand nineteen has already been a historic year
for our Thai friends. Thailand saw the coronation of His Majesty, King
Rama X, and also saw the long-awaited elections that stood up a new
civilian government led by Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha. The
resumption of elected civilian governance presents an opportunity for
the U.S. to raise its cooperation with Thailand to a new level.
Thailand is a major non-NATO ally and the only United States ally
in mainland South East Asia. We have a broad, multi-faceted
relationship with Thailand that is both bilateral and regional in
scope. On the security side, we have frequent joint exercises and
interactions, including our annual Cobra Gold multinational exercise
that we have been co-hosting since 1982.
America's partnership with Thailand also helps Thailand address
increasing security and humanitarian challenges throughout the Lower
Mekong region, including methamphetamine flows, trafficking in persons,
and wildlife trafficking.
The U.S.-Thai alliance helps Thailand and the lower Mekong
countries maintain their sovereignty while protecting their security,
supporting their economies, and safeguarding their rich cultures and
environment. Our deep partnership with Thailand also includes more than
half a century of extensive cooperation on public health issues of
common concern in Thailand and in the region such as HIV, infectious
diseases, and malnutrition.
United States and Thailand have a growing economic and commercial
relationship and, if confirmed, it will be a priority of mine to focus
on expanding this relationship. I am particularly excited by the
opportunities available by the creation of the Development Finance
Corporation under the BUILD Act and other initiatives under the
economic pillar of the Indo Pacific Strategy.
Thailand is making democratic strides. However, more progress is
needed. If confirmed, I will consult closely with Congress to ensure we
continue to promote the rule of law, transparency, human rights,
democracy, and good governance in Thailand. I am confident that
Thailand will become an even stronger ally as it strengthens its
democratic institutions.
If confirmed, I hope to apply my knowledge and training to assist
this important ally to continue democratic progress and will seek to
use existing exchange programs like the Young Southeast Asian Leaders
Initiative, or YSEALI, and the International Visitor Leadership Program
to empower the next generation of Thai leaders to embrace the benefits
of the rule of law, transparency, and good governance.
If confirmed, I will dedicate myself to the U.S. government's
highest priority--the protection of U.S. citizens in Thailand. I will
also have the honor and privilege of leading the dedicated Americans
and local staff of the State Department and the many other U.S.
government agencies that make up Mission Thailand. As Secretary Pompeo
emphasized before this committee in April of last year, the State
Department's responsibility, and one of my top priorities, if
confirmed, is to empower the staff of Mission Thailand and provide them
with the necessary support to apply their capabilities and ideas to
further U.S. foreign policy goals. I have spent the last 15 years
leading teams and organizations in the private and NGO sectors in Asia
and would hope to bring this experience to the management of Mission
Thailand.
Finally, Chairman, Ranking Member and Senators, I thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today.
I look forward to your questions.
Senator Gardner. Well done. 5 minutes exactly. Thank you,
Mr. DeSombre.
[Laughter.]
Senator Gardner. Ambassador Kim, thank you very much for
your service. I had the opportunity to work with you in both
the Philippines and on Korea issues. So I look forward to your
statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. SUNG Y. KIM, OF CALIFORNIA, A CAREER MEMBER
OF THE SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE, CLASS OF CAREER MINISTER, TO BE
AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA TO THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA
Ambassador Kim. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Young, I am deeply honored to appear
before you as the President's nominee to be U.S. Ambassador to
the Republic of Indonesia.
I am grateful to the President and Secretary Pompeo for
placing their confidence in me and, if confirmed, I look
forward to working closely with this important committee to
advance our strong relationship with Indonesia.
With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin
by thanking my family: my wife Jae and our daughters, Erin and
Erica. At my confirmation hearing 3 years ago, they could not
be present. They promised that they watched me on C-SPAN, so I
am delighted that they are actually here with me today. I know
they are proud and excited about the prospect of helping me
represent the United States in Indonesia. My parents and
siblings could not be here, but I am certain that they are
watching over me as they always do.
I also would like to thank the many friends, mentors, and
colleagues who have been a source of tremendous inspiration for
me throughout my career, and some of them are here today.
Mr. Chairman, it has been a privilege to spend my entire
30-year career in the State Department focused on Asia. I have
been honored to represent my country as Ambassador to the
Republic of Korea and currently to the Republic of the
Philippines. To be able to serve a third time as Ambassador in
this region of great importance would be an incredible honor,
particularly given our special relationship with Indonesia.
The U.S. and Indonesia have a strong relationship that
dates back to a time in which prospects for democracy and
prosperity in South Asia seemed far from certain. Now, as we
celebrate 70 years of diplomatic relations, it is remarkable
how much Indonesia has achieved, both as a stable democracy and
as a G20 economy. As a proud partner and friend of Indonesia,
we look forward to a future of even more progress, shaped by
our shared commitment to democracy and good governance, respect
for human rights, and promoting stability and prosperity in the
region.
The U.S. engagement with Indonesia is, indeed, both broad
and deep, featuring extensive defense cooperation, robust
partnership on counterterrorism, and meaningful development
programs.
Regionally, Indonesia has long been a leader in Southeast
Asia. Today we recognize the dynamic role that Indonesia can
and does play in support of ASEAN unity and centrality, and the
promotion of stability in the evolving strategic framework.
We applaud Indonesia's growing leadership on a wide range
of global issues. Indonesia is an active member of the United
Nations and a major source of U.N. peacekeepers. Indonesia is
currently serving a term on the U.N. Security Council, where we
coordinate closely on important issues facing the international
community.
We also appreciate how Indonesia, as the world's largest
Muslim majority nation, demonstrates that Islam and democracy
can not only coexist but thrive together. If confirmed, I will
support Indonesian efforts to reinforce tolerance and
interfaith harmony, and to advance respect for human rights
more broadly.
Mr. Chairman, I also plan to focus on advancing a far more
significant, balanced bilateral economic and trade
relationship. Our trade should better reflect the size of our
markets and the depth of our cooperation in other areas.
Of course, the ties between our countries are much more
than what our governments do together. It also is about our
private sectors working together, our civil societies advancing
shared goals, and our students learning from each other. More
fundamentally, our relationship is about people-to-people ties,
and I look forward to leading our efforts to deepen the special
friendship between Americans and Indonesians.
As two of the world's largest democracies, we share a
responsibility and compelling national interest to address
strategic challenges on the international stage. If confirmed,
I will do my best to ensure that our shared responsibility is
carried out to the fullest.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today,
and I am pleased to answer your questions. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Kim follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sung Kim
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am deeply honored to
appear before you today as the President's nominee to be United States
Ambassador to the Republic of Indonesia. I am grateful to the President
and Secretary Pompeo for placing their confidence in me and, if
confirmed, I look forward to working closely with this committee to
advance U.S. interests and our strong relationship with Indonesia.
With the Chairman's permission, I would like to begin by thanking
the many friends and colleagues who have played an essential role in my
career--some of them are here today. First and foremost, I'd like to
thank my wife Jae and our two daughters, Erin and Erica. I know they
are proud and excited about the prospect of helping me represent the
United States in Indonesia. My family, friends, and colleagues have all
been a source of tremendous support and inspiration.
Mr. Chairman, it has been a privilege to spend my entire 30-year
career in the State Department focused on Asia. I have been honored to
represent my country as Ambassador to the Republic of Korea and to the
Republic of the Philippines. To be able to serve a third time as
Ambassador in this region of great importance to U.S. interests would
be an incredible honor, particularly given the depth and breadth of our
relationship with Indonesia.
The United States and Indonesia have a strong relationship that
dates back to a time in which prospects for democracy and prosperity in
Southeast Asia seemed far from certain. Now, as we celebrate 70 years
of diplomatic relations, it is remarkable how much Indonesia has
achieved, as both a stable democracy and a G20 economy. As a proud
partner and friend of Indonesia, we look forward to a future of even
more progress, shaped by our shared commitment to democracy and good
governance, respect for human rights, and promoting stability and
prosperity in the region. In April, Indonesia successfully conducted
what was likely the largest single-day election anywhere. Its
democratic institutions are strong and only growing stronger.
Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, I look forward to leading the dedicated
Mission team of Americans and Indonesians who are working tirelessly to
advance the U.S.-Indonesia Strategic Partnership. I also pledge to be a
responsible steward of resources provided by Congress, both for the
operations of our large diplomatic platform in Indonesia and for
foreign assistance.
U.S. engagement with Indonesia is both broad and deep. We have
extensive defense cooperation, robust partnership on counterterrorism,
meaningful development programs, increasing maritime security
cooperation, growing science and technology ties, and deep people-to-
people diplomacy.
Regionally, Indonesia has long been a leader in Southeast Asia.
Today we recognize the dynamic role that Indonesia can and does play in
support of ASEAN unity and centrality, and the promotion of stability
in the evolving strategic context. Indonesia's initiative to forge a
shared ASEAN vision of a free and open Indo-Pacific region stands as a
valuable example of such leadership.
We recognize Indonesia's growing leadership on a wide range of key
global issues. Indonesia, an active member of the United Nations, is a
top source of U.N. peacekeepers. Indonesia is currently serving a term
on the U.N. Security Council, where we coordinate closely on the top
issues facing the international community, including the
denuclearization of North Korea and counterterrorism.
Last year Indonesia hosted the Our Oceans Conference, and continues
today to marshal global attention and resources to address marine
debris, and illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing.
We also appreciate the special role Indonesia, as the world's
largest Muslimmajority nation, can play as a positive example of where
Islam and democracy not only coexist, but thrive. If confirmed, I will
support Indonesian efforts to reinforce tolerance and interfaith
harmony, and to advance respect for human rights more broadly.
Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, I also plan to focus on advancing a far
more significant, balanced bilateral economic and trade relationship.
Our trade should better reflect the size of our markets and depth of
our cooperation in other areas. The extent and type of our two-way
economic engagement will add to the bedrock of a long term partnership.
The ties between our two countries are much more than what our
governments do together. The full Strategic Partnership is about our
private sectors working together, it's about our civil societies
advancing shared goals, and it's about students, the next generation of
leaders in our two countries, learning from each other. More than
anything else, our relationship is about people-to-people ties, and I
look forward to leading our efforts to deepen the special friendship
between Americans and Indonesians.
As two of the world's largest democracies, we share a
responsibility and compelling national interest to address strategic
challenges on the international stage. If confirmed, I will do my best
to ensure that our shared responsibility is carried out to the fullest.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today and am
pleased to answer your questions.
Senator Gardner. Thank you, Ambassador Kim.
Mr. Tan?
STATEMENT OF MORSE H. TAN, OF ILLINOIS, TO BE AMBASSADOR AT
LARGE FOR GLOBAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Mr. Tan. Chairman Gardner, Senator Young, it's a privilege
to be here. Let me thank you for the opportunity to be here
today with you.
My thanks as well to the President and to the Secretary of
State for the confidence that they have expressed in me and
also the friends and family, both those who are gathered here,
as well as those who are watching live right now. I am pleased
to have my parents, Minho and Sunae Tan; my wife, Dr. Sarah
Tan; my daughter, Hope Tan; my sons, Enocth, Isaiah, and Moses
Tan, here with me today, as well as various friends here as
well.
The fact that I am here before you today, Senators, is a
tribute to the American dream. My parents were children during
the hardships and difficulties of the Korean War, and it was a
dream of my father's, from his youth, to come to the United
States of America, which he views as the Promised Land.
We came to Campbell, California where we stayed with those
we fondly called Uncle Frank and Aunt Janet Ramirez. And we
came with empty pockets but hearts full of this American dream.
You may wonder how I got this unique name of Morse. Well,
my practical parents realized that there were sounds in my
Korean name that could not be pronounced in English, and they
also figured that this energetic son of theirs was bound to get
lost at some point. And so, given all those things, they
actually named me after the street we lived on, Morse Avenue.
We actually lived on Alice Avenue previous to that, and that's
my sister's name. It is a good thing we did not live on Alameda
de Las Pulgas or West 23rd Street, in which case I would ask
that you call me Al or Wes. But that is how I got the name
Morse.
Here in this land of opportunity, my parents sacrificed to
give my sister and me opportunities that they never had. My
sister has served as a medical doctor treating heads of state.
I was the first from both sides of my family to attend law
school, much less to serve as a tenured full professor of law.
I have devoted my professional life to the pursuit of
justice. Whether it is justice for people who are crushed in
political prisoner camps in North Korea or those who have been
massacred in Latin America, I have advocated, taught, written,
and dedicated myself to this ideal of justice. As far back as I
can remember, I have been keenly wired along these lines to
pursue justice. It is who I am.
The GCJ Ambassador position is the first and only such
position in the entire world and is a testament to the goodness
and greatness of the United States of America, of the
commitment of our government and people to address mass
criminal atrocities, whether it is crimes against humanity, war
crimes, or genocide.
If confirmed, I would dedicate myself to the prevention,
mitigation, and addressing of these mass criminal atrocities.
And no government in the world has more tools than the United
States of America to address these mass criminal atrocities
whether it is diplomatic, whether it is economic, whether it is
legal, whether it is military or intelligence tools.
I am passionate that the cry of ``never again'' after the
horrors of the Holocaust would find greater fulfillment. It was
the United States that led, after World War II, in the
formation of the Nuremberg and the Tokyo Trials, and it is the
United States that is again leading the world through our
promotion of global criminal justice through this office.
If confirmed, I would be building upon the work of past
ambassadors who have done amazing work, and I would be seeking
to address the places that cry out for justice at this day and
time. I have been privileged to get the support and counsel of
past ambassadors and their deputies, and I would continue to
seek their advice and counsel.
I would look to collaborate with Congress and other
partners to work together for this worthwhile cause. If
confirmed, the work would be much bigger than that of just one
person.
I would also seek to learn voraciously during this time of
service. In certain respects, I have been, I think, preparing
for this unwittingly to a large extent, for most of my life.
Serving in this capacity would be the greatest professional
honor of my life. It is beyond anything I had ever dreamed of.
To me, though, it is more of a mission than a position. If
parents coming from the ruins and rubble of the Korean War can
see their son in this position, then I submit to you that the
American dream, which so many in our country have lived, is
alive and well.
Thank you again so much for the honor of being here today
with you, and I would be pleased to respond to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Morse Tan
Senators, let me thank you, the President, the Secretary of State,
and the friends and family who supported me, including those gathered
here today.
The fact that I am before you today, Senators, is a tribute to the
American Dream, which so many in this country have experienced. My
parents underwent the hardships of the Korean War as children, and it
was my father's dream from his youth to come to America, which he has
viewed as the Promised Land. After passing a very competitive test, he
brought his family to the United States with almost empty pockets but a
heart full of the American Dream. Initially, we lived with those we
fondly called Uncle Frank and Aunt Janet Ramirez in Campbell,
California.
You may wonder how I have this unique first name Morse. Well, my
practical parents figured that this energetic son of theirs was bound
to get lost at some point. Furthermore, they came to realize that my
Korean name had sound combinations that don't exist in the English
language. So, they actually named me after the street we lived on,
Morse Avenue, so that if I ever did get lost, my name would be the same
as where I lived. Believe it or not, my sister somehow got Alice the
same way, because we lived on Alice Avenue previously. It's a good
thing we didn't live on Alameda de Las Pulgas or West 23rd Street. If
we did, I'd probably tell you to just call me Al or Wes.
Here in this land of opportunity, my parents sacrificed to give my
sister and me opportunities they never had. I am the first from both
sides of my family to attend law school, much less to serve as a
tenured, full professor of law. My sister has cared for many patients,
including heads of state, as a physician.
I have devoted my professional life to pursue justice. Whether it
is justice for people crushed in political prisoner camps in North
Korea or those massacred in Latin America, I have written, taught and
advocated for justice. From as far back as I can remember, I have been
keenly wired for justice, which strongly motivates me.
The position of Ambassador at Large for Global Criminal Justice,
formerly known as the Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes, was
established 22 years ago to lead the U.S. policy response to the
atrocities in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. Over the years, the
work of the Ambassador and the Office of Global Criminal Justice (GCJ)
has expanded to fight impunity throughout the world, such as in
Cambodia, the Sudan, and Colombia. The office supports criminal
accountability in international, hybrid, and national courts; it
promotes efforts such as documentation and evidence collection to lay
the groundwork for justice; and also promotes transitional justice
policies to promote reconciliation as well as stability in seeking a
durable peace under a just rule of law.
The GCJ Ambassador position is the first and only such position in
any government worldwide and a testament to the goodness and greatness
of the United States of America, of the commitment of our government
and people to pursue justice for the victims of the worst atrocities,
including genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes--and to
help prevent such atrocities in the first place.
If confirmed, I would dedicate myself to the work of preventing,
mitigating and seeking accountability for mass atrocities. No
government in the world has more tools--whether diplomatic,
intelligence, legal, military or economic--to do this work than the
United States.
I am passionate that the cry of ``Never Again'' after the horrors
of the Holocaust would find greater fulfillment. It was the United
States that led the way with the unprecedented Nuremberg and Tokyo
Trials, and it is the United States that is again leading the world
through our promotion of global criminal justice over the last couple
of decades.If confirmed, I would be building upon this past work in
areas crying out for justice today. I am honored to be supported by
past Ambassadors who held this position as well as their Deputies. I
have benefited from their counsel and would seek it while serving.
I would look to collaborate with Congress and other partners to
work together for this worthwhile cause. If confirmed, the work would
be much bigger than that of just one person.
My leadership style is one that seeks to delegate, play to the
strengths of and credit those I work with. I am an affirming and
encouraging person, who tries to find solutions and focus on positives,
even in the context of crushing criminal abuses and violations. At the
same time, I am a tenacious, persevering advocate for justice. I am
deeply empathetic and conscientious, both tender hearted and tough
minded. I believe these traits support success in this position, if
confirmed.
I would seek to learn voraciously throughout my time of service. In
certain respects, I have prepared to serve in this position for most of
my life without necessarily even being aware of it.
Serving in this capacity would be the greatest professional honor
of my life: it is beyond anything I had ever dreamed. To me though, it
would be more of a mission than a position. If parents coming from the
ruins and rubble of the Korean War can see their son in this
Ambassador-at-Large for Global Criminal Justice position, then I submit
to you that the American Dream, as it has been for so many in our
country, is alive and well! Thank you again for the honor of being here
before you, Senators, and I would be pleased to respond to your
questions.
Senator Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Tan.
Ambassador Currie?
STATEMENT OF HON. KELLEY ECKELS CURRIE, OF GEORGIA, TO BE
AMBASSADOR AT LARGE FOR GLOBAL WOMEN'S ISSUES
Ambassador Currie. Thank you, Chairman Gardner and
distinguished members of the committee, for giving me the
opportunity to appear before you today. Morse is a tough act to
follow.
It is an amazing honor to serve the American people, and I
deeply appreciate the confidence that President Trump and
Secretary Pompeo have shown in me by nominating me for this
position.
I wanted to recognize my family, some of whom are here
today: my wonderful husband Peter; my children, Mack and Sarah;
and my mother-in-law Dottie, and to say, hey, to my family
watching at home in Georgia, my mom G.G., and my sister Emily.
And I also want to thank my friends and colleagues, especially
my colleagues from the State Department who are here today and
especially for all of the support that they have shown in
helping me prepare for this hearing.
Advancing the role of women and girls around the world,
socially, politically, and economically, is central to
achieving U.S. foreign policy goals. Throughout my career, I
have worked to defend the rights of women and girls from
regimes that are threatened by the ideas of freedom and
equality. As a young congressional staffer, I was involved in
early efforts to raise awareness around the Taliban's treatment
of women and the Burmese military's systematic use of sexual
violence against ethnic nationalities.
At the International Republican Institute, I saw firsthand
how important it was to encourage women to run for office and
otherwise demand a seat at the most powerful tables in their
countries.
And at every job since, this has been a persistent thread,
whether documenting Tibetan mothers who risked everything to
get their children an education and religious freedom, or
working to ensure the U.N. system was responding effectively to
the scourge of sexual violence in conflict. I have been honored
to work alongside and learn from so many amazing advocates,
practitioners, political leaders, and survivors. These brave
women continue to inspire and motivate me.
Empowering women and girls around the world is a vital
national security issue as well. We know that countries are
more peaceful, prosperous, and stable when women are able to
fully participate at all levels. In order to realize this goal,
women and girls must be free from violence and discrimination
in their homes, workplaces, and communities.
We must ensure that women are involved in key decisions
about peace and security in their communities and nations.
Evidence shows that women's participation in peace-building,
accountability, security sector reform, and countering violent
extremism leads to better outcomes across the board. Yet, women
historically have been absent from critical decision-making
about security and power structures.
Bold U.S. leadership is key to breaking this cycle, and we
are already leading through the Women, Peace, and Security Act,
the first country in the world to pass such legislation. Thank
you. And we are implementing efforts underway across the
administration. If confirmed, I will ensure that GWI takes a
role, a leading role, in our new whole-of-government U.S. WPS
strategy.
Security and economic opportunity for women are
intrinsically related. Women are key drivers of economic
prosperity. Yet, their potential as employers, entrepreneurs,
and workers remains undervalued, under-appreciated, and under-
developed.
I am proud of the administration's commitment to women's
economic empowerment through the Women's Global Development and
Prosperity Initiative and am committed to advancing WGDP, if
confirmed.
Meaningful empowerment often requires changes to policies
and societal norms that preclude women from fully participating
in the economy. Women must be able to exercise their human
rights and fundamental freedoms in the workplace, at home, and
in their communities, confident that governments will protect
and support them, not persecute them. Identifying and reducing
the legal, political, and regulatory barriers faced by women is
critical to building a durable foundation for economic
empowerment. The State Department is uniquely positioned to
carry out this important work, and if confirmed, I look forward
to leading these efforts.
It is also mission critical that we ensure today's girls
receive the skills and education needed to become tomorrow's
women leaders. The under-representation of women and girls in
STEM fields, for example, is an area ripe for public-private
engagement.
The United States has long been a global leader on these
issues. Using the new tools Congress and the White House have
given us, we have to refocus our efforts, renew and expand our
partnerships, and be bold in our advocacy. If confirmed, I look
forward to working with our colleagues and counterparts across
the U.S. government and around the world to advance and protect
the rights of women and girls.
Thank you so much for the opportunity to appear here today.
I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Currie follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ambassador Kelley Currie
Chairman, Ranking Member, distinguished members of the committee,
thank you for the opportunity to appear before you as President Trump's
nominee to be the Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women's Issues. I am
honored to have this opportunity to serve my country and appreciate the
confidence President Trump and Secretary Pompeo have shown in me with
this nomination. I also want to thank Senator Isakson for his kind and
generous introduction. I've been fortunate to be a constituent of his
since he was elected to the Senate to represent the great state of
Georgia, and we'll certainly miss his leadership. I wish him all the
best and fully expect he will continue to serve State and our country
in some way.
I wanted to take a moment to thank my family, some of whom are here
today: my wonderful partner and husband Peter Currie, my children Mack
and Sarah, and my mother in law Dottie Currie. I want to shout out to
my family down in Georgia who are watching the proceedings: thanks Mom,
G.G. and Emily for everything. And finally, to my friends and
colleagues--especially all my State Department colleagues who have
worked so hard to get us here--thank you so much for all your support.
Advancing the role of women and girls around the world, socially,
politically and economically, is central to achieving U.S. foreign
policy goals, and it is something to which I am deeply committed.
Throughout my career, I have had the privilege to serve in various
roles working to advance human rights protections, and defend the
rights of women and girls from regimes that are threatened by the idea
of freedom and equality. I started out as a young congressional
staffer, working on legislation and other congressional initiatives to
promote and protect women's human rights. This included early efforts
to raise awareness about the Taliban's treatment of women in
Afghanistan and the Burmese military's systematic use of sexual
violence against ethnic women. At the International Republican
Institute, one of my most important responsibilities was promoting
women's political participation through our programming in Asia, and I
saw first-hand how important and difficult it was to encourage women to
run for office, train them to ask for campaign contributions, and
otherwise demand a seat at the most powerful tables. And in every job I
have had since, this has been a persistent thread--whether I was
interviewing Tibetan mothers about why they risked everything to get
their children an education and religious freedom in India, or working
with the Special Representative of the Secretary General on Sexual
Violence in Armed Conflict to ensure the U.N. system is responding
effectively to this horrific scourge. I have had the tremendous honor
to work alongside and learn from so many amazing advocates,
practitioners, political leaders and survivors. These brave women
continue to inspire and motivate me.
Empowering women and girls around the world is also a vital
national security issue. We know that countries are more peaceful,
prosperous and stable when women are able to fully participate at all
levels of government and the economy. In order to realize this goal,
women and girls must be free from violence and discrimination in their
homes, workplaces and communities.
The best way to make this happen is to make sure that women are
involved in key decisions about peace and security in their communities
and nations. Around the world, women are on the frontlines of some of
the world's most pressing challenges: they are preventing atrocities,
brokering ceasefires, delivering aid, implementing transitional justice
and countering terrorism. Evidence shows that women's participation in
peace-building, accountability efforts, security sector reform and
countering violent extremism leads to better outcomes-not just for
women, but for their families, their communities, and entire countries.
Yet women historically have been absent from the places and processes
where critical decisions are made about their communities' and
countries' security and power structures. It is past time to reverse
this historic trend and bold U.S. leadership will remain key to this
effort. We are already leading through the passage of the Women, Peace
and Security Act--the first country in the world to pass such
legislation--and the implementation efforts that are underway across
the administration. If confirmed, I will ensure that the GWI office is
driving progress on the new U.S. Strategy on Women, Peace, and Security
and proactively lead efforts to advance its implementation.
Security and economic opportunity for women are also intrinsically
linked. Women represent half of the population and are key drivers of
economic growth. Yet, their potential as employers, entrepreneurs, and
workers remains underdeveloped, under-resourced and underappreciated.
Meaningful women's economic empowerment often requires changes to
policies and societal norms that have historically precluded women from
fully participating in the economy. It also relies on women's ability
exercise their human rights and fundamental freedoms in the workplace,
at home, and in their communities, safe in the knowledge that their
governments will protect them and not persecute them.
I am proud of the administration's commitment to women's economic
empowerment through the Women's Global Development and Prosperity
Initiative and am committed to advancing this ambitious initiative, if
confirmed. The State Department is uniquely positioned to carry out the
diplomatic and policy tasks required to deliver on this agenda. In
particular, identifying and reducing the policy, legal, political and
regulatory barriers faced by women is critical to building a strong and
durable foundation for women's economic empowerment. If confirmed, I
look forward to leading U.S. efforts on this front.
To do this important work, we must also invest in the girls of
today who will be the leaders of tomorrow. With today's large global
youth population--the so-called ``youth bulge''--it is mission critical
that we ensure the next generation of girls receive the skills and
education needed to become productive members of society. The under-
representation of women and girls in STEM fields--not only as students,
teachers and researchers, but also as managers, leaders, entrepreneurs
and other role models--is an area ripe for public-private engagement
and action.
While the United States has long been a global leader on these
issues, far too many women and girls around the world still face
debilitating barriers and violence. We have to focus our efforts; build
new partnerships with the international community; effectively utilize
the new tools Congress and the White House have built out; and be bold
in our advocacy. But we cannot do this alone; we need strong partners
here in the United States and abroad. If confirmed, I look forward to
working with our colleagues and counterparts across the U.S. government
and around the world to advance and protect the rights of women and
girls.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee today.
I look forward to your questions.
Senator Gardner. Thank you, Ambassador Currie. And again,
thanks to all of the nominees who are here today for your
service. And to the families, again, my thanks to all of you
for the time away from home, and the work that you provide and
the efforts that go into this service is greatly appreciated.
Ambassador Kim, I am reminded of our time when we had a
meeting together. The very facility where we were meeting,
hours after we left, was attacked. And I cannot think of
anything more than just to say thank you from all of us
sincerely for the work that each and every one of you is
already doing and that you are about to undertake in further
endeavors.
We are going to start now with questions and turn to
members.
I just want to start briefly with comments on China. In a
little bit, we are going to have a hearing on the Asia
Reassurance Initiative Act, and we are going to go forward with
that. So I know my colleague, Senator Markey, is going to be
joining us shortly for that. But I am going to reserve my time
and yield first to Senator Young, if you would like to begin
with questions. Then we will go to Senator Shaheen after that.
I caught him off guard. I apologize.
Senator Young. No. It is just a dramatic pause.
Well, I thank you all for your interest in serving. Without
exception, I was favorably impressed by your backgrounds, by
your qualifications, and I anticipate supporting each of you.
I have had an opportunity to visit with a number of you. So
I will ask Ms. Cantor--you and I have not been able to
personally visit. So as you step into this role, just identify
your top priorities for me please.
Ms. Cantor. Thank you, Senator, for that question.
If confirmed, I would love to strengthen the bilateral
relationship between the FSM and the U.S. I will also work with
the government of the FSM on reaching their economic
development goals. There are certain areas where they need
assistance. We have been providing about $80 million every year
in six areas: health, education, the environment, public
infrastructure, public sector capacity development, and private
sector capacity development.
I would also aim to encourage private sector investment. I
will work with other agencies in the Federal government like
the Department of the Interior and others that are present in
the FSM.
And I also would love to promote the role of women and
girls in leadership in the FSM.
Senator Young. Thank you.
Mr. Kim, it was good to visit with you yesterday. I found
quite interesting our conversation about the challenges
associated with serving as an Ambassador, as our United States
point person, to an island nation. And you are uniquely
qualified for that role. Maybe you could sort of explain to my
colleagues some of the challenges and opportunities associated
with that.
Ambassador Kim. Thank you very much, Senator. It was a
privilege to meet you yesterday. I very much enjoyed our
discussion as well.
So the Philippines is a country of 7,000 islands. I did not
think I could find a country that had even more islands, but
Indonesia has 17,000 islands.
[Laughter.]
Ambassador Kim. And I think both countries present some
unique circumstances.
But I think at the heart of our relationship with both the
Philippines and Indonesia is that we have a strong partnership,
multifaceted partnership, that includes military cooperation,
counterterrorism cooperation, a fairly robust economic
partnership, and of course, both countries being in that
important region are affected by Chinese behavior in the South
China Sea.
So I hope, if confirmed by the Senate, that I will have a
chance to work with Indonesians to expand our cooperation with
them in both regional and global issues.
Senator Young. Well, thank you so much.
Mr. Tan, you and I have not had an opportunity to visit. So
just your top priorities please as Ambassador.
Mr. Tan. Yes. Among my priorities would be what this body,
namely Congress, has supported and given the first programmatic
funding for, namely seeking accountability for ISIS in Iraq and
Syria. There are efforts that are ongoing. I would continue to
support them--the IIIM, for example, and UNITAD which are
seeking to secure and gather evidence that could be used for
prosecutions, some of which are going on domestically in places
such as Germany and Sweden. But in the conflict and in the
situations that are there, there are very serious issues that I
would make a priority as you in Congress have done. And let me
thank you for the support that Congress has given along these
lines.
North Korea, which I have dedicated much of my scholarship
and media work and teaching to, is another priority of mine. I
understand that it has also been a major priority both of
Congress as well as the executive branch, and this would be an
important priority. And I have various others, but those are
two examples.
Senator Young. Well, thank you.
Ms. Currie, I have 40 seconds remaining. So one or two top
priorities you would have, should you be confirmed.
Ambassador Currie. Thank you, Senator Young.
The two priorities are actually quite straightforward. We
have two great new tools, the Women, Peace, and Security
strategy that Congress has given us, the Women, Peace, and
Security Act, and we are now implementing WPS strategies across
the administration with a whole-of-government approach to this
important initiative. And then the WGDP initiative, promoting
women's economic empowerment.
If confirmed, I would see building the office's work around
these two really important strategic initiatives and making
sure that we are focusing like a laser on implementing these
two great initiatives.
Senator Young. Well, thank you.
I have more than a measure of confidence that each of you
will, indeed, be confirmed. I wish you well and I look forward
to doing some good together.
I yield back.
Senator Gardner. Thank you, Senator Young.
Senator Shaheen?
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Congratulations to each of you on your nominations, and
thank you for your willingness to serve at this critical time.
Ambassador Currie, first of all, thank you for taking time
to meet with me this morning. I appreciated the opportunity to
talk with you. As you know, I shared some of my concerns about
the way this administration has pushed an agenda on gender
issues. For example, at the United Nations, U.S. officials have
described the United States as a pro-life nation, which I
appreciate. There are legitimate differences of view about
abortion. My concern is that has bled over into other issues
affecting women in ways that are often detrimental to the
health of women.
At the U.N. the U.S. threatened to veto a resolution
supporting victims of rape over the single mention of sexual
and reproductive health. When I think about reproductive health
for myself, I am not talking about abortion. I do not think
most women are.
We have also aligned the U.S. with countries like Saudi
Arabia that have a very troubling history on women's and LGBTQ
rights.
So can you commit, that if you are confirmed, that you will
support women's rights, including reproductive rights, gender
equality--and when I say reproductive rights, I am talking
about in the context of family planning. I am not talking about
abortion--gender equality and LGBTQ rights and all aspects of
U.S. policy?
Ambassador Currie. Thank you, Senator Shaheen, for that
important question. And I appreciated the opportunity as well
to have a frank exchange of views with you this morning.
As I said this morning, this is a pro-life administration
pursuing a pro-life foreign policy, and the policy of the
administration is to protect women's health but also to ensure
that U.S. taxpayer dollars are not used to promote or provide
abortion as a form of family planning. So our efforts in that
regard have been focused on that.
I am committed to advancing the health and wellbeing of
women and girls globally and continue to believe that the
United States is a leader in this regard. We remain the largest
provider of family planning assistance in the world, and that
will continue to be the case. And we continue to support in the
United States--the United States government and the
administration continues to support a broad range of women's
health initiatives related to maternal health, sexual violence
in conflict--an issue I have worked on extensively--and HIV/
AIDS prevention and treatment. So I believe that the
administration continues to provide for assistance to women's
health and wellbeing and will continue to do so, and I strongly
support those efforts.
I would just leave it at that.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
And so will you commit to pushing back on pressure both
within the administration and externally to move the U.S. in a
counterproductive direction on issues that affect women and
girls globally?
Ambassador Currie. I will commit to pursuing a very
vigorous policy of promoting and protecting the human rights of
women and girls, including their rights to adequate health care
and the highest attainable standards of health.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. I think it is very important
for us to have an Ambassador for Global Women's Issues, and I
very much appreciate your willingness to consider taking on
this responsibility.
Mr. Tan, will you commit to work with the Departments of
Justice and Defense in order to ensure that those who are
associated with a notorious British ISIS cell, known as the
Beatles, are brought to justice in civilian courts in the
United States, that they are not simply sent to Guantanamo Bay?
And I would just point out that those terrorists who until
recently were held in detention in Syria--it is my
understanding that they have been moved, but they are believed
to be responsible for the killing of Americans, including James
Foley, whose family are constituents of mine. And I know that
the families who lost loved ones to ISIS terrorists are very
concerned about seeing that those responsible for the murders
are brought back to the United States and brought to justice in
civilian courts.
Mr. Tan. Thank you, Senator Shaheen, for your important
question.
I share your concern and the concern of those who are both
ISIS victims and their family members and loved ones, and
bringing accountability for the atrocities that ISIS has
committed will indeed be a priority of mine. And it is
something that would encompass the range of the atrocities that
have been perpetrated and are ongoing to an extent. So thank
you very much for your important question, and I can commit to
what you have mentioned.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. I appreciate that, and I know
the families will too.
Ambassador Kim, surprisingly New Hampshire has the largest
Indonesian American population north of New York in
Somersworth, New Hampshire. I do not know if you were aware of
that. But they have recently inaugurated the first Little
Indonesia, which we are very proud of, and I hope that if
confirmed, that you will take time to come and visit Little
Indonesia and visit Somersworth, New Hampshire and hear from
the Indonesian population in New Hampshire their views on what
is happening in the country.
Ambassador Kim. Thank you very much for that warm
invitation. I very much look forward to visiting Little
Indonesia, if confirmed by the committee.
Senator Shaheen. Many of those Indonesians who fled to New
Hampshire and the United States came because of religious
persecution. They are Christians who were persecuted in their
home islands in Indonesia.
Can you talk about how you would promote U.S. values around
respect for religious freedom and, given that that has been
challenging in Indonesia, how you can help encourage them to
address that in a more positive way?
Ambassador Kim. Thank you, Senator.
Indonesia has made significant strides, but I think we can
agree that more needs to be done. And I intend to spend a
considerable amount of time working with senior government
officials, including President Jokowi on promoting greater
religious tolerance and interfaith harmony. I believe they are
on the right path. We want to work with them to continue to
encourage them.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time is up.
Senator Gardner. Thank you, Senator Shaheen.
And Senator Markey has graciously allowed--I was going to
yield to him for a statement, but go ahead, Senator Barrasso,
if you would like.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to raise my
concerns with the nomination of Sung Kim to be the U.S.
Ambassador to Indonesia.
In 2017, we learned through press reports that the U.S.
Ambassador to the Philippines, Ambassador Kim, pledged to the
Philippines government to move the Bells of Balangiga from
Wyoming's F.E. Warren Air Force Base to the Philippines. I join
Wyoming veterans in strongly opposing the efforts of Ambassador
Kim. Despite the opposition of our veterans and legislation
passed to protect the veterans' memorials, Ambassador Kim
believed it was, quote, the right thing to do to return the
bells soon.
Well, the Bells of Balangiga were not just some bells
indiscriminately taken during the Philippine insurrection.
These bells were part of a veteran memorial located in Wyoming
to pay tribute to the massacre of C Company, 9th Infantry. The
Bells of Balangiga were used by the Filipino insurgents to
signal the attack on American soldiers while they were asleep.
In all, 48 of the 75 U.S. soldiers were killed during the
attack. To honor the soldiers of C Company, these bells were
legally brought to Cheyenne, Wyoming to be placed at Fort D.A.
Russell, which is now F.E. Warren Air Force Base. A veteran
memorial was erected displaying these bells as a way to
recognize the troops who bravely fought for our nation and
never came home.
Mr. Kim's support for moving the bells to the Philippines
resulted in tearing down a veteran memorial. In Wyoming, we
have a strong tradition of never forgetting the sacrifices of
our brave men and women. Dismantling this veteran memorial was
completely unacceptable. It also sets a dangerous precedent for
future veteran and war memorials. Mr. Kim's support and
involvement helped establish a bad precedent for the future.
There is nothing more important for a nation than to honor
and remember those who died in service to their country. Mr.
Kim's support for dismantling the Bells of Balangiga memorial
is contrary to that commitment, and he failed to meet the
standard expected of him.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time.
Senator Gardner. Thank you, Senator Barrasso.
Senator Markey, would you like to give your opening
statement? Then we will turn to Ambassador Kim and the panel
for comments.
Senator Markey. I can pass on the opening statement.
Senator Gardner. At this point, Ambassador Kim, if you
would like to respond.
Ambassador Kim. Sure. Unfortunately, the Senator has left
the room.
But I would just like to state for the record that the
administration's decision to return the Balangiga Bells was
obviously a very difficult decision and one that was made after
very careful deliberation by then Secretary of Defense Mattis
and other senior officials of the administration. They decided,
after extensive consultations with veterans' organizations,
that returning the bells was the right thing to do for the
alliance with the Philippines. Throughout the deliberation
process, our colleagues in Washington consulted with various
veterans' organizations and addressed their concerns fully.
So I regret that Senator Barrasso has deep concerns about
the decision, but it was an administration decision that was
made after very careful consideration.
Senator Gardner. Senator Markey?
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Kim, as we know, countering violent extremism is not a
problem only in the Middle East but also in Southeast Asia.
There are news reports that Indonesian ISIS fighters and family
members have escaped prisons in northeast Syria during the
current crisis initiated by President Trump. The global
implications of the administration's poor judgment in the
Middle East must be acknowledged.
Mr. Kim, how will you work with the Indonesian government
to address ISIS fighters and counter violent extremism?
Ambassador Kim. Thank you very much, Senator, for that very
important question.
We have a strong law enforcement-led counterterrorism
cooperation with Indonesia, and we hope to expand that
cooperation. Indonesia in recent years has taken a number of
steps to strengthen their counterterrorism fight, including
passing a counterterrorism law that gives law enforcement
authorities greater authority to go after funding for terrorist
organizations and also to stop Indonesians from going overseas
to join terrorist organizations. So we want to encourage them
to do more, and I am deeply committed to focusing on this very
important aspect of the relationship.
Senator Markey. So, you have been working on ISIS issues in
the Philippines. Is that correct?
Ambassador Kim. Yes, sir.
Senator Markey. So, thank you.
So, it is just very important for them to know that we want
to partner with them in that battle, but at the same time, the
Indonesian government should establish truth and reconciliation
measures, but also investigate and prosecute those responsible
for grave human rights violations. So, we thank you for your
commitment to hold Indonesia accountable and demonstrating
American commitment to human rights in the region.
You have also been nominated to serve in a country that has
great potential, and while we appreciate the democratic
progress that Indonesia has made since 1998, I am still
concerned about the reports of increasing political
instability, and threats to basic human rights protections and
democratic norms. The proposed criminal code, which spurred the
country into protests this past August and September, would
have violated tenets of free speech and freedom of association.
Various provisions would have restricted access to
contraception, freedom of speech, and reduced the rights of
religious minorities.
Ambassador Kim, if confirmed, how will you press the
Indonesian government to take action on human rights, ending
hateful rhetoric against minorities, establishing
accountability for security forces, and upholding the right to
freedom of expression?
Ambassador Kim. Thank you, Senator.
Indonesia, as you suggest, has made significant progress on
governance and respect for human rights, but more needs to be
done. And I pledge to work closely with President Jokowi and
his senior team to make sure that they remain focused on
promoting human rights, improving governance, making
bureaucracy more transparent and more accountable.
I believe there is an opportunity for us to do more with
them. Indonesia has long been a leader in Southeast Asia and
has shown that they can be a responsible leader, not just on
regional issues, but on global issues as well. So I look
forward to working with them, if confirmed, to make sure that
their path improving governance for all Indonesians continues.
Senator Markey. So, a lot of the protests that are actually
occurring are protesting the past human rights violations, and
asking for accountability. That goes back to the Suharto era.
President Widodo has not followed through on his promise to
address past violations through the traditional system.
So, Ambassador Kim, if confirmed, will you push the
Indonesian government not only to establish truth and
reconciliation measures, but also to investigate and prosecute
those responsible for grave human rights violations?
Ambassador Kim. Yes. I very much look forward to working
with the leaders in Indonesia to make sure that their path
towards greater governance, transparency, and accountability
continues.
Senator Markey. Do you agree that many of the proposed
changes to Indonesia's criminal code raises serious human
rights concerns, in particular, possible violations of basic
civil and political rights?
Ambassador Kim. Sir, apologies, but I am not fully read up
on all of the provisions in the proposed criminal statute.
But I do know that the concerns expressed by citizens with
regard to possible curtailment of authorities given to the
anti-corruption commission is of deep concern. That commission
has played an important role not only dealing with corrupt
activities currently but also looking into past corrupt
practices. So I would like to work with Indonesian authorities
to make sure that that very important commission's authorities
are fully maintained.
Senator Markey. I wrote a letter to Secretary Pompeo back
in June expressing concerns for recent reports that the State
Department was restricting U.S. embassies from flying the Pride
parade. Such actions are worrying, especially at a time when it
is crucial for the U.S. to be a leader in supporting LGBTI
rights around the world. In Indonesia alone, reports have
indicated harrowing incidents of intimidation, discrimination,
and attacks against LGBTI people.
Ambassador Kim, if confirmed, how will you encourage the
government to reform its policies and attitudes towards the
LGBTI community?
Ambassador Kim. Senator, I am deeply committed to
protecting and promoting LGBTI rights. And as I have done in my
previous assignments in Korea and the Philippines, if
confirmed, I look forward to working with Indonesian
authorities, as well as the civil societies, to make sure that
LGBTI communities' rights are protected adequately in
Indonesia.
Senator Markey. And, Indonesia in March threatened to pull
out of the Paris Accord over an EU decision to rule out palm
oil as a biofuel by 2030. Considered as one of the five largest
emitters of greenhouse gases, Indonesia's suggestion only
stalls our global commitment to fight the existential threat of
climate change.
Ambassador Kim, if confirmed, what types of U.S. programs
or investments will you support to ensure Indonesia's continued
commitment to fighting climate change?
Ambassador Kim. Senator, thank you for that important
question.
USAID and other elements of the embassy in Jakarta have
been engaged in a number of productive programs to help the
Indonesians deal with environmental resilience and disaster
relief. Some of the programs have focused on irresponsible
deforestation. So I would like to continue those programs and,
if at all possible, to enhance those programs, broaden those
programs so that we are covering more of Indonesia in terms of
environmental resilience and making sure that they responsibly
utilize their natural resources and learn sustainability
practices.
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gardner. Thank you, Senator Markey.
I look forward to working with Ambassador Kim, Mr.
DeSombre, and Ms. Cantor on the issues relating to
implementation of the Asia Reassurance Initiative Act that
Senator Markey and I authored as we move forward with the
appropriations process, the tools that it makes available for
continued and growing presence in Asia. And U.S. leadership is
incredibly important.
Mr. DeSombre, I would like to follow up with you at some
point on a Colorado constituent issue that we have in Thailand
in terms of a company that challenged that they are having a
dispute over an issue with the Institute for Nuclear
Technology. And perhaps we can get into that a little bit later
as you get into the role itself.
Thanks to Mr. Tan for being here as well. Perhaps we can
have a conversation about Uighurs and the role of your office
and the work that we need to do to stand up for human rights
and the criminal activity that is taking place in China as a
result of their treatment of populations like the Uighur
population.
And, Ms. Currie, we heard from Brian Hook this morning
talking about the role of FIFA in Iran and how women were being
excluded from these soccer games, matches and what it meant for
U.S. leadership. And of course, that voice is incredibly
important as we not only empower women and girls around Iran
but around the world to the standards that we know every human
being deserves.
So thank you to all of you for your time and testimony
today. I am going to go ahead and adjourn the hearing because
of the need to move on with the next panel. So thank you all
for attending the hearing. Thank you very much for your
willingness to serve.
For the information of members who attended or those who
did not, the record will remain open until the close of
business on Friday, including for members to submit questions
for the record. This is your homework assignment. I kindly ask
that you respond as promptly as possible. The responses will be
made a part of the record.
We are going to adjourn this committee hearing. We are
going to have a few minutes of time to turn around and prepare
for the next hearing. And once that is set, then we will begin
with the subcommittee hearing.
With that, the committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:00 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted to Carmen G. Cantor by Senator Benjamin L. Cardin
Human Rights
Question. What are your most meaningful achievements to date in
your career to promote human rights and democracy? What has been the
impact of your actions?
Answer. I have promoted human rights and democracy through my work
in the Bureau of Education and Cultural Affairs (ECA), as well as
through my experience as Executive Director in the Bureau of
Counterterrorism (CT). At ECA, I supported exchanges designed to
connect people from around the world with U.S. democratic processes and
institutions. At CT, we protected and advanced human rights and
democracy by countering intolerance and extremism. I see civil rights
as human rights and have also dedicated a significant portion of my
career to advancing civil rights within multiple agencies.
Question. What are the most pressing human rights issues in
Micronesia? What are the most important steps you expect to take--if
confirmed--to promote human rights and democracy in Micronesia? What do
you hope to accomplish through these actions?
Answer. The government of the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM)
generally respects human rights. In the Department of State's most
recent Human Rights Report, the Department noted that civilian
authorities maintained effective control over the security forces;
there were no reports of egregious human rights abuses; and the
government sometimes took steps to punish officials. Impunity does
remain a problem, however, particularly regarding alleged corruption.
Some other problems persist, including continued discrimination and
violence against women. If confirmed, I will work to implement the
Indo-Pacific Transparency Initiative, which promotes civil society, the
rule of law, and transparent and accountable governments across the
Indo-Pacific. I would do so through advocacy, outreach programs, and
cooperation with local NGOs to address corruption, violence against
women, and increase women's political and economic participation. I
would also encourage stronger legal institutions and work to expand
programs that provide U.S. training to the FSM judiciary, if confirmed.
Question. If confirmed, what are the potential obstacles to
addressing the specific human rights issues you have identified in your
previous response? What challenges will you face in Micronesia in
advancing human rights, civil society and democracy in general?
Answer. There are human rights challenges rooted in long-standing
FSM customs. If confirmed, I will work to leverage available resources,
including working with other embassies, international organizations,
and local NGOs, to prevent and respond to gender-based violence and
corruption. I will also work to increase political and economic
participation for women. Women's political participation is
particularly important; there has never been a woman representative in
the National Congress of the Federated States of Micronesia.
Question. Are you committed to meeting with human rights, civil
society and other non-governmental organizations in the U.S. and with
local human rights NGOs in Micronesia? If confirmed, what steps will
you take to pro-actively support the Leahy Law and similar efforts, and
ensure that provisions of U.S. security assistance and security
cooperation activities reinforce human rights?
Answer. I am committed to meeting with human rights and other NGO
actors in both the United States and Micronesia to learn about their
concerns and collaborate with them where possible and appropriate.
Micronesia does not have a military of its own. Under the Compact and
Amended Compact, the United States has full authority and
responsibility for security and defense matters in or relating to the
FSM. As Micronesia does not generally receive U.S. assistance for
security forces, the Leahy Law is often not relevant to Micronesia.
However, in the rare instances when U.S. assistance could be directed
toward a Micronesian security force unit, I am committed to the
effective implementation of the Leahy Law.
Question. Will you and your embassy team actively engage with
Micronesia to address cases of key political prisoners or persons
otherwise unjustly targeted by Micronesia?
Answer. There have been no reports of political prisoners or other
persons unjustly targeted by Micronesia. Should such a situation arise,
I would, if confirmed, of course bring U.S. concerns to the attention
of the government at the highest levels.
Question. Will you engage with Micronesia on matters of human
rights, civil rights and governance as part of your bilateral mission?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I will engage the government, NGOs,
civil society, and other partners on matters of human rights, civil
rights, and governance as part of the U.S. government's commitment to
these issues under the Indo-Pacific Transparency Initiative.
Conflicts of Interest
Question. Do you commit to bring to the committee's attention (and
the State Department Inspector General) any change in policy or U.S.
actions that you suspect may be influenced by any of the President's
business or financial interests, or the business or financial interests
of any senior White House staff?
Answer. I commit to comply with all relevant federal ethics laws,
regulations, and rules, and to raise concerns that I may have through
appropriate channels.
Question. Do you commit to inform the committee if you have any
reason to suspect that a foreign government, head of state, or foreign-
controlled entity is taking any action in order to benefit any of the
President's business or financial interests, or the interests of senior
White House staff?
Answer. I commit to comply with all relevant federal ethics laws,
regulations, and rules, and to raise concerns that I may have through
appropriate channels.
Question. Do you or do any members of your immediate family have
any financial interests in Micronesia?
Answer. My investments consist of rental property in the United
States and cash accounts. I am committed to ensuring that my official
actions will not give rise to a conflict of interest and will remain
vigilant with regard to my ethics obligations.
Diversity
Question. Research from private industry demonstrates that, when
managed well, diversity makes business teams better both in terms of
creativity and in terms of productivity. What will you do to promote,
mentor and support your staff that come from diverse backgrounds and
underrepresented groups in the Foreign Service?
Answer. Promoting, mentoring, and supporting staff with diverse
backgrounds both in the Foreign Service and Civil Service is something
I have done throughout my career. If confirmed, I would make strong
mentoring relationships an integral part of the Embassy culture by
promoting initiatives that support employee engagement, job
satisfaction, development of leadership skills, and increased teamwork.
It is my expectation that by doing so, workplace diversity, employee
retention, productivity, and morale will all improve.
Question. What steps will you take to ensure each of the
supervisors at the Embassy are fostering an environment that is diverse
and inclusive?
Answer. Supervisors are instrumental to diversity and inclusion
efforts. If confirmed, I will ensure that I foster an environment where
differences are celebrated. I will develop specific strategies to
promote inclusiveness such as listening to and communicating with all
staff, holding more effective meetings, communicating goals, and
measuring progress.
If confirmed, I will verify the existence of a robust EEO program
at post that includes continuous training and sensitization, meet
individually with EEO counselors to gain their perspectives, and ensure
that personnel are aware of the Department's discrimination and
harassment policies and how to report violations. I will review the
mentoring and support programs currently in place, meet with the
American and local staffs in the Mission to determine where inclusivity
is perceived as lacking, and work with employee organizations to
discuss their support. In addition, I will review our HR processes to
determine where and how we can mitigate unconscious biases and provide
access to training that will support these efforts. I will also meet
with Mission supervisors and the management team to discuss what I have
heard from the employees, where improvements are needed and, based on
all of the information gathered, put a plan in place to correct any
weaknesses or gaps.
Corruption
Question. How do you believe political corruption impacts
democratic governance and the rule of law generally, and in Micronesia
specifically?
Answer. Corruption undermines democratic governance and the rule of
law, including in the Federated States of Micronesia. The law in
Micronesia provides criminal penalties for corruption by officials, and
the government generally implements the law, but some officials have
engaged in corrupt practices with impunity. This erodes public
confidence in institutions, systems of governance, and impedes
achievement of the goals of our vision for a free and open Indo-
Pacific. The FSM can only reach its full potential if we make efforts
to end these corrupt practices. The government of the FSM continues to
work to address corruption through its Attorney General's Office.
According to the Department's most recent Human Rights Report, this
office operated independently and actively collaborated with civil
society via a hotline operated by the Office of the National Public
Auditor to encourage reporting of public complaints of corruption. The
public auditor referred some corruption cases to the FSM Department of
Justice during the year. One case concluded with the individual losing
his job.
Question. What is your assessment of corruption trends in
Micronesia and efforts to address and reduce it by that government?
Answer. The law in Micronesia provides criminal penalties for
corruption by officials, and the government generally implemented the
law, but some officials reportedly engaged in corrupt practices with
impunity. There were numerous anecdotal reports of corruption.
Question. If confirmed, what steps will you take to strengthen good
governance and anticorruption programming in Micronesia?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the government of
the FSM and U.S. law enforcement to advance the Indo-Pacific
Transparency Initiative by strengthening good governance and
anticorruption efforts. I will work with allies and likeminded partners
to coordinate our efforts on these important issues. Through new
funding for USAID on governance under the Indo-Pacific Strategy,
including under the Indo-Pacific Transparency Initiative, I will work
to ensure this is implemented in the FSM. I will also work closely with
interagency partners to ensure that U.S. taxpayer resources are used
for their intended purpose.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted to Michael George DeSombre by Senator Robert Menendez
Question. Since becoming head of state in 2016, King Maha
Vajiralongkorn, Rama X, has consolidated his control over the Thai
military, the $60 billion Crown Property Bureau, and the basic civil
service of Thailand, dismantling much of the constitutional checks and
balances put in place after 1932, when Thailand ended its earlier
absolute monarchy. New regiments of the military have been placed
directly under the king's command, and indications that he has more
directly placed himself into the command structures of the Ministry of
Defense. At the same time, there have been disturbing reports about the
king's staff being forcibly disappeared at the palace in Bangkok.
Critics of the king overseas have been killed (in Laos) or harassed (in
Japan). There are also reports that the king may order the dissolution
of the opposition Future Forward party, especially worrying given a
recent speech by the military's new army chief, Apirat Kongsompong,
threatening the party. What is your assessment of the king's actions,
and do you have any concerns that this behavior could undermine
Thailand's political system and the country's long term stability?
Answer. The United States respects the institution of the Thai
monarchy and understands the great esteem in which the people of
Thailand hold the Royal Family. We regularly urge Thai authorities,
both privately and publicly, to ensure that the exercise of freedom of
expression is not criminalized and is protected in accordance with
Thailand's international obligations and commitments. If confirmed, I
will continue to encourage our Thai counterparts to respect human
rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression, and
to act in a manner consistent with international obligations and
commitments.
Question. Do you think the U.S. should consider any additional
policy measures in light of these actions?
Answer. The United States is consistently tracking Thailand's
democratic progress and protections for human rights and fundamental
freedoms. If I am confirmed, I will ensure that our messaging and
policy priorities in Thailand continue to underscore our commitment to
advancing democratic principles and protections for human rights and
fundamental freedoms.
Question. In the event that the government dissolves or dismantles
the Future Forward Party what do you think are the appropriate measures
the United States ought to take? Do you think that the U.S. should
criticize the government for doing so? Warn Thailand that a failure to
allow a viable political opposition puts additional or future U.S.
assistance at risk, including military assistance?
Answer. The United States consistently messages to the Royal Thai
government, opposition parties, and civil society that democratic
institutions must be strengthened and human rights and fundamental
freedoms must be respected. These efforts have been a major part of all
high-level engagements with Thailand for many years, including
Secretary Pompeo's recent visit to Thailand for ASEAN Foreign
Ministers' Meetings. The Department remains concerned about
restrictions on human rights and fundamental freedoms, including
harassment of civil society organizations and opposition politicians,
and recognize that progress is a long-term effort. Our messaging and
engagements intentionally underscore our commitment to advancing
democratic principles in Thailand.
Question. What about if, as a more general matter, if the Thai
government's human rights record worsens?
Answer. The United States is tracking and providing support for
democratic progress and efforts to protect human rights in Thailand.
Protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms and advancing
democratic values are among our highest priorities and, if confirmed, I
will be sure those priorities are elevated in our engagement. If
confirmed, I will encourage the Royal Thai government to respect human
rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression, and
to act in a manner consistent with international obligations and
commitments. I will also support U.S. efforts to respond to human
rights concerns and any new circumstances in a manner consistent with
applicable U.S. law, regulations, and policy priorities.
Question. What are the most important actions you have taken in
your career to date to support democracy and human rights? What has
been the impact of your actions?
Answer. For the past four years, I have had the honor to serve as
the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Save the Children Hong Kong, a
member organization of the global Save the Children movement working in
120 countries to provide health, education, protection, and disaster
relief assistance to the world's most marginalized and deprived
children. As a father of four children, the organization's mission is
personal and important to me. I am extremely proud to have had the
opportunity to support these efforts, and look forward to new
opportunities to promote human rights and democracy in Thailand, if
confirmed.
Question. What issues are the most pressing challenges to democracy
or democratic development in Thailand? These challenges might include
obstacles to participatory and accountable governance and institutions,
rule of law, authentic political competition, civil society, human
rights and press freedom. Please be as specific as possible.
Answer. Challenges to democracy and human rights in Thailand
include unlawful or arbitrary killings by the government or its agents;
torture by government officials; arbitrary arrest and detention by
government authorities; censorship, site blocking, and criminal libel;
restrictions on political participation; and corruption. The United
States supports democracy, human rights, and fundamental freedoms as
essential components of good governance, peace, and prosperity in
Thailand, the Indo-Pacific and around the world. We are committed to a
long-term partnership with Thailand and have long supported accountable
and transparent democratic governance, as well as efforts to strengthen
democratic institutions and protect human rights. There has been
democratic progress in Thailand this year, but we understand that work
remains to be done by Thailand on democracy and human rights. The
promotion of democracy and human rights and fundamental freedoms has
been a major part of U.S. engagement with Thailand for many years. If
confirmed, I will continue to ensure that human rights and democratic
progress will be key areas of engagement.
Question. What steps will you take--if confirmed--to support
democracy in Thailand? What do you hope to accomplish through these
actions? What are the potential impediments to addressing the specific
obstacles you have identified?
Answer. Thailand is a key partner and a long-term ally in Asia; our
broad cooperation benefits both our countries, the region, and beyond.
We have long supported accountable and transparent democratic
governance in Thailand, and we are pleased to see a great diversity of
opinion and voices in Parliament, but we understand that work remains
to be done by Thailand on democracy and human rights. If confirmed, I
will engage through new and existing U.S. programs focused on
strengthening democracy in Thailand, including under our vision for a
free and open Indo-Pacific. I would also continue to call on Thailand
to strengthen democratic institutions and protect human rights and
fundamental freedoms.
Question. How will you utilize U.S. government assistance resources
at your disposal, including the Democracy Commission Small Grants
program and other sources of State Department and USAID funding, to
support democracy and governance, and what will you prioritize in
processes to administer such assistance?
Answer. The United States supports democracy and human rights and
fundamental freedoms in the Indo-Pacific as part of our Indo-Pacific
Transparency Initiative, as well as around the world, as the building
blocks of progress and the bulwarks of independence. If confirmed, I
will work closely with interagency partners to use U.S. government
assistance resources efficiently and effectively to support democracy
and governance in Thailand. I would also continue to call on Thailand
to strengthen its democratic institutions and protect human rights and
fundamental freedoms.
Question. If confirmed, do you commit to meet with civil society
members, human rights and other non-governmental organizations in the
U.S. and with local human rights NGOs, and other members of civil
society in Thailand? What steps will you take to pro-actively address
efforts to restrict or penalize NGOs and civil society via legal or
regulatory measures?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to meeting with human rights,
civil society, and other non-governmental organizations in the United
States and with local and other human rights NGOs in Thailand.
Protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms and advancing
democratic values are among our highest priorities under our vision for
a free and open Indo-Pacific and, if confirmed, I will be sure those
priorities continue to be elevated in our engagement with the Royal
Thai government. The United States is consistently tracking and
providing support for democratic progress and efforts to protect human
rights in Thailand, and will respond to new situations or concerns
according to U.S. law and policy.
Question. If confirmed, do you commit to meet with democratically
oriented political opposition figures and parties? What steps will you
take to encourage genuine political competition? Will you advocate for
access and inclusivity for women, minorities and youth within political
parties?
Answer. The United States has long supported a restoration of
accountable and elected governance in Thailand. That support has
included the strengthening of democratic institutions, civil society,
and independent media in the country. The United States does not
support any candidate or political party in Thailand--we support the
democratic process. If confirmed, I will support transparency, good
governance, and human rights and fundamental freedoms in Thailand and
will continue to work with the Thai people and the Royal Thai
government, including opposition politicians, to this end.
Question. Will you and your embassy team actively engage with
Thailand on freedom of the press and address any government efforts
designed to control or undermine press freedom through legal,
regulatory or other measures? Will you commit to meeting regularly with
independent, local press in Thailand?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to meeting with members of the
press in Thailand. Fundamental freedoms and human rights, including
freedom of speech, are top U.S. priorities under the Indo-Pacific
Transparency Initiative. If confirmed, I will encourage the Royal Thai
government to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, including
freedom of expression. I would work closely with Congress and
interagency colleagues, like-minded foreign partners, civil society,
and private sector partners to promote freedom of expression via
internet or traditional media in Thailand, both through U.S.
government-sponsored programs and in engagements with members of the
media and the Royal Thai government.
Question. Will you and your embassy team actively engage with civil
society and government counterparts on countering disinformation and
propaganda disseminated by foreign state or non-state actors in
Thailand?
Answer. The United States takes a holistic approach to identifying,
tracking, and countering disinformation. It is imperative that
countries around the world continue to share information and work
together in this effort by building collective resilience, sharing best
practices, and imposing costs on actors that carry out disinformation
campaigns. If confirmed, I will support U.S. efforts to counter
disinformation, support a free and transparent news media environment,
and to increase awareness by conducting outreach to the public, private
industry, civil society, and academic groups.
Question. Will you and your embassy teams actively engage with
Thailand on the right of labor groups to organize, including for
independent trade unions?
Answer. The United States has long promoted internationally
recognized labor rights with a particular focus on freedom of
association and collective bargaining, and strengthening core labor
standards, particularly for members of traditionally neglected groups,
such as women, youth, and informal sector workers. If confirmed, I will
work closely with Congress and interagency partners to support
protections for labor rights in Thailand.
Question. Will you commit to using your position, if confirmed, to
defend the human rights and dignity of all people in Thailand, no
matter their sexual orientation or gender identity? What challenges do
the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) people face
in Thailand? What specifically will you commit to do to help LGBTQ
people in Thailand?
Answer. Promoting, protecting, and advancing human rights--
including the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and
intersex (LGBTI) persons--has long been the policy of the United
States. If confirmed, I will support U.S. policy efforts to deter
violence against LGBTI persons, advocate against laws that criminalize
LGBTI status or conduct, and to prevent discrimination against LGBTI
persons, as applicable in the context of Thailand.
Question. Do you commit to respond promptly to all requests for
information by Members of this committee?
Answer. If confirmed, I commit to respond promptly and
appropriately to requests for information by Members of this committee,
in accordance with U.S. laws and regulations.
Question. Do you commit to appear before this committee upon
request?
Answer. If confirmed, I commit to appear before this committee upon
request, in accordance with U.S. laws and regulations.
Question. If you become aware of any suspected waste, fraud, or
abuse in the Department, do you commit to report it to the Inspector
General?
Answer. If confirmed, I will follow all Department rules and
regulations as to reporting waste, fraud, and abuse, including
notifying the Department's Inspector General when appropriate.
Question. Has anyone ever made a formal or informal complaint or
allegation of sexual harassment, discrimination (e.g., racial, ethnic,
religious, etc.), or inappropriate conduct against you, in a workplace
or any other setting? If so, please describe the nature of the
complaint or allegation, your response, and any resolution, including
any settlements.
Answer. No.
Question. Have you ever addressed concerns or allegations of sexual
harassment, discrimination (e.g., racial, ethnic, religious, etc.), or
inappropriate conduct made against any employee over whom you had
supervisory authority? If so, please describe the outcome and actions
taken.
Answer. I have not faced such concerns in my previous experience.
If confirmed, I will draw on the Department's resources for employees
and uphold relevant laws, regulations and Department policy related to
equal employment opportunity protections. As Secretary Pompeo has said,
we aim to recognize the diversity of our employees' rich experiences,
talent, knowledge, and personal characteristics. Fostering a culture of
inclusion is about creating a workplace environment in which everyone
is treated with dignity and respect, where each individual is valued
and empowered to thrive.
Question. Do you agree that any targeting of or retaliation against
career employees based on their perceived political beliefs, prior work
on policy, or affiliation with a previous administration, is wholly
inappropriate and has no place in the federal government? If confirmed,
what will you do to ensure that all employees under your leadership
understand that any retaliation, blacklisting, or other prohibited
personnel practices will not be tolerated?
Answer. Yes, I agree with that statement. If confirmed, I will work
to prevent any attempts to target or retaliate against career employees
on the basis of their perceived political beliefs, prior work on
policy, or affiliation with a previous administration. I take
allegations of such practices seriously and will ensure they are
referred to the Department's Inspector General.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted
to Michael George DeSombre by Senator Benjamin L. Cardin
Question. What are your most meaningful achievements to date in
your career to promote human rights and democracy? What has been the
impact of your actions?
Answer. For the past four years, I have had the honor to serve as
the board chair of Save the Children Hong Kong, which is a global
organization working in 120 countries to provide health, education,
protection, and disaster relief assistance to the world's most
marginalized and deprived children. As a father of four children, the
organization's mission is personal and important to me. I am extremely
proud to have had the opportunity to support these efforts. I recognize
the importance of these issues in America's foreign policy, and, if
confirmed, I, look forward to new opportunities to promote human rights
and democracy in Thailand.
Question. What are the most pressing human rights issues in
Thailand? What are the most important steps you expect to take--if
confirmed--to promote human rights and democracy in Thailand? What do
you hope to accomplish through these actions?
Answer. As mentioned in the annual State Department Human Rights
Report, human rights issues in Thailand include unlawful or arbitrary
killings by the government or its agents; torture by government
officials; arbitrary arrest and detention by government authorities;
censorship, site blocking, and criminal libel; restrictions on
political participation; and corruption. The United States supports
democracy, human rights, and fundamental freedoms as essential
components of good governance, peace, and prosperity in Thailand, the
Indo-Pacific and around the world. We are committed to a long-term
partnership with Thailand and have long supported accountable and
elected governance, as well as efforts to strengthen democratic
institutions and protect human rights. There has been democratic
progress in Thailand this year, but we understand that work remains to
be done by Thailand on democracy and human rights. The promotion of
democracy, human rights, and fundamental freedoms has been a major part
of U.S. engagement with Thailand for many years. If confirmed, I will
continue to make sure that human rights and democratic progress will be
key areas of engagement.
Question. If confirmed, what are the potential obstacles to
addressing the specific human rights issues you have identified in your
previous response? What challenges will you face in Thailand in
advancing human rights, civil society and democracy in general?
Answer. The United States is consistently tracking and providing
support for democratic progress and efforts to protect human rights in
Thailand. We remain concerned about restrictions on human rights and
fundamental freedoms, including harassment of civil society
organizations and opposition politicians, and recognize that progress
is a long-term effort. If confirmed, I will encourage the Royal Thai
government to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, including
freedom of expression, and to act in a manner consistent with
international obligations and commitments.
Question. Are you committed to meeting with human rights, civil
society and other non-governmental organizations in the U.S. and with
local human rights NGOs in Thailand? If confirmed, what steps will you
take to pro-actively support the Leahy Law and similar efforts, and
ensure that provisions of U.S. security assistance and security
cooperation activities reinforce human rights?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to meeting with human rights,
civil society, and other non-governmental organizations in the United
States and with local human rights NGOs in Thailand. Protecting human
rights and fundamental freedoms and advancing democratic values are
among our highest priorities under our vision for a free and open Indo-
Pacific and, if confirmed, I will be sure those priorities continue to
be elevated in our engagement with the Royal Thai government. I will
work closely with U.S. Embassy and Department of Defense colleagues to
ensure that recipients of U.S. security assistance continue to be
vetted in a manner consistent with the Leahy Law, other U.S. laws, and
Department policy.
Question. Will you and your embassy team actively engage with
Thailand to address cases of key political prisoners or persons
otherwise unjustly targeted by Thailand?
Answer. If confirmed, I will directly engage the Royal Thai
government on cases of particular concern, including political
prisoners or other individuals targeted for exercising their human
rights and fundamental freedoms. I will encourage the Royal Thai
government to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, including
freedom of expression and the right to liberty of person, and to act in
a manner consistent with international obligations and commitments.
Question. Will you engage in Thailand on matters of human rights,
civil rights and governance as part of your bilateral mission?
Answer. The United States supports democracy and human rights and
fundamental freedoms in the Indo-Pacific as part of our Indo-Pacific
Transparency Initiative, as well as around the world, as the building
blocks of progress and the bulwarks of independence. If confirmed, I
will continue to call on Thailand to strengthen democratic institutions
and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Question. Do you commit to bring to the committee's attention (and
the State Department Inspector General) any change in policy or U.S.
actions that you suspect may be influenced by any of the President's
business or financial interests, or the business or financial interests
of any senior White House staff?
Answer. I commit to comply with all relevant federal ethics laws,
regulations, and rules, and to raise concerns that I may have through
appropriate channels.
Question. Do you commit to inform the committee if you have any
reason to suspect that a foreign government, head of state, or foreign-
controlled entity is taking any action in order to benefit any of the
President's business or financial interests, or the interests of senior
White House staff?
Answer. I commit to comply with all relevant federal ethics laws,
regulations, and rules, and to raise concerns that I may have through
appropriate channels.
Question. Do you or any members of your immediate family have any
financial interests in Thailand?
Answer. I am committed to ensuring that my official actions will
not give rise to a conflict of interest. As reflected in my ethics
agreement, I will divest my interests in investments the Department of
State Ethics Office has deemed necessary to avoid a conflict of
interest, and will remain vigilant with regard to my ethics
obligations.
Question. Research from private industry demonstrates that, when
managed well, diversity makes business teams better both in terms of
creativity and in terms of productivity. What will you do to promote,
mentor and support your staff that come from diverse backgrounds and
underrepresented groups in the Foreign Service?
Answer. As Secretary Pompeo has said, we aim to recognize the
diversity of our employees' rich experiences, talent, knowledge, and
personal characteristics. Fostering a culture of inclusion is about
creating a workplace environment in which everyone is treated with
dignity and respect, where each individual is valued and empowered to
thrive. If confirmed, I will draw on the Department's resources for
employees, including those related to work life wellness, resilience,
and employee affinity groups. I will also meet with Mission supervisors
and the management team to discuss employee feedback, where
improvements are needed and, based on all of the information gathered,
put a plan in place to correct any weaknesses or gaps. As the Secretary
noted when he introduced the Department's Professional Ethos Statement
on April 26, respect, responsibility, and accountability are the
foundation of everything we do because our greatest resource is our
people.
Question. What steps will you take to ensure each of the
supervisors at the Embassy are fostering an environment that is diverse
and inclusive?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to create a content and productive
mission by focusing on the safety, security, and personal fulfillment
of my staff, by remaining actively engaged, by extending opportunities
in and out of the mission, and by listening to their needs. As
Secretary Pompeo has said, all employees should feel they work in a
professional, supportive, and teamwork-oriented community where
everyone can contribute to the mission, regardless of position, rank,
grade, or employment status. If confirmed, I will make taking care of
my team and fostering a high-performing, healthy, and secure workplace
a priority, with zero tolerance for misconduct, including sexual
harassment.
Question. How do you believe that political corruption impacts
democratic governance and the rule of law generally, and in Thailand
specifically?
Answer. Corruption, whether in Thailand or elsewhere, saps energy
from economic growth and undermines trust in government needed for
long-term cohesion and stability. A key tenet of the Indo-Pacific
strategy is to support good governance, including anticorruption
measures. In November 2018, Vice President Pence announced the Indo-
Pacific Transparency Initiative, which dedicates $400 million over two
years to empower the region's citizens, help combat corruption, and
strengthen nations' sovereignty in order to achieve the goals of sound,
just, and responsive governance. In Thailand, the United States has
long supported a restoration of accountable and elected governance. For
many years, we have supported the strengthening of democratic
institutions, civil society, and independent media in the country. If
confirmed, I will support transparency, good governance, human rights,
and fundamental freedoms in Thailand and will continue to work with the
Thai people and the Royal Thai government to this end.
Question. What is your assessment of corruption trends in Thailand
and efforts to address and reduce it by that government?
Answer. The United States supports efforts to combat corruption in
Thailand. In cooperation with the Royal Thai government, Mission
Thailand sponsors a series of anticorruption training courses designed
to improve the capacity of Thailand's criminal justice institutions to
investigate and prosecute corruption crimes. It is my understanding
that we use our International Law Enforcement Academy (a joint U.S.-
Thailand project sponsored by the Department of State's Bureau of
International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs) as a platform to
deliver cutting-edge instruction by U.S. federal law enforcement
experts from agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigations,
Internal Revenue Service, Department of Justice, and Homeland Security
Investigations. In 2019, anticorruption courses included public
corruption investigations, asset recovery techniques, financial
investigations, and trafficking in persons (TIP) related corruption. If
confirmed, I look forward to continuing and strengthening these
efforts.
Question. If confirmed, what steps will you take to strengthen good
governance and anticorruption programming in Thailand?
Answer. In November 2018, Vice President Pence announced the Indo-
Pacific Transparency Initiative, which dedicates $400 million over two
years to empower the Indo-Pacific region's citizens, help combat
corruption, and strengthen nations' sovereignty in order to achieve the
goals of sound, just, and responsive governance. The United States
supports several regional anticorruption projects that aim to
strengthen good governance and anticorruption in Thailand. For example,
a grant to the American Bar Association's Rule of Law Initiative (ABA
ROLI) works to decrease corruption by providing expertise to regional
anticorruption bodies and targeted technical assistance and capacity
building training to domestic anticorruption bodies and law enforcement
officials in order to promote implementation of international
anticorruption commitments, with an emphasis on countering foreign
bribery. If confirmed, I look forward to supporting and continuing
these and other efforts to support good governance and anticorruption
programming in Thailand.
Question. As a military government, the Prayuth regime has severely
curtailed freedoms of speech and assembly and reined in criticism from
the press, academia, and civil society. Do you believe the new civilian
government, also led by Prime Minister Prayuth, has restored a
satisfactory level of political freedom in Thailand? If not, what would
be your priorities in encouraging it to do so?
Answer. The U.S.-Thai relationship covers a wide range of
political, security, and economic cooperation. We congratulated the
tens of millions of Thai citizens who participated in the long-awaited
March 24 election for demonstrating their strong support for a return
to elected government. The voting, robust media coverage of the
process, and open debate around its merits are steps toward a more
democratic government that reflects the will of the people. The United
States welcomed the diverse elected voices in the newly formed
Parliament, and has communicated to the Royal Thai government that
continued progress to uphold democratic institutions, human rights, and
fundamental freedoms is essential to the success of our ongoing
partnership with Thailand. If confirmed, I will continue to place
priority and emphasis on this important aspect of our relations.
Question. How do you think the U.S. can continue to promote values
of democracy and rule of law despite the strong political push-back
from Thailand, particularly in the aftermath of the 2019 election?
Answer. The Department consistently communicates to the Royal Thai
government, opposition parties, and civil society that democratic
institutions must be strengthened and human rights and fundamental
freedoms must be respected. These efforts have been a major part of all
high-level engagements with Thailand for many years, including
Secretary Pompeo's recent visit to Thailand for ASEAN Foreign
Ministers' Meetings. The Department's messaging and engagements
intentionally underscore the commitment to advancing democratic
principles in Thailand. Local elections, expected in 2020, present an
opportunity for the U.S. to encourage Thai civil society and the Royal
Thai government to enlarge the democratic space and promote peaceful
freedom of expression. These elections will provide insight into
Thailand's progress toward stronger democratic institutions.
Question. If you are confirmed as Ambassador, how will you balance
the goals of advancing the U.S.-Thai alliance and promoting democracy
and rule of law?
Answer. The United States is committed to a long-term partnership
with Thailand, assisting it in defense modernization efforts to be
ready and capable to address a broad range of 21st century threats to a
free and open Indo-Pacific. At the same time, protecting human rights
and advancing democratic values remain among our highest priorities in
Thailand, and we will continue to ensure that those priorities are
advanced in our engagement. U.S. military assistance to Thailand is
consistently evaluated according to U.S. law and policy objectives, and
we are carefully tracking Thailand's democratic progress and
protections of human rights. For example, in addition to building
relationships that support our diplomatic and military interests in
Thailand, U.S. International Military Education and Training (IMET)
courses help promote the United States' tradition of upholding and
respecting the international law of armed conflict and human rights,
including civil and political liberties, as well as the military's
responsibility to protect civilian life and support a civilian
government. If confirmed, I will continue to support these efforts to
advance the U.S.-Thai alliance and promote democracy and the rule of
law in Thailand.
Question. Do you think U.S. approaches to Thailand will set
precedents and send signals to other nations regarding what the U.S.
considers to be an acceptable form of democracy?
Answer. Thailand is a key partner and a long-term ally in Asia; our
broad cooperation benefits both our countries, the region, and beyond.
Following Thailand's elections in March, the seating of Parliament, and
the subsequent formation of government, the Secretary certified that a
democratically elected government had taken office in Thailand, which
lifted the military coup restrictions on assistance to the government
of Thailand in accordance with U.S. law. The United States has long
supported accountable and elected governance in Thailand, and we are
pleased to see a great diversity of opinion and voices in Parliament,
but we understand that work remains to be done by Thailand on democracy
and human rights. If confirmed, I will continue to call on Thailand to
strengthen democratic institutions and protect human rights and
fundamental freedoms.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted to Hon. Sung Y. Kim by Senator Robert Menendez
Question. Indonesia has a long and sordid history of criminalizing
and intimidating human rights and environmental defenders, including a
legacy of torture and in some cases murder. In recent months there has
been a dramatic rise in the attacks against human rights defenders in
Indonesia, including criminal charges against dozens of Papuan anti-
racism protestors; inhumane detention conditions for the peaceful
solidarity activist Surya Anta; the criminalization of Veronica Komen,
Dandhi Laksono and Ananda Badudu for their online human rights
activism; and the recent suspicious death of the environmental human
rights lawyer Golfrid Siregar in Sumatra:
How would you encourage the Indonesian government to reverse this
trend and begin protecting rather than attacking human rights
defenders?
Answer. In Indonesia, the Department continues to make clear at
every level the importance the United States government places on
respect for human rights and democracy. We do this through our
engagement with government and civil society, people to people ties,
and annual public reports, such as the Human Rights Report,
International Religious Freedom Report, and Trafficking in Persons
Report. The Department has emphasized our support for human rights in
specific bilateral discussions related to reported violations and
abuses by certain military members. USAID works with the National Legal
Aid Foundation in 16 provinces to defend the rights of marginalized and
vulnerable populations. If confirmed, I will continue this strong
advocacy for the promotion of human rights in Indonesia.
Question. Only last week, Golfrid Siregar, a human rights and
environmental lawyer, died or was possibly murdered under suspicious
circumstances. Golfrid was part of the legal advocacy team of the
Indonesian Forum for the Environment (WALHI)/Friends of the Earth
Indonesia, Indonesia's largest environmental organization. He had been
heavily involved in fights to protect Sumatra's rainforests and
communities threatened by palm oil plantations and large hydropower.
While local authorities appear to be trying to treat his death as the
result of a traffic accident, substantial evidence points to potential
foul play. Indonesian civil society is calling on their government to
launch an independent, transparent investigation into Golfrid's death--
to be led by Indonesian Police Headquarters (Mabes POLRI) rather than
local North Sumatran police (POLDA Sumut). They are also calling for an
independent fact-finding team coordinated directly by the National
Commission on Human Rights (KOMNAS HAM):
Will you support these demands?
Answer. If confirmed, I will support a thorough and transparent
inquiry into Siregar's tragic death in accordance with the rule of law.
Question. Will you further support Presidential Regulations which
establish and ensure protections for environmental, human rights
defenders, so as to prevent any further violence and the
criminalization of those who may expose unjust or illegal activities?
Answer. Civil society has flourished in Indonesia since 1998,
contributing to improvements in Indonesia's democratic governance,
accountability, and citizen engagement. It is important that government
and an independent civil society, including a vibrant media, work
together to continue this progress. If confirmed, my focus will be to
continue to encourage and foster opportunities to further this
progress.
Question. An already over-militarized area, West Papua has become
even more heavily militarized, with additional troops, some 7000 police
(not including intelligence operations), and militia. For years the
political conflict in West Papua has continued as the Indonesian
government pursued a policy of economic development and physical
intimidation through state security forces. In the past year it has
been apparent that this policy has not been accepted by the local
population, with the eruption of conflict in Nduga that has displaced
thousands of people since late 2018, and the dramatic anti-racism and
pro-independence protests across the two provinces since August of this
year, which resulted in more than 30 people killed in the town of
Wamena:
Does U.S. security assistance to Indonesia help or hinder an end to
violence in West Papua? How can the U.S. best assist a peaceful
resolution of the conflict there?
Answer. The Department encourages the Indonesian government's
efforts to engage in dialogue with local communities to address Papuan
concerns, resolve conflicts peacefully, improve governance, and support
development that is consistent with the desires of Papuans. We also
support the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful
assembly to express political views. The United States respects
Indonesia's territorial integrity, to include the provinces of Papua
and West Papua. The United States does not support separatism in Papua
or in any other part of Indonesia.
Important goals of U.S. security assistance to Indonesia and our
military to military engagement include the strengthened
professionalization of the military, reinforcement of the military's
proper role in a democracy under the direction of civilian authority,
and emphasis on the importance of the respect for human rights. Over
time, the Indonesian military's advances in these areas contribute to
better approaches by the Indonesian government and military to internal
conflict resolution.
Question. Would you support suspension of security assistance to
Indonesia until these human rights violations cease in West Papua?
Answer. We remain concerned about human rights violations and undue
restrictions on human rights and fundamental freedoms in Papua,
including the freedoms of expression and peaceful assembly, as well as
the use of overly broad sedition laws. We have also urged greater
transparency, including ensuring access for media and civil society, as
well as visits by U.N. human rights representatives.
Our U.S. security assistance to Indonesia and our military to
military engagement include aims to strengthen military
professionalization, reinforce the military's proper role in a
democracy under the direction of civilian authority, and emphasize the
importance of the respect for human rights. Over time, the Indonesian
military's advances in these areas contribute to better approaches by
the Indonesian government and military to internal conflict resolution.
Suspending security assistance to Indonesia would undercut the
objective of a more professional and accountable military, and impede
other important U.S. objectives.
Question. Will you encourage the Indonesian government to withdraw
from a military approach to West Papua and instead pursue a dialogue
with the United Liberation Movement for West Papua and the KNPB to find
a peaceful solution to the conflict?
Answer. If confirmed, I will urge the Indonesian government to
engage in meaningful dialogue with Papuan leaders in the provinces of
Papua and West Papua and local communities to peacefully address Papuan
concerns and resolve conflicts peacefully. The United States respects
Indonesia's territorial integrity, to include the provinces of Papua
and West Papua. The United States does not support separatism in Papua
or in any other part of Indonesia.
Question. West Papua is now virtually sealed off from the outside
world. Freedom of expression is effectively banned and those trying to
assist the Papuan people are criminalized. At this year's Pacific
Island Forum in Tuvalu (which the U.S. attended as a dialogue partner),
leaders called on the U.N. Human Rights Commissioner to visit West
Papua. However, Michelle Bachelet has encountered difficulties in
persuading the Indonesian government to allow her to visit.
How will you effectively press the Indonesian government to allow
open access to West Papua for the U.N. and other officials,
human rights advocates, and domestic and international media?
Answer. The U.S. Mission has urged greater transparency, including
access for media and civil society, as well as visits by U.N. human
rights and other international representatives. If confirmed, I will
continue this advocacy.
Question. What will you do to support respect for human rights for
the Papuan people, including the right to freedom of expression and
freedom of assembly?
Answer. We remain concerned about undue restrictions on human
rights and fundamental freedoms in Papua, including the freedoms of
expression and peaceful assembly, as well as the use of overly broad
sedition laws. If confirmed, I will emphasize these concerns to the
Indonesian government. Our Mission will also continue to work with and
provide support to civil society efforts, as we do across Indonesia.
Question. There are multiple Trump-branded projects in Indonesia,
with alleged ties to corrupt businessmen and politicians. This includes
projects in West Java and Bali with Hary Tanoesoedibjo, who has
explicitly tied the business dealings to the president of the U.S, and
Setya Novanto, who has been accused of widespread corruption with other
U.S. businesses, such as Freeport McMoRan. Human Rights Watch Indonesia
has questioned the ethics of these business dealings:
What are your thoughts on the Trumps' investments and business
partnerships in Indonesia?
Answer. The U.S. Embassy is not engaged in these private, business-
to-business matters. If confirmed as Ambassador, I will always act in
the best interest of the United States government and the American
people. I will never place the interests of any individual or company
ahead of those of the American people, nor take actions that would
unfairly advantage or disadvantage any U.S. company or entity. I will
make clear that this is my expectation for all Embassy staff.
Question. What steps will you take to prevent the Trumps' business
interests from affecting U.S. policy toward Indonesia?
Answer. The U.S. Embassy is not engaged in these private, business-
to-business matters. If confirmed as Ambassador, I will always act in
the best interest of the United States government and the American
people. I will never place the interests of any individual or company
ahead of those of the American people, nor take actions that would
unfairly advantage or disadvantage any U.S. company or entity. I will
make clear that this is my expectation for all Embassy staff.
Question. The U.S. government has yet to respond to the report of
Timor-Leste's Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation
(CAVR), which documents human rights violations and crimes against
humanity committed during Indonesia's illegal occupation. A number of
the CAVR's recommendations are directed at the U.S. for its support of
Indonesia:
What do you think of the work of the CAVR and its recommendations
about justice?
Answer. The United States supports credible accountability for
significant human rights violations or abuses, including those
committed in Timor-Leste in 1999.
Question. Should the U.S. government Issue a formal response to the
CAVR report and its recommendations?
Answer. We value the work of bodies that credibly investigate and
document serious human rights violations, such as those that took place
in Timor-Leste (then East Timor) through 1999. The decision on when and
how to respond to such reports depends on policy considerations,
including whether an official response would further accountability in
meaningful ways.
Question. What are the most important actions you have taken in
your career to date to support democracy and human rights? What has
been the impact of your actions?
Answer. Early in my career as a political officer in Malaysia, I
reported extensively on the human rights situation there and worked
closely with local and international NGOs and the Malaysian government
to address problems and strengthen democratic institutions. As a
political officer assigned to Japan, I worked closely with the Japanese
government to promote good governance and due process in Southeast
Asia.
More recently as ambassador to the Republic of Korea and the
Philippines, I led the United States government's efforts to strengthen
rule of law and protection of human rights. Our efforts included legal
and law enforcement training that focused on transparency and
accountability and initiatives to combat human trafficking. I also
directly engaged government leaders in both Korea and the Philippines
to address shortcomings and ensure protection of institutions and
individuals involved in promoting democratic principles and human
rights.
Question. What issues are the most pressing challenges to democracy
or democratic development in Indonesia? These challenges might include
obstacles to participatory and accountable governance and institutions,
rule of law, authentic political competition, civil society, human
rights and press freedom. Please be as specific as possible.
Answer. Indonesia's human rights environment has evolved and in
many important ways improved since the end of the authoritarian rule of
President Suharto and the emergence of democracy. During the Suharto
era, many of the most egregious human rights abuses were directed by
the state and perpetrated by its security forces. In the current
democratic era, many of the key human rights challenges involve the
government's role in safeguarding the constitutional and legal rights
of all, including those of vulnerable minorities. Indonesia's efforts
to preserve religious pluralism and tolerance, principles reflected in
its constitution and state ideology Pancasila, also constitute a key,
long-term challenge.
In Indonesia, we continue to make clear at every level the
importance the U.S. government places on respect for human rights and
democratic principles, through our engagement with government and civil
society, people to people ties, and annual public reports, such as the
Human Rights Report, International Religious Freedom Report, and
Trafficking in Persons Report. We have emphasized our support for human
rights in specific bilateral discussions related to past abuses by
certain military members and LGBTI rights. If confirmed, I plan to
continue this strong advocacy for the promotion of human rights in
Indonesia.
Question. What steps will you take--if confirmed--to support
democracy in Indonesia? What do you hope to accomplish through these
actions? What are the potential impediments to addressing the specific
obstacles you have identified?
Answer. Indonesia made a remarkably successful transition from
authoritarian governance to democracy at the end of the 20th Century,
and the Indonesian people, political parties, and government
institutions now strongly support democratic principles and mechanisms.
Civil society is active and robust. Nevertheless, Indonesia's democracy
remains relatively new and continues to evolve. If confirmed, I pledge
to continue high-level U.S. government engagement with the Indonesian
government and civil society to underscore the importance of democracy
and its centrality in our bilateral relationship. These will be central
themes in my public engagements as well. When Indonesians seek U.S.
advice, engagement, or training in ways to strengthen their democracy
and protections for civil liberties, I would use our government
resources, including exchange and assistance programs, to offer such
opportunities.
Question. How will you utilize U.S. government assistance resources
at your disposal, including the Democracy Commission Small Grants
program and other sources of State Department and USAID funding, to
support democracy and governance, and what will you prioritize in
processes to administer such assistance?
Answer. The United States supports democracy and human rights and
fundamental freedoms in the Indo-Pacific as part of our Indo-Pacific
Transparency Initiative, as well as around the world, as the building
blocks of progress and the bulwarks of independence. If confirmed, I
will work closely with interagency partners to use U.S. government
assistance resources effectively and efficiently to support democracy
and governance in Indonesia, including U.S. assistance programs that
strengthen key institutions critical for Indonesia's stability and
development. Our programs combat corruption, increase civil society's
capacity to effectively advocate for individual rights, and strengthen
a civic culture of pluralism and tolerance.
Question. If confirmed, do you commit to meet with civil society
members, human rights and other non-governmental organizations in the
U.S. and with local human rights NGOs, and other members of civil
society in Indonesia? What steps will you take to pro-actively address
efforts to restrict or penalize NGOs and civil society via legal or
regulatory measures?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to meeting with human rights,
civil society, and other non-governmental organizations in the United
States and with local human rights and other NGOs in Indonesia.
Protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms and advancing
democratic values are among our highest priorities under our vision for
a free and open Indo-Pacific and, if confirmed, I will be sure those
priorities continue to be elevated in our engagement with the
Indonesian government. Indonesia currently provides a relatively safe
environment for NGO activism, but the legal and regulatory environment
continues to evolve, and I would ensure we continue to monitor this
closely and engage with legislators and relevant Indonesian government
ministries and agencies. The United States is consistently tracking and
providing support for democratic progress and efforts to protect human
rights in Indonesia, and will respond to new situations or concerns
according to U.S. law and policy.
Question. If confirmed, do you commit to meet with democratically
oriented political opposition figures and parties? What steps will you
take to encourage genuine political competition? Will you advocate for
access and inclusivity for women, minorities and youth within political
parties?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to meeting with a wide
spectrum of Indonesian political leaders, including those in the
opposition, and continuing the U.S. tradition of not supporting any
candidate or political party. Indonesia currently has a robustly
competitive political environment, with independently-minded political
party leaders and frequently evolving coalitions. Indonesia's political
parties are mindful of the widespread aspiration for greater women's
representation in legislative bodies and the cabinet; ethnic and
religious minorities also have meaningful representation and openly
advocate for their agendas. Many political parties and mass
organizations have youth groups that function effectively as feeder
organizations preparing young people for more prominent leadership
positions. If confirmed, I will look forward to engaging with the full
range of political actors, including youth groups and advocates for
diverse political representation; I will support transparency, good
governance, and human rights and fundamental freedoms in Indonesia and
will continue to work with the Indonesian people and government to this
end.
Question. Will you and your embassy team actively engage with
Indonesia on freedom of the press and address any government efforts
designed to control or undermine press freedom through legal,
regulatory or other measures? Will you commit to meeting regularly with
independent, local press in Indonesia?
Answer. Our Embassy maintains good relationships with Indonesian
media and media organizations, and regularly engages with contacts in
the media sphere, both at the working level and the editorial level.
Indonesian independent media continues to grow, and the Embassy
encourages their development through participation in media literacy
programs, skills building, and by supporting partnerships within
Indonesia and the broader Indo-Pacific region. While Indonesia has made
great strides on press freedom, some elements within the government,
the judiciary, and police use laws against defamation and blasphemy to
detain, prosecute, and convict individuals and to restrict freedom of
expression, including for members of the press. If confirmed, I will
continue our Embassy's engagement with editors and journalists, as well
as media outlet owners, and consistently emphasize to all levels of
Indonesian society the U.S. support for a free media.
Question. Will you and your embassy team actively engage with civil
society and government counterparts on countering disinformation and
propaganda disseminated by foreign state or non-state actors in
Indonesia?
Answer. The U.S. Mission has consistently strengthened the capacity
of Indonesian journalists to produce credible news reports, combat
disinformation, and promote news literacy through exchanges and speaker
programs, reporting tours, media co-ops, and partnerships with local
and U.S. organizations. The Embassy has also supported the work of
Indonesian fact checking organizations and engaged with student
audiences and the Indonesian public through programs focused on tools
for identifying disinformation and combatting hoax news. If confirmed,
I plan to continue this important work.
Question. Will you and your embassy teams actively engage with
Indonesia on the right of labor groups to organize, including for
independent trade unions?
Answer. Indonesian law provides for the rights of workers to join
independent unions, conduct legal strikes, and bargain collectively.
Indonesian unions and labor groups do face some restrictions and
challenges, but they are active in advocating on behalf of workers. If
confirmed, I look forward to ensuring our Mission continues its regular
engagement with labor unions and monitors closely the government's
respect for union and workers' rights. We will also continue to promote
close cooperation between the U.S. Department of Labor and Indonesian
authorities.
Question. Will you commit to using your position, if confirmed, to
defend the human rights and dignity of all people in Indonesia, no
matter their sexual orientation or gender identity? What challenges do
the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) people face
in Indonesia? What specifically will you commit to do to help LGBTQ
people in Indonesia?
Answer. The U.S. Mission in Indonesia is committed to monitoring,
reporting, and engaging on Indonesia's treatment of members of minority
groups, including religious minorities and LGBTI persons. The embassy
and consulates maintain close relationships with contacts and civil
society organizations and support their initiatives, including through
grants, technical support, and public engagement. As a best practice,
the Mission works to support and expand human rights efforts initiated
by Indonesians themselves. If confirmed, I will continue to express
U.S. support for the human rights and dignity of all people in
Indonesia, no matter their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Responsiveness
Question. Do you commit to respond promptly to all requests for
information by members of this committee?
Answer. If confirmed, I commit to respond promptly to all requests
for information by members of this committee, in accordance with U.S.
laws and regulations.
Question. Do you commit to appear before this committee upon
request?
Answer. If confirmed, I commit to appear before this committee upon
request, in accordance with U.S. laws and regulations.
Question. If you become aware of any suspected waste, fraud, or
abuse in the Department, do you commit to report it to the Inspector
General?
Answer. If confirmed, I commit to comply with all relevant laws,
regulations, and rules, and to raise concerns that I may have through
appropriate channels.
Administrative
Question. Has anyone ever made a formal or informal complaint or
allegation of sexual harassment, discrimination (e.g., racial, ethnic,
religious, etc.), or inappropriate conduct against you, in a workplace
or any other setting? If so, please describe the nature of the
complaint or allegation, your response, and any resolution, including
any settlements.
Answer. No, I am not aware of any formal or informal complaint or
allegation of sexual harassment, discrimination, or inappropriate
conduct against me, in a workplace or any other setting.
Question. Have you ever addressed concerns or allegations of sexual
harassment, discrimination (e.g., racial, ethnic, religious, etc.), or
inappropriate conduct made against any employee over whom you had
supervisory authority? If so, please describe the outcome and actions
taken.
Answer. I take the issues of sexual harassment, discrimination, and
inappropriate conduct with the utmost seriousness and throughout my
career, I have immediately addressed any issues raised to me in
accordance with the Department of State's policies, including
encouraging any employee who feels they have been harassed or
discriminated against to report such behavior to any supervisor under
my management or the Department's Office of Civil Rights. If confirmed,
I will work to ensure that the message of zero tolerance is affirmed
from the beginning of my assignment and repeatedly throughout.
Question. Do you agree that any targeting of or retaliation against
career employees based on their perceived political beliefs, prior work
on policy, or affiliation with a previous administration, is wholly
inappropriate and has no place in the federal government? If confirmed,
what will you do to ensure that all employees under your leadership
understand that any retaliation, blacklisting, or other prohibited
personnel practices will not be tolerated?
Answer. Yes, I agree with that statement. If confirmed, I will work
to prevent any attempts to target or retaliate against career employees
on the basis of their perceived political beliefs, prior work on
policy, or affiliation with a previous administration. I take
allegations of such practices seriously and will ensure they are
referred to the Department's Inspector General.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted
to Hon. Sung Y. Kim by Senator Benjamin L. Cardin
Human Rights
Question. What are your most meaningful achievements to date in
your career to promote human rights and democracy? What has been the
impact of your actions?
Answer. Early ?in my career as a political officer in Malaysia, I
reported extensively on the human rights situation there and worked
closely with local and international NGOs and the Malaysian government
to address problems and strengthen democratic institutions. As a
political officer assigned to Japan, I worked closely with the Japanese
government to promote good governance and due process in Southeast
Asia.
More recently as ambassador to the Republic of Korea and the
Philippines, I led the United States government's efforts to strengthen
rule of law and protection of fundamental human rights. Our efforts
included legal and law enforcement training that focused on
transparency and accountability and initiatives to combat human
trafficking. I also directly engaged government le?aders in both Korea
and the Philippines to ?address shortcomings and ensure protection of
institutions and individuals involved in promoting democratic
principles and human rights.
I believe my efforts have a made a difference in improving overall
protection of basic human rights ?in these countries and helped resolve
difficult challenges for organizations and individuals.
Question. What are the most pressing human rights issues in
Indonesia? What are the most important steps you expect to take--if
confirmed--to promote human rights and democracy in Indonesia? What do
you hope to accomplish through these actions?
Answer. Indonesia's human rights environment has evolved and in
many important ways improved since the end of the authoritarian rule of
President Suharto and the emergence of democracy. During the Suharto
era, many of the most egregious human rights abuses were directed by
the state and perpetrated by its security forces. In the current
democratic era, many of the key human rights challenges involve the
government's role in safeguarding the constitutional and legal rights
of all citizens, including those of vulnerable minorities. Indonesia's
efforts to preserve religious pluralism and tolerance, principles
reflected in its constitution and state ideology Pancasila, also
constitute a key, long-term challenge. In Indonesia, we continue to
make clear at every level the importance the U.S. government places on
respect for human rights and democratic principles, through our
engagement with government and civil society, people to people ties,
and annual public reports, such as the Human Rights Report,
International Religious Freedom Report, and Trafficking in Persons
Report. We have emphasized our support for human rights in specific
bilateral discussions related to past abuses by certain military
members and LGBTI rights. If confirmed, I planned to continue this
strong advocacy for the promotion of human rights in Indonesia.
Question. If confirmed, what are the potential obstacles to
addressing the specific human rights issues you have identified in your
previous response? What challenges will you face in Indonesia in
advancing human rights, civil society and democracy in general?
Answer. Civil society has flourished in Indonesia since 1998,
contributing to improvements in Indonesia's democratic governance,
accountability, and citizen engagement. It is important that government
and an independent civil society, including a vibrant media, work
together to continue this progress. If confirmed, my focus will be to
continue to encourage and foster opportunities to further this progress
for all Indonesians, including LGBTI persons.
While acknowledging some improvements in accountability for human
rights abuses by Indonesian security services, I will, if confirmed,
urge the government to do more to ensure that credible allegations are
appropriately investigated, that suspects are prosecuted on charges
commensurate with the crimes alleged, and that convicted perpetrators
are held accountable with appropriate sentences.
Question. Are you committed to meeting with human rights, civil
society and other non-governmental organizations in the U.S. and with
local human rights NGOs in Indonesia? If confirmed, what steps will you
take to pro-actively support the Leahy Law and similar efforts, and
ensure that provisions of U.S. security assistance and security
cooperation activities reinforce human rights?
Answer. If confirmed, I am committed to meeting with human rights,
civil society, and other non-governmental organizations in the United
States and with local human rights NGOs in Indonesia. I will ensure
that, consistent with the letter and spirit of U.S. law and Department
policy, assistance to security force units continues to receive
diligent and appropriate Leahy and other vetting. I will continue to
make clear to Indonesian military counterparts that engagement remains
predicated on respect for human rights by Indonesian military units.
Question. Will you and your embassy team actively engage with
Indonesia to address cases of key political prisoners or persons
otherwise unjustly targeted by Indonesia.
Answer. Unjust detentions are contrary to the fundamentals of a
just and democratic country. If confirmed, my team and I will actively
engage with Indonesia to addresses cases of key political prisoners or
persons otherwise unjustly targeted by Indonesia, should they arise.
Question. Will you engage with Indonesia on matters of human
rights, civil rights and governance as part of your bilateral mission?
Answer. If confirmed, engagement on these issues will be one of my
top priorities.
Conflicts of Interest
Question. Do you commit to bring to the committee's attention (and
the State Department Inspector General) any change in policy or U.S.
actions that you suspect may be influenced by any of the President's
business or financial interests, or the business or financial interests
of any senior White House staff?
Answer. I commit to comply with all relevant federal ethics laws,
regulations, and rules, and to raise concerns that I may have through
appropriate channels.
Question. Do you commit to inform the committee if you have any
reason to suspect that a foreign government, head of state, or foreign-
controlled entity is taking any action in order to benefit any of the
President's business or financial interests, or the interests of senior
White House staff?
Answer. I commit to comply with all relevant federal ethics laws,
regulations, and rules, and to raise concerns that I may have through
appropriate channels.
Question. Do you or do any members of your immediate family have
any financial interests in Indonesia?
Answer. I do not have any investments apart from my cash accounts
and TSP. I am committed to ensuring that my official actions will not
give rise to a conflict of interest and will remain vigilant with
regard to my ethics obligations.
Diversity
Question. Research from private industry demonstrates that, when
managed well, diversity makes business teams better both in terms of
creativity and in terms of productivity. What will you do to promote,
mentor and support your staff that come from diverse backgrounds and
underrepresented groups in the Foreign Service?
Answer. If confirmed, I will monitor the implementation of a robust
Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) program at post that includes
continuous training and sensitization, meet individually with EEO
Counselors to gain their perspectives, and ensure that personnel are
aware of the Department's discrimination and harassment policies and
how to report violations. I will review the mentoring and support
programs currently in place, meet with the American and local staffs in
the Mission to get their feedback on inclusivity, and work with
employee organizations to discuss their support. I will also meet with
Mission supervisors and the management team to discuss what I have
heard from the employees, determine where improvements are needed and,
based on all of the information gathered, implement a plan to correct
any weaknesses or gaps. To ensure diversity in our future teams and
workforce, I will also emphasize the importance of EEO principles
throughout the hiring process.
Question. What steps will you take to ensure each of the
supervisors at the Embassy are fostering an environment that is diverse
and inclusive?
Answer. This has always been a priority for me in my leadership
positions and Ambassadorial positions. If confirmed, in addition to the
steps mentioned above, I will continue to make clear to the entire
Embassy leadership team the priority I place on fostering an
environment that is diverse and inclusive, and prioritize those
principles within Mission's leadership development programs.
Corruption
Question. How do you believe political corruption impacts
democratic governance and the rule of law generally, and in Indonesia
specifically?
Answer. Corruption is an impediment to democratic governance and
the rule of law in Indonesia and many other areas of the world. The
U.S. Mission to Indonesia assists Indonesia in combatting corruption by
cooperating with key government of Indonesia institutions that combat
corruption, including the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), the
Indonesian National Police (POLRI) and the Attorney General's Office;
promoting an anti-corruption culture; and strengthening the rule of
law. Our engagement with the Indonesian government on capacity building
to fight corruption has been positive and, if confirmed, I hope to
continue to build on this ongoing cooperation.
Question. What is your assessment of corruption trends in Indonesia
and efforts to address and reduce it by that government?
Answer. Indonesia has taken a number of steps to combat corruption,
including the creation of the KPK and steps to improve the transparency
and oversight of government procurement. The KPK continues to do its
good work even in the face of ongoing challenges. The U.S. Mission
supports the KPK and other relevant government institutions through
training and other capacity-building programs.
Question. If confirmed, what steps will you take to strengthen good
governance and anticorruption programming in Indonesia?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with all levels of the Indonesian
government, with organizations such as the OECD, and with civil society
to strengthen capacity, improve policy, and enhance citizen
participation in monitoring and oversight of anti-corruption
activities. I will continue to seek opportunities for USG assistance to
strengthen governance practices in Indonesia.
President Joko Widodo
Question. Under the new administration of President Joko Widodo, a
number of new pieces of legislation have been introduced, curtailing
the power of Indonesia's anti-corruption commission, placing new
restrictions on individual rights, and criminalizing extramarital sex.
Do you see these pieces of legislation as a major concern?
Answer. The U.S. Mission has been closely monitoring the status of
these pieces of legislation. Senior officers at our U.S. Mission in
Indonesia consistently discuss, at the highest levels, issues of
concern, as well as areas in which we might work together with the
Indonesian government to promote and protect human rights and
fundamental freedoms, and strengthen good governance. The Department
has also noted the importance and impact of Indonesian public concern
and pressure related to recent legislation.
Question. Do you have a sense that President Widodo, in his second
term, may be willing to pursue political compromises that limit human
rights protections in order to achieve other economic development
goals?
Answer. Economic development goals, including human capital
development, are a key priority for President Joko Widodo's second
term. President Joko Widodo has publicly committed to pursue economic
development to strengthen the capacity of Indonesia as a whole, and he
has also consistently expressed support for human rights protections in
Indonesia.
Question. Do you see recent moves to curtail the operations of
Indonesia's anti-corruption commission as a major concern? If so, what
can the U.S. do to help protect this institution?
Answer. The KPK continues to do its good work even in the face of
ongoing challenges. The U.S. Mission supports the KPK, and other anti-
corruption bodies, through training and other capacity-building
programs and will continue to do so.
Religious Intolerance
Question. Many have argued that Indonesia has seen a rising amount
of religious intolerance in recent years.
What U.S. policy approaches do you believe are effective in helping
Indonesia combat such trends and remain a multi-ethnic
democratic success story?
Answer. Indonesia's tradition of tolerance and respect for
religious diversity are enshrined in the nation's constitution, which
guarantees freedom of religion, and reflected in the state ideology
Pancasila. Many members of minority religious groups serve in elected
and appointed positions at the national, regional and local levels.
One measure of a democracy is how it protects the rights of members
of minority groups. Tens of millions of members of minority religions
regularly practice their faith in Indonesia without issue.
Nevertheless, members of some minority religious communities in
Indonesia still face discrimination, and, in some cases, violence,
because of their religious beliefs.
The Department joins the great majority of Indonesians in
condemning violence and intimidation against members of religious
minority groups and urge the government to be proactive in protecting
individuals against violence.
The Department also promotes religious freedom at the highest
levels, with both government and civil society leaders, and speak out
publicly against discrimination and religious violence. Through
outreach efforts the embassy and consulates have carried the message of
respect for diversity and religious tolerance to millions of people
throughout the country.
Environment
Question. This year, Indonesia is again affected by large-scale
wildfires causing severe air pollution, major public health damage, and
large-scale greenhouse gas emissions. Such wildfires have recurred
regularly for more than 20 years.
How big a priority is this for U.S. policy towards Indonesia?
Answer. This is an important priority. The United States and
Indonesia partner directly to address environmental challenges. Our two
countries have a wide range of programs to conserve and manage
Indonesia's rich natural diversity, including programs related to
forest conservation.
Question. What measures have been effective in helping Indonesia
curtail the excessive logging, both legal and illegal, that causes the
fires, and what more might the U.S. do to help Indonesia with this
problem?
Answer. The United States continues to support the GOI with
programs that focus on prevention, detection, and firefighting capacity
in order to reduce the impact of the perennial human-caused fires in
Indonesia, which are often set by farmers to clear land and delineate
uncertain land rights. Our programs have strengthened Indonesia's
ability to implement conservation activities, to support law
enforcement, community development and awareness programs, forest
restoration, and private sector engagement in concession management.
Our natural resources management programs also empowers thousands of
farmers, fishermen, and related businesses to pursue more profitable
and sustainable livelihoods and strengthen conservation at the
grassroots level.
Our programs promote transparent and accountable land use planning
and management that directs development away from fire-prone peatlands
and forests. For example, in Central Kalimantan, USAID assists the
provincial government with ecosystem restoration using techniques that
reduce fire potential and enhance livelihood opportunities, and helping
local governments to plan, finance, and implement fire prevention
through support to local brigades. The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) also
supports community fire prevention training, and catalyzes private
sector engagement in fire prevention and mitigation.
We also help Indonesia better detect fires before they spread out
of control. The USAID Office of Disaster Assistance (OFDA), in
partnership with the USFS is supporting improved fire risk and
vulnerability mapping to detect fires in a timelier manner through
early warning systems. Additionally, through the Embassy Science Fellow
program, experts representing NOAA's National Environmental Satellite,
Data, and Information Service (NESDIS) will soon bring resources and
hands-on training to strengthen Indonesian agencies on using remote
sensing analysis to more accurately detect and predict fires using data
from America's advanced public satellite arrays.
And finally, we help Indonesia respond to fires. Both USAID and the
USFS have additionally trained Indonesian disaster management officials
to integrate the Incident Command System (ICS) into its disaster
management system and strengthen the capacity of emergency operations
centers--two critical components of effective fire response.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the
Record Submitted to Sung Y. Kim by Senator Edward J. Markey
Indonesia Criminal Code's Application to U.S. Citizens
Question. Should the new criminal code in Indonesia become law,
this would mean any U.S. citizen present in the country, who is part of
the LGBTI community or receives an abortion, could be penalized or
incarcerated. Some of these changes could impact the rights of
expatriate U.S. citizens and U.S. companies operating in Indonesia.
What is your plan to raise human rights concerns about proposed
legal reforms with Indonesian government officials, including
members of parliament?
Answer. The U.S. Mission has been closely monitoring the status of
this legislation; a proposed amendment of the criminal code which would
have had significant impact on expatriates and Indonesians alike,
including through criminalization of sexual activity outside of
marriage, was pending in the legislature but did not pass by the end of
the 2014-2019 session. This bill would need to be reintroduced, with
hearings beginning anew, if the new session of parliament will aim to
amend the criminal code. Senior officers at our U.S. Mission in
Indonesia consistently discuss issues of concern at the highest levels,
as well as areas in which we might work together with the Indonesian
government to promote and protect human rights and fundamental
freedoms, and strengthen good governance. We also have noted the
importance and impact of Indonesian public concern and pressure related
to recent legislation.
If confirmed, I will engage early on and consistently throughout my
time in Indonesia to continue to emphasize U.S. concerns about any
possible legislation that could restrict the rights of U.S. citizens
residing in or visiting Indonesia, with harmful effects also on the
climate for international business and a chilling effect on tourism.
Question. How will you urge and organize U.S. companies and
investors operating in Indonesia to raise these concerns, and harness
their combined market power to positively influence the government?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue the U.S. government's strong
advocacy for the promotion of human rights in Indonesia. I will make
clear at every level the importance the U.S. government places on
respect for human rights and democratic principles, including through
engagement with U.S. private sector partners operating in Indonesia. I
believe U.S. companies are good corporate citizens and, while operating
overseas, they model the positive principles and values of the United
States.
Indonesia and Climate Change Activists
Question. With continued deforestation and illegal land
acquisitions in Indonesia there may be increased crackdowns on those
seeking to defend the environment. Indonesia's parliament revised its
counterterrorism law last year, opening the door for prosecution and
lengthy detention of peaceful political activists.
What can you do to support those who seek to raise awareness of
environmental damage?
Answer. Civil society has flourished in Indonesia since 1998,
contributing to improvements in Indonesia's democratic governance,
accountability, and citizen engagement. It is important that government
and an independent civil society, including a vibrant media, work
together to continue this progress. If confirmed, my focus will be to
continue to encourage and foster opportunities to further this
progress.
Question. How can the United States best prevent murder, arrest,
and intimidation of climate change activists in Indonesia?
Answer. Indonesia--we continue to make clear at every level the
importance the United States government places on respect for human
rights and democracy, through our engagement with government and civil
society, people to people ties, and annual public reports, such as the
Human Rights Report, International Religious Freedom Report, and
Trafficking in Persons Report. We have emphasized our support for human
rights in specific bilateral discussions related to reported violations
and abuses by certain military members. If confirmed, I will continue
this strong advocacy for the promotion of human rights in Indonesia,
including respecting the rights of environmental activists.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted to Morse Tan by Senator Robert Menendez
General Democracy Questions
Question. What are the most important actions you have taken in
your career to date to support democracy and human rights? What has
been the impact of your actions?
Answer. I have devoted the bulk of my career to promoting human
rights especially, but also democracy. I have done so through my
writing, media engagements, teaching and public speaking. For example,
I have produced more law review articles regarding North Korean human
rights and the absence of democracy (among other subjects) than any
other scholar. I wrote a lengthy book on ``North Korea, International
Law and the Dual Crises: Narrative and Constructive Engagement''
(Routledge). I also have written law review articles on the Inter-
American Court of Human Rights. These works have been seminal and
trailblazing in the field according to independent reviewers. The
impact was expanded via media engagements, teaching and other public
speaking events to raise awareness and advocate for human rights.
Question. What issues are the most pressing challenges to democracy
or democratic development today across the globe? Please be as specific
as possible.
Answer. Autocratic dictatorships are antithetical to democracy and
democratic development. For example, the former Maduro regime has
systematically dismantled democratic institutions and brutally
repressed democratic actors, including civil society in Venezuela.
Question. If confirmed, do you commit to meet with civil society
members, human rights and other non-governmental organizations in the
U.S. and with local human rights NGOs when you travel abroad?
Answer. Yes, if confirmed, I intend and plan to do so.
Question. Will you commit to using your position, if confirmed, to
defend the human rights and dignity of all people, no matter their
sexual orientation or gender identity? In your position, what
specifically will you commit to do to help LGBTQ persons globally?
Answer. Yes, if confirmed, I am committed to protecting and
defending the human rights and dignity of all persons, including
marginalized or persecuted populations, regardless of labels.
GCJ-Reorganization: Reports surfaced last year that GCJ might be
eliminated as part of a proposed State Department reorganization. I
strongly oppose the elimination of this key office.
Question. In your opinion, what has been the role and effectiveness
of this office in promoting accountability for perpetrators of
atrocities, including genocide, crimes against humanity, and war
crimes?
Answer. The Office of Global Criminal Justice (J/GCJ) leads U.S.
policy formulation on redressing atrocities--including genocide, war
crimes, and crimes against humanity--and is the U.S. government's
primary liaison with criminal tribunals and non-judicial transitional
justice mechanisms. My understanding is that J/GCJ--despite its small
size--has provided senior policymakers with expert advice and is active
in promoting accountability for atrocities as a core component of U.S.
policy in any country or region.
Question. How can the office improve its effectiveness?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review J/GCJ's activities and take
steps towards bolstering its effectiveness.
International Criminal Court
Question. What do you believe is the future of the U.S.-ICC
relationship in meeting the mutual goals of holding perpetrators of
atrocity crimes accountable for their actions?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review the activities and mandate of
the Office of Global Criminal Justice (J/GCJ) and take steps to extend
its effectiveness. Regarding the U.S. relationship with the
International Criminal Court, I understand that current U.S. policy is
not to cooperate with or provide assistance to the ICC, given the ICC's
attempts to assert jurisdiction over U.S. personnel. Rather, the United
States supports accountability and justice for victims of atrocities,
including through legitimate prosecutions by international, hybrid,
mixed, and national tribunals.
Burma
Question. In August 2017, the Burmese military forces increased
their attacks against the Rohingya in Rakhine State in a coordinated
and widespread campaign of indiscriminate killing, rape, and razing of
villages. Following a series of investigations, including by the United
Nations Fact Finding Mission and the State Department's contracting
with PILPG, there have been credible reports documenting the egregious
human rights violations that have occurred in Rakhine State. Do you
believe that these crimes amount to crimes against humanity or
genocide?
Answer. I am appalled by the ethnic cleansing of and other acts of
violence against Rohingya in northern Rakhine State. Atrocities
including massacres, gang rape, as well as village and mosque burnings
shock the conscience, and I am committed to promoting accountability
for those responsible. I understand that the process for deciding
whether and when to make a determination that certain acts may amount
to crimes against humanity, or genocide, has historically been reserved
within the Executive Branch to the Secretary of State. If confirmed, I
will consult with experts within the Department and examine the
information at my disposal to provide the Secretary with my best
advice.
Question. In August 2017, the Burmese military forces increased
their attacks against the Rohingya in Rakhine State in a coordinated
and widespread campaign of indiscriminate killing, rape, and razing of
villages. Following a series of investigations, including by the United
Nations Fact Finding Mission and the State Department's contracting
with PILPG, there have been credible reports documenting the egregious
human rights violations that have occurred in Rakhine State. What
position and specific actions will you take to ensure accountability?
Answer. If confirmed, I would want to promote accountability for
those responsible for these atrocities, address victims' desire for
justice, and seek to deter further atrocities, including by supporting
the collection, preservation, and analysis of evidence by credible
bodies including the U.N. Independent Investigative Mechanism for
Myanmar, consult with victims and civil society, and use the available
diplomatic tools to promote an improvement in behavior by Burmese
security forces. Additionally, I would want to work with likeminded
countries and international organizations to seek justice for victims
and accountability for members of the Burmese security forces and
others responsible for atrocities and abuses.
Question. How do you see the decision to revoke the visas of ICC
officials affecting the ability of your office to continue any
beneficial relationship with the ICC?
Answer. I understand the administration's policy toward the ICC
remains unchanged at this time, including the restriction on issuance
of U.S. visas for ICC officials who are determined to be directly
responsible for any effort to conduct a formal investigation of U.S. or
allied personnel, without consent of the United States or the affected
ally. If confirmed, I would consult with State Department colleagues
and, as appropriate, interagency colleagues to determine the best
approach to take as the situation unfolds.
Responsiveness
Question. Do you commit to respond promptly to all requests for
information by members of this committee?
Answer. Yes, I would intend and plan to do so appropriately within
the framework of the priorities and purposes of this office and the
law.
Question. Do you commit to appear before this committee upon
request?
Answer. Yes, I would intend and plan to do so appropriately within
the framework of the priorities and purposes of this office and the
law.
Question. If you become aware of any suspected waste, fraud, or
abuse in the Department, do you commit to report it to the Inspector
General?
Answer. I commit to raise concerns that I may have through
appropriate channels.
Administrative
Question. Has anyone ever made a formal or informal complaint or
allegation of sexual harassment, discrimination (e.g., racial, ethnic,
religious, etc.), or inappropriate conduct against you, in a workplace
or any other setting? If so, please describe the nature of the
complaint or allegation, your response, and any resolution, including
any settlements.
Answer. No, never.
Question. Have you ever addressed concerns or allegations of sexual
harassment, discrimination (e.g., racial, ethnic, religious, etc.), or
inappropriate conduct made against any employee over whom you had
supervisory authority?
Answer. No. I commit to address any such concerns or allegations
that may become known to me through appropriate channels.
Question. If so, please describe the outcome and actions taken.
Answer. Not applicable.
Question. Do you agree that any targeting of or retaliation against
career employees based on their perceived political beliefs, prior work
on policy, or affiliation with a previous administration, is wholly
inappropriate and has no place in the federal government?
Answer. Yes.
Question. If confirmed, what will you do to ensure that all
employees under your leadership understand that any retaliation,
blacklisting, or other prohibited personnel practices will not be
tolerated?
Answer. I commit to comply with all relevant laws, regulations, and
rules, and to raise concerns that I may have through appropriate
channels. Furthermore, I would seek to foster a positive workplace that
rallies together around the noble purposes of the office. I am an
affirming and encouraging person who wants to inspire and motivate the
Office of Global Criminal Justice to fulfill its mission promoting
justice and accountability.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted to Morse Tan by Senator Benjamin L. Cardin
Human Rights
Question. What are the most important actions you have taken in
your career to date to promote human rights and democracy? What has
been the impact of your actions?
Answer. I have devoted the bulk of my career to promoting human
rights especially, but also democracy. I have done so through my
writing, media engagements, teaching and public speaking. For example,
I have produced more law review articles regarding North Korean human
rights and the absence of democracy (among other subjects) than any
other scholar. I wrote a lengthy book on ``North Korea, International
Law and the Dual Crises: Narrative and Constructive Engagement''
(Routledge). I also have written law review articles on the Inter-
American Court of Human Rights. These works have been seminal and
trail-blazing in the field, according to independent reviewers. The
impact was expanded via media engagements, teaching and other public
speaking events to raise awareness and advocate for human rights.
Diversity
Question. What will you do to promote, mentor and support your
staff that come from diverse backgrounds and underrepresented groups in
the Bureau for Global Criminal Justice?
Answer. As an immigrant member of a small minority myself whose
family has overcome many challenges, and as one who relishes
opportunities to provide mentoring, if confirmed, I will ensure
professional development opportunities for all GCJ staff. I am an
encouraging and affirming person who is deeply empathetic. My mentoring
and support of my research assistants has helped launch them into
opportunities in the State Department, Georgetown University, the City
of Chicago, Chase Bank, and prestigious fellowships, among others. If
confirmed, I would look forward to giving GCJ personnel opportunities
to travel and forge relationships to advance the work of the Department
and become more effective and productive. I want to build a strong
culture of collegiality and mission-focus to reinforce the already
existing culture of excellence that pervades the office.
Question. What steps will you take to ensure each of the
supervisors in the Bureau for Global Criminal Justice are fostering an
environment that is diverse and inclusive?
Answer. I have tried hard to be an inclusive person my entire
career. In my classes, I emphasize civility, respect, and decency, even
in the midst of difficult discussions. If confirmed, I would treat
every team member in GCJ with dignity, as irreducibly valuable human
beings and colleagues. I would expect everyone in the office, including
employees with supervisory responsibilities, to do the same. I would
want all of these things to mark the environment in GCJ. Perhaps these
are among the reasons why I have had various people volunteer to work
with and for me, and to enthusiastically go the extra mile to support
me, as I have sought to do for them.
Conflicts of Interest
Question. Do you commit to bring to the committee's attention (and
the Inspector General of the State Department) any change in policy or
U.S. actions that you suspect may be influenced by any of the
President's business or financial interests, or the business or
financial interests of any senior White House staff?
Answer. I commit to comply with all relevant federal ethics laws,
regulations, and rules, and to raise concerns that I may have through
appropriate channels.
Question. Do you commit to inform the committee if you have any
reason to suspect that a foreign government, head of state, or foreign-
controlled entity is taking any action in order to benefit any of the
President's business or financial interests, or the interests of senior
White House staff?
Answer. I commit to comply with all relevant federal ethics laws,
regulations, and rules, and to raise concerns that I may have through
appropriate channels.
Question. Do you or do any members of your immediate family have
any financial interests in any country abroad?
Answer. My parents and sister own property in South Korea. My
investment portfolio includes diversified mutual funds, which may hold
interests in companies with a presence overseas, but which are exempt
from the conflict of interest laws. My investment portfolio also
includes sector funds, which may hold interests in companies with a
presence overseas. Finally, my investment portfolio does include
financial interests in companies with a presence overseas. I am
committed to ensuring that my official actions will not give rise to a
conflict of interest. I will divest any investments the State
Department Ethics Office deems necessary to avoid a conflict of
interest. I intend to remain compliant with my ethics obligations.
Syria
Question. Do you believe an international criminal tribunal should
take jurisdiction over alleged war crimes and other atrocities in
Syria?
Answer. We should not wait for an international criminal tribunal
to assert jurisdiction over alleged war crimes and other atrocities in
Syria, but support the ongoing work of existing entities such as the
U.N. International, Impartial, Independent, Mechanism, and Syrian
documentation groups, which are gathering evidence of regime
atrocities, and national jurisdictions that are already pursuing
accountability efforts.
Question. What, in your opinion, is the likelihood that those who
have perpetrated atrocities in Syria will be held accountable by the
Syrian justice system?
Answer. It is highly unlikely that the current Syrian justice
system will hold to account those who have perpetrated atrocities in
Syria. It has not done so in eight years of conflict and hundreds of
thousands of people dying at the hands of the Syrian regime. For that
reason, it is important for the United States to support the work of
the U.N. International, Impartial, Independent Mechanism (IIIM) and
Syrian documentation groups gathering evidence of regime atrocities,
and the work of national jurisdictions to hold the regime accountable.
War Crimes
Question. What is your opinion of the criminal prosecution of war
crimes in European domestic courts? Should the United States undertake
similar prosecutions under concepts of universal jurisdiction? Do you
believe the United States should support efforts of European domestic
courts to carry out these prosecutions?
Answer. I support the repatriation of foreign terrorist fighters to
their home nations for prosecution, as has occurred in a number of
European nations. I understand the United States has led by example,
repatriating at least six foreign terrorist fighters and charging them
with crimes in our domestic criminal justice system. I also believe the
work of international mechanisms like the International, Impartial, and
Independent Mechanism for Syria and the U.N. Investigative Team for
Accountability of Da'esh are critical to gathering the necessary
evidence to enable domestic courts to hold perpetrators accountable,
and I concur with the United States' ongoing support of these valuable
mechanisms.
Cameroon
Question. Civil unrest that began as protests in the English
speaking region of Cameroon has escalated into fighting between
government forces and separatist groups. Separatists taken prisoner by
the Cameroonian government have reportedly been imprisoned under
inhumane and degrading conditions, and have been subjected to torture.
In 2017, the U.N. Committee Against Torture demanded that the
government of Cameroon institute investigations and ensure
accountability for those who have perpetrated these crimes, but
Cameroon has reportedly done little to hold anyone responsible. What
should the United States be doing to ensure accountability for alleged
war crimes and other violations of international human rights law
committed by government personnel in Cameroon?
Answer. I share your concerns about the situation in Cameroon. If
confirmed, I would support the U.S. government's efforts to promote a
peaceful resolution in Cameroon, including providing technical support
to our Embassy by drawing on GCJ's areas of expertise, such as
transitional justice and accountability. I support the Department's
efforts to strengthen civil society's capacity to organize, reconcile
internal divides, and formulate clear grievances and objectives on
behalf of impacted populations. I would intend to work with others in
the Department to urge the government to end the violence and hold
those responsible accountable.
Question. What steps should the international community as a whole
be taking to prevent further occurrence of atrocity crimes and
violations of human rights in Cameroon?
Answer. The U.S. government and partners are working to create
space for inclusive, credible dialogue without pre-conditions, which
are necessary factors for the dialogue to proceed. If confirmed, I
would want to work with our international partners to raise concerns
both with the government and with those in the Anglophone Cameroonian
opposition. I would also seek to work with Department and interagency
colleagues to engage with the government and the separatists to end
violence and engage in pertinent dialogue without pre-conditions, based
so far on current knowledge.
Question. What is your assessment of the Cameroonian government's
actions toward the English-speaking minority in Cameroon? In your
opinion, is there a danger of an escalation of atrocity crimes against
the English-speaking minority?
Answer. The situation in Cameroon remains of concern and if
confirmed, I would want to work with key stakeholders to try to rectify
it. We are concerned that the recent national dialogue lacked
inclusivity and if it is to eventually succeed, it will have to take
into account the concerns of all those affected by the crisis in the
Anglophone northwest and southwest regions of Cameroon. If confirmed, I
would want to join the Department's efforts to promote peaceful
resolution, monitor all atrocity risk, and engage the government and
the armed separatists to end violence and address grievances.
Rohingya
Question. The Burmese government has engaged in a systematic
campaign of repression and displacement of the country's Rohingya
population. The U.N. Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on
Myanmar (UNFFM) in 2018 found that the Burmese military should be
investigated for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.
What do you believe must be done to hold those accountable for atrocity
crimes against the Rohingya?
Answer. If confirmed, I will prioritize promoting accountability
for those responsible for these atrocities, addressing victims' desire
for justice, and seeking to deter further atrocities, including by
supporting the collection, preservation, and analysis of evidence by
groups like the U.N.'s Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar,
consulting with victims and civil society, and using the available
diplomatic tools to promote behavior change by Burmese security forces.
I would want to work with likeminded countries and international
organizations to seek justice for victims and accountability for
members of the Burmese security forces and others responsible for
atrocities and other human rights violations and abuses.
Question. The Burmese government has engaged in a systematic
campaign of repression and displacement of the country's Rohingya
population. The U.N. Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on
Myanmar (UNFFM) in 2018 found that the Burmese military should be
investigated for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. Has
the international community's response been sufficient or effective in
ending Burmese military atrocities?
Answer. The United States has worked with likeminded countries and
international organizations to promote justice for victims and promote
accountability for members of the Burmese security forces and others
responsible for atrocities. The United States supported the U.N. Fact
Finding Mission and supports the ongoing Independent Investigative
Mechanism for Myanmar, tasked with building a legal foundation for
future accountability. Continued support for the mandates of the U.N.
Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in Myanmar and the Secretary-
General's Special Envoy for Myanmar is also important. If confirmed, I
would want to support these efforts and the use of available diplomatic
tools that promote justice, accountability and non-recurrence of
atrocities.
Question. The Burmese government has engaged in a systematic
campaign of repression and displacement of the country's Rohingya
population. The U.N. Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on
Myanmar (UNFFM) in 2018 found that the Burmese military should be
investigated for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. Do
you believe the U.N. Security Council should refer the situation in
Burma to the International Criminal Court for investigation?
Answer. I support the United States' efforts to work with allies
and partners to explore a broad range of options that will promote
justice and accountability for those responsible for these atrocities,
to address victims' desire for justice, and to deter further
atrocities. If confirmed, I would support the collection, preservation,
and analysis of evidence by groups like the U.N.'s Independent
Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar, would want to continue to consult
with victims and civil society, and seek to use available diplomatic
and other tools to promote fundamental behavioral change on the part of
Burmese security forces.
Question. The Burmese government has engaged in a systematic
campaign of repression and displacement of the country's Rohingya
population. The U.N. Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on
Myanmar (UNFFM) in 2018 found that the Burmese military should be
investigated for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. Has
U.S. policy been effective in ensuring eventual accountability for
Burmese military leaders? What about U.S. policy could be improved?
Answer. The State Department conducted an in depth investigation
documenting abuses against Rohingya and released a report in September
2018. I know that the U.S. has supported multilateral and unilateral
processes that promote justice and accountability, including the U.N.
Fact Finding Mission for Myanmar, the Independent Investigative
Mechanism for Myanmar, the issuance of Global Magnitsky sanctions, and
the Section 7031(c) designations for senior Burmese military officers
responsible for these atrocities. If confirmed, I will work with the
administration, and in consultation with victims and members of Burmese
civil society, to continue our efforts to use available diplomatic
tools to achieve these goals.
Question. In 2018, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal
Court (ICC) sought to investigate the forced deportation of Rohingya
from Burma into Bangladesh, which the Prosecutor argues constitutes a
crime against humanity. The ICC Pre-Trial Chamber found that because
forced deportation of Rohingya occurred partially on the territory of
Bangladesh (a state party to the Rome Statute, the convention that
created the ICC), the Court may exercise jurisdiction over the alleged
crimes. Burma is not party to the Rome Statute. In your opinion, was
the decision of the ICC to exercise jurisdiction over the situation of
the Rohingya in Bangladesh proper?
Answer. Like you, I am appalled by the horrific atrocities
committed against Rohingya, and believe there must be meaningful
justice for victims and accountability for the perpetrators, including
through prosecutions by a legitimate and credible criminal justice
mechanism. If confirmed, I will work with the administration and
members of Congress to explore how U.S. leadership and policy can
appropriately achieve these goals.
Question. Do you believe recourse to the ICC is the best avenue
toward ensuring accountability for atrocity crimes committed by Burmese
officials?
Answer. Like you, I am appalled by the Burmese military's human
rights abuses. I know that the U.S. has supported multilateral and
unilateral processes that promote justice and accountability, including
the U.N. Fact Finding Mission for Myanmar, the Independent
Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar, the issuance of Global Magnitsky
sanctions, and the Section 7031(c) designations for senior Burmese
military officers responsible for these atrocities. If confirmed, I
would work with the administration, and in consultation with victims
and members of Burmese civil society, to continue our efforts to use
available diplomatic tools to achieve these goals.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted to Morse Tan by Senator Edward J. Markey
Burma
Question. In August 2017, the Burmese military forces increased
their attacks against the Rohingya in Rakhine State in a coordinated
and widespread campaign of indiscriminate killing, rape, and razing of
villages. Following a series of investigations, including by the United
Nations Fact Finding Mission and the State Department's contracting
with PILPG, there have been credible reports documenting the egregious
human rights violations that have occurred in Rakhine State. Do you
believe that these crimes amount to crimes against humanity or
genocide? What position and specific actions will you take to ensure
accountability?
Answer. I am appalled by the ethnic cleansing of and other acts of
violence against Rohingya in northern Rakhine State. Credible reports
of massacres, gang rape, and village and mosque burnings shock the
conscience, and I am committed to promoting accountability for those
responsible. I understand that the process for deciding whether and
when to make a determination that certain acts may amount to crimes
against humanity, or genocide, has historically been reserved within
the Executive Branch to the Secretary of State. If confirmed, I will
consult with experts within the Department and examine all the
information to provide the Secretary with my best advice. I have read
the entirety of ``The Rohingyas'' (Hurst), by Azeem Ibrahim, the only
academic work dedicated to the subject, among an array of materials I
have already reviewed on this serious matter.
Question. In August 2017, the Burmese military forces increased
their attacks against the Rohingya in Rakhine State in a coordinated
and widespread campaign of indiscriminate killing, rape, and razing of
villages. Following a series of investigations, including by the United
Nations Fact Finding Mission and the State Department's contracting
with PILPG, there have been credible reports documenting the egregious
human rights violations that have occurred in Rakhine State. Do you
think there are negative consequences from having the Secretary of
State withhold a determination on whether these attacks amount to
crimes against humanity or genocide?
Answer. I share your deep concern about the horrific attacks
against Rohingya and the humanitarian crisis that has followed. I
understand that the process for deciding whether and when to make a
determination that certain acts may amount to crimes against humanity,
or genocide, has historically been reserved within the Executive Branch
to the Secretary of State. I would emphasize that there is no hierarchy
of atrocities; they are all abhorrent and shocking. If confirmed, I
would want to promote accountability for those responsible, address
victims' needs and desires for justice, and try to deter further
atrocities. The actions taken against atrocities are more important
than the precise label.
International Criminal Court
Question. In August 2017, the Burmese military forces increased
their attacks against the Rohingya in Rakhine State in a coordinated
and widespread campaign of indiscriminate killing, rape, and razing of
villages. Following a series of investigations, including by the United
Nations Fact Finding Mission and the State Department's contracting
with PILPG, there have been credible reports documenting the egregious
human rights violations that have occurred in Rakhine State. What do
you believe is the future of the U.S.-ICC relationship in meeting the
mutual goals of holding perpetrators of atrocities accountable for
their actions?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review the activities and mandate of
the Office of Global Criminal Justice (J/GCJ) and take steps to
maximize its effectiveness. Regarding the U.S. relationship with the
International Criminal Court, I understand that current U.S. policy is
not to cooperate with or provide assistance to the ICC, given the ICC's
attempts to assert jurisdiction over U.S. personnel. Rather, the United
States supports meaningful accountability and justice for victims of
atrocities, including through legitimate and effective prosecutions by
international, hybrid, mixed, and national tribunals.
Question. In August 2017, the Burmese military forces increased
their attacks against the Rohingya in Rakhine State in a coordinated
and widespread campaign of indiscriminate killing, rape, and razing of
villages. Following a series of investigations, including by the United
Nations Fact Finding Mission and the State Department's contracting
with PILPG, there have been credible reports documenting the egregious
human rights violations that have occurred in Rakhine State. How do you
see the decision to revoke the visas of ICC officials affecting the
ability of your office to continue any beneficial relationship with the
ICC?
Answer. I understand the administration's policy toward the ICC
remains unchanged at this time, including the restriction on issuance
of U.S. visas for ICC officials who are determined to be directly
responsible for any effort to conduct a formal investigation of U.S. or
allied personnel, without consent of the United States of the affected
ally. If confirmed, I would consult with State Department colleagues
and, as appropriate, interagency colleagues to determine the best
approach to take as the situation unfolds, including the appeal inside
the ICC.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted to Kelley Eckels Currie by Senator Robert Menendez
Question. What are the most important actions you have taken in
your career to date to support democracy and human rights?
Answer. I have spent my entire career working to promote human
rights and democracy. During nearly five years as the Republican staff
director for the Congressional Human Rights Caucus and as foreign
operations appropriations associate for Congressman John Porter, I
worked to curtail military assistance to countries over human rights
abuses by their security forces; tighten restrictions on Burma; and
expand financial support to democracy and human rights promotion
efforts, including securing the first appropriation for Radio Free
Asia. I also helped to develop an ?adopt a political prisoner? program
that paired Members of Congress with Chinese and Tibetan political
prisoners, and encouraged the Members to advocate for improved
treatment and release of their `adopted' prisoner. I vividly remember
the day that I met Jigme Sangpo, the long-serving Tibetan political
prisoner our office had adopted, after he was released and exiled to
Switzerland on medical parole. It was one of the highlights of my life
to see him free.
After leaving Capitol Hill to work for the International Republican
Institute (IRI), I was fortunate to work on IRI's programs in Southeast
Asia, including: helping to set up IRI's operations in Indonesia during
its democratic transition and in Timor Leste during the establishment
of its independence; managing IRI's support to the Burmese democracy
movement at a critical juncture, when the military junta was engaged in
one of its most severe crackdowns; and setting up a new program in
Laos. In 2000, I helped a group of former Burmese political prisoners
to launch an organization to provide humanitarian support to, and
conduct documentation and advocacy on behalf of, Burma's thousands of
political prisoners. Today, the Assistance Association for Political
Prisoners (AAPP) remains one of the most important civil society
organizations in the country and a key player in promoting legal and
political reform as part of Burma's transition.
While working as the Director of government Relations for the
International Campaign for Tibet, I carried out documentation, advocacy
and legislative initiatives on human rights and refugee issues related
to Tibet. I also supported Special Envoy Lodi Gyari while he was
engaged in the negotiations with the Chinese government; secured
critical funding for Tibetan refugee and cultural preservation
programs; and managed several successful Washington DC visits by His
Holiness the Dalai Lama. This experience was invaluable when I joined
the Office of the Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues under
Ambassador Paula Dobriansky, and worked to institutionalize the Tibetan
Policy Act in U.S. policy and implement U.S. efforts to preserve
Tibetan culture inside Tibet.
While serving as a Senior Fellow at Project 2049 Institute, I
conducted research and programming on human rights and political reform
in the Asia-Pacific. I founded the Institute's Burma program, which
included managing a multi-year grant from the Department of State's
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. In addition to two large
awards to key Burmese civil society groups, the program included a
small grants program that identified and supported small Burmese
organizations and catalytic individuals who were helping to push
forward human rights and democracy in that country. My work with them
was among the most consequential and personally fulfilling I have done.
Since rejoining the executive branch in August 2017, both my
posting at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations and my current job
managing the office of Global Criminal Justice have featured a strong
human rights orientation. In New York, I oversaw the passage of a new
resolution on Freedom of Expression during the 2018-2019 General
Assembly session, and fought to push back on Chinese efforts to
undermine the normative human rights framework in the U.N. I also led
the Mission's efforts to strengthen the role of U.N. Headquarters in
New York in the U.N.'s human rights pillar as part of the Mission's
Human Rights Council reform initiative. Since returning to Washington
earlier this year, I have been deeply involved in the administration's
advocacy on behalf of Uighurs and other Muslim minorities who are
facing severe repression in Xinjiang, and accountability efforts
regarding Burma, Syria, ISIS, Sudan and South Sudan.
Question. What has been the impact of your actions?
Answer. As previously noted, I have been involved in a number of
legislative and policy initiatives that set the stage for the United
States to lead on human rights. Nonetheless, after more than two
decades of work in the field of human rights and democracy promotion, I
have come to believe that the most effective way to advance human
rights is to strengthen local capabilities to defend, promote and
protect human rights. In that regard, my work to support training and
funding for local civil society and political activists at both IRI and
Project 2049 has probably had the most impact. By supporting local
actors who advocate for accountability for abusers, justice for victims
and changes to repressive laws and practices, we helping them to create
the changes that their own societies need to move forward. I am
especially proud of the work that I did to support Burmese civil
society over the past twenty years, especially the efforts to promote
women's political participation and leadership. When I was a program
officer at the International Republican Institute in the late 1990's, I
added a Women in Politics element to the Institute's Burma program.
Today, some of the same women I worked with two decades ago as they
were trying to organize and build capacity are among the most prominent
and effective leaders in Burmese civil society and politics.
Question. What issues are the most pressing challenges to democracy
or democratic development today across the globe. Please be as specific
as possible.
Answer. I believe that the greatest threat to democracy and human
rights today is the People's Republic of China's effort to undermine
the fundamental pillars of the international human rights architecture
and create a moral equivalence between its system of authoritarian
state-led capitalism and our system, which is based on the concept that
human rights attach at the individual level and are inherent to all
human beings. If confirmed, I will continue to oppose China's efforts
to undermine internationally accepted human rights standards and norms.
I will stand for the freedoms of belief, association and expression,
the right to fair trial guarantees, and government that is accountable
to the people and operates subject to the consent of the governed. If
confirmed, I will coordinate with offices and bureaus to elevate the
issue and amplify the work being done across the USG and implementing
partners to support women's political participation and democratic
development across the globe.
Question. If confirmed, do you commit to meet with civil society
members, human rights and other non-governmental organizations in the
U.S. and with local human rights NGOs when you travel abroad?
Answer. Yes, absolutely. Civil society plays a vital role in the
protection and promotion of human rights, and I have always made
meeting with, supporting and listening to these organizations a
priority.
Question. Will you commit to using your position, if confirmed, to
defend the human rights and dignity of all people, no matter their
sexual orientation or gender identity? In your position, what
specifically will you commit to do to help LGBTQ persons globally?
Answer. Yes. Respect for the inherent dignity rights, freedoms of
others is not only at the core of our nation, but also the foundation
of an effective foreign and national security policy. If confirmed, I
look forward to working with our colleagues and counterparts across the
U.S. government and around the world to advance and protect the rights
of all women and girls.
Question. The majority of refugees resettled through the USRAP
program are vulnerable women and children. What do you see as the U.S.
role in refugee resettlement?
Answer. Breakdowns in the rule of law and forced displacement from
conflict and disaster expose refugees and internally displaced persons,
particularly women and girls, to additional risks of violence and
exploitation. As the U.S. Strategy on Women, Peace, and Security
states, women cannot fully participate in the prevention or resolution
of conflict or participate in recovery efforts if they themselves are
victims of violence or intimidation, and pervasive violence against
women and girls undermines the recovery of entire communities and
countries affected by violence or disaster. International humanitarian
actors must design efforts to address the distinct needs of women and
girls, including women's economic security, safety and dignity.
Question. In past years, the United States has sought to ensure
that at least 50% of all refugees referred by UNHCR were considered for
U.S. resettlement. Today, the Trump administration has gutted the U.S.
refugee resettlement program and reduced the refugee ceiling for FY 20
to the historic low of 18,000 people. Do you think the United States
should be a leading country for the resettlement of refugees, the
majority whom are vulnerable women and children? Or, do you support the
President's abdication of U.S. leadership in this area?
Answer. If confirmed, I am committed to coordinating efforts across
the Department to address the underlying issues that expose refugees
and internally displaced persons, particularly women and girls, to
additional risks of violence and exploitation. As the U.S. Strategy on
Women, Peace, and Security states, women cannot fully participate in
the prevention or resolution of conflict or participate in recovery
efforts if they themselves are victims of violence or intimidation, and
pervasive violence against women and girls undermines the recovery of
entire communities and countries affected by violence or disaster.
International humanitarian actors must design efforts to address the
distinct needs of women and girls, including women's economic security,
safety and dignity.
Question. Many asylum seekers fleeing Central American are women
and girls fleeing well-documented, and widespread sexual violence and
extortion by gangs and drug cartels in Honduras, Guatemala, and El
Salvador.
Do you agree with President Trump's decision to practically-
speaking shut the door on these women and children seeking U.S.
asylum at our southern border?
Answer. If confirmed, I commit to working within the Department to
address root causes of burgeoning immigration as they relate to women
and girls--such as sexual violence and lack of economic opportunity for
women--and work with others in the USG to address the broad security,
governance, and economic drivers of immigration from Central America.
Question. According to remarks by Secretary Pompeo, he established
a State Department Commission on Unalienable Rights to ``make sure that
we have a solid definition of human rights upon which to tell all our
diplomats around the world.''
Do you believe that women's human rights, including the right to be
free from domestic violence and to access reproductive
healthcare, are a part of a ``solid definition of human
rights?''
Answer. Secretary Pompeo has asked members of the Department of
State's Commission on Unalienable Rights to assess rights that are by
their nature intrinsic and inherent, i.e. enjoyed by everyone, at all
times. Unalienable rights are the ultimate ``universal'' rights. The
United States was founded on the principle that all human beings are
born free and equal in rights, and therefore in dignity. This is the
aspiration that is embodied in our Declaration of Independence, and
reflected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Since our
founding, and to this day, we as a nation have struggled--often at
great costs--to move towards the fulfillment of this aspiration,
including for women. I am proud that today the United States plays a
leading role in supporting the rights of women and girls around the
world, working to strengthen democratic, transparent, representative,
and responsive governance that includes the voices of women and
marginalized communities. If confirmed, I will be honored to uphold
this leadership and fully support this U.S. commitment.
Question. During the past year, there have been reports that U.S.
officials have sought to remove language on sexual and reproductive
health from U.N. documents addressing women's issues and the State
Department's annual human rights reports. Most recently, administration
officials reportedly requested that such language be removed from a
draft U.N. Security Council Resolution on women, peace, and security
that addressed sexual violence in conflict.
To your knowledge, what are the administration's concerns about
such language and do you share them?
Answer. The United States was responsible for the first-ever
resolution in the Security Council on sexual violence in armed
conflict, and has consistently fought to ensure that this issue remains
on the Council's agenda--including over the objections of certain
Council members. My understanding is that another delegation proposed a
draft resolution that contained a number of problematic proposals, some
of which were contrary to the hard-fought consensus that successive
U.S. administrations had carefully built and preserved within the
Council over a period of many years. After difficult negotiations,
including the introduction of a poison pill text that would have set
this agenda back more than a decade, Council members were able to
achieve consensus on a resolution text that maintained the status quo
and allowed for some additional scope for the work of the Special
Representative of the Secretary General on Sexual Violence in Conflict.
The administration remains a strong supporter of the SRSG's work, and I
have personally met with her several times to discuss issues of shared
concern. If confirmed, I pledge to continue to support her efforts to
prevent conflict-related sexual violence and assist the victims of
these heinous crimes.
Question. I have serious concerns around U.S. policies restricting
access to sexual and reproductive health and rights globally, including
during your tenure at USUN. On top of State Department policies such as
the use of a false justification to defund UNFPA and the massive
expansion of the Global Gag Rule, U.S. negotiators at the U.N. have
been taking an unprecedented hardline position against sexual and
reproductive health and rights, including long-standing agreed language
on sexual and reproductive health access for communities worldwide.
Question. Given that access to sexual and reproductive health
services, as well as the full protection of sexual and reproductive
rights, is an essential component to any meaningful progress on women's
economic empowerment, how will you work to ensure that the U.S. is not
erecting additional barriers on sexual and reproductive health and
rights globally?
Answer. The United States remains the largest provider of women's
health assistance, including for family planning, in the world. It is
the policy of this administration, consistent with the laws of the
United States, that U.S. taxpayer dollars should not be used to promote
or provide abortion as a method of family planning. The administration
supports the 1994 ICPD Program of Action and the 1995 Beijing
consensus, neither of which includes an international right to
abortion. In supporting the highest attainable standard of health for
women and girls, the administration will seek to ensure that programs
and activities that receive U.S. taxpayer funding are carried out in a
manner consistent with U.S. law. Recognizing that different countries
have different approaches to these sensitive issues, if confirmed, I
will seek to find consensus with a wide group of Member States on
terminology that captures our common commitment to meeting the health
needs of women and girls in conflict settings, while still respecting
national political spaces and prerogatives.
Question. Do you commit to respond promptly to all requests for
information by members of this committee?
Answer. Yes, with the understanding that any such response would be
organized through the Department of State's Bureau of Legislative
Affairs and conducted in accordance with long-standing Department and
Executive Branch practice.
Question. Do you commit to appear before this committee upon
request?
Answer. Yes, with the understanding that any appearance would be
organized through the Department of State's Bureau of Legislative
Affairs and conducted in accordance with long-standing Department and
Executive Branch practice.
Question. If you become aware of any suspected waste, fraud, or
abuse in the Department, do you commit to report it to the Inspector
General?
Answer. I commit to comply with all ethics laws, regulations, and
rules, and to raise concerns that I may have through appropriate
channels.
Question. Has anyone ever made a formal or informal complaint or
allegation of sexual harassment, discrimination (e.g., racial, ethnic,
religious, etc.), or inappropriate conduct against you, in a workplace
or any other setting?
Answer. I am not aware of any such incidents.
Question. If so, please describe the nature of the complaint or
allegation, your response, and any resolution, including any
settlements.
Answer. To my knowledge, no complaint or allegation has been
brought forward against me.
Question. Have you ever addressed concerns or allegations of sexual
harassment, discrimination (e.g., racial, ethnic, religious, etc.), or
inappropriate conduct made against any employee over whom you had
supervisory authority?
Answer. I am committed to providing a workplace that is free from
sexual harassment. Sexual harassment in the workplace is against the
law and will not be tolerated. The Department mandates annual
harassment training for all employees. I agree that supervisors who
observe, are informed of, or reasonably suspect incidents of possible
sexual harassment should immediately report such incidents to the
appropriate parties. I support the Department policies and my
obligation to report and address allegations of sexual and/or
discriminatory harassment. To my knowledge, neither I nor any employee
I have directly supervised has been involved in any such incident, but
if confirmed, I commit take effective measures to address any concerns
or allegations within the Office of Global Women's Issues should such a
need arise.
Question. If so, please describe the outcome and actions taken.
Answer. I have nothing to report.
Question. Do you agree that any targeting of or retaliation against
career employees based on their perceived political beliefs, prior work
on policy, or affiliation with a previous administration, is wholly
inappropriate and has no place in the federal government?
Answer. All federal government employees must comply with federal
statutes, including personnel law and the Hatch Act, as well as ethics
rules and Department policy that uphold merit principles and bar
retaliation based on perceived political beliefs or long-term
government service. If confirmed, I commit to comply with all relevant
federal ethics laws, regulations and rules, and to raise concerns that
I may have through appropriate channels.
Question. If confirmed, what will you do to ensure that all
employees under your leadership understand that any retaliation,
blacklisting, or other prohibited personnel practices will not be
tolerated?
Answer. All federal government employees must comply with federal
statutes, including personnel law and the Hatch Act, as well as ethics
rules and Department policy that uphold merit principles and bar
retaliation based on perceived political beliefs or long-term
government service. If confirmed, I commit to comply with all relevant
federal ethics laws, regulations and rules, and to raise concerns that
I may have through appropriate channels.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted to
Kelley Eckels Currie by Senator Benjamin L. Cardin
Question. What are the most important actions you have taken in
your career to date to promote human rights and democracy? What has
been the impact of your actions?
Answer. I have spent my entire career working to promote human
rights and democracy. During nearly five years as the Republican staff
director for the Congressional Human Rights Caucus and as foreign
operations appropriations associate for Congressman John Porter, I
worked to curtail military assistance to countries over human rights
abuses by their security forces; tighten restrictions on Burma; and
expand financial support to democracy and human rights promotion
efforts, including securing the first appropriation for Radio Free
Asia. I also helped to develop the Caucus' ?adopt a political prisoner?
program that paired Members of Congress with Chinese and Tibetan
political prisoners, and encouraged the Members to advocate for
improved treatment and release of their `adopted' prisoner. I vividly
remember the day that I met Jigme Sangpo, the long-serving Tibetan
political prisoner our office had adopted, after he was released and
exiled to Switzerland on medical parole. It was one of the highlights
of my life to see him free.
After leaving Capitol Hill to work for the International Republican
Institute (IRI), I was fortunate to work on IRI's programs in Southeast
Asia, including: helping to set up IRI's operations in Indonesia during
its democratic transition and in Timor Leste during the establishment
of its independence; managing IRI's support to the Burmese democracy
movement at a critical juncture, when the military junta was engaged in
one of its most severe crackdowns; and setting up a new program in
Laos. In 2000, I helped a group of former Burmese political prisoners
to launch an organization to provide humanitarian support to, and
conduct documentation and advocacy on behalf of, Burma's thousands of
political prisoners. Today, the Assistance Association for Political
Prisoners (AAPP) remains one of the most important civil society
organizations in the country and a key player in promoting legal and
political reform as part of Burma's transition.
While working as the Director of government Relations for the
International Campaign for Tibet, I carried out documentation, advocacy
and legislative initiatives on human rights and refugee issues related
to Tibet. I also supported Special Envoy Lodi Gyari while he was
engaged in the negotiations with the Chinese government; secured
critical funding for Tibetan refugee and cultural preservation
programs; and managed several successful Washington DC visits by His
Holiness the Dalai Lama. This experience was invaluable when I joined
the Office of the Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues under
Ambassador Paula Dobriansky, and worked to institutionalize the Tibetan
Policy Act in U.S. policy and implement U.S. efforts to preserve
Tibetan culture inside Tibet.
While serving as a Senior Fellow at Project 2049 Institute, I
conducted research and programming on human rights and political reform
in the Asia-Pacific. I founded the Institute's Burma program, which
included managing a multi-year grant from the Department of State's
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. In addition to two large
awards to key Burmese civil society groups, the program included a
small grants program that identified and supported small Burmese
organizations and catalytic individuals who were helping to push
forward human rights and democracy in that country. My work with them
was among the most consequential and personally fulfilling I have done.
Since rejoining the executive branch in August 2017, both my
posting at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations and my current job
managing the office of Global Criminal Justice have featured a strong
human rights orientation. In New York, I oversaw the passage of a new
resolution on Freedom of Expression during the 2018-2019 General
Assembly session, and fought to push back on Chinese efforts to
undermine the normative human rights framework in the U.N. I also led
the Mission's efforts to strengthen the role of U.N. Headquarters in
New York in the U.N.'s human rights pillar as part of the Mission's
Human Rights Council reform initiative. Since returning to Washington
earlier this year, I have been deeply involved in the administration's
advocacy on behalf of Uighurs and other Muslim minorities who are
facing severe repression in Xinjiang, and accountability efforts
regarding Burma, Syria, ISIS, Sudan and South Sudan, among others.
Question. What will you do to promote, mentor and support your
staff that come from diverse backgrounds and underrepresented groups in
the Bureau for Global Women's Issues?
Answer. Throughout my career, I have benefitted personally and
professionally from working with colleagues with diverse backgrounds
and experiences. My personal approach to staffing is to find the best
person for the job regardless of race, gender, religious, or other
background, but I seek to promote candidates from underrepresented
groups and diverse backgrounds. I have also found it deeply rewarding
to mentor young women in the field of foreign and security policy. As
staffing positions become available, if confirmed, I will work with the
Department's human resources officials to draw from the broadest and
most diverse candidate pool to ensure that GWI's team continues to lead
the way as a rewarding and exciting office that showcases the best of
America's federal workforce.
Question. What steps will you take to ensure each of the
supervisors in the Bureau for Global Women's Issues are fostering an
environment that is diverse and inclusive?
Answer. I support the Department of State's policy of equal
opportunity and fair and equitable treatment in employment to all
people without discrimination. If confirmed, I will strive to ensure
each supervisor promotes, mentors, and supports all members of the
Office of Global Women's Issues.
Question. Do you commit to bring to the committee's attention (and
the Inspector General of the State Department) any change in policy or
U.S. actions that you suspect may be influenced by any of the
President's business or financial interests, or the business or
financial interests of any senior White House staff?
Answer. I commit to comply with all ethics laws, regulations, and
rules, and to raise concerns that I may have through appropriate
channels.
Question. Do you commit to inform the committee if you have any
reason to suspect that a foreign government, head of state, or foreign-
controlled entity is taking any action in order to benefit any of the
President's business or financial interests, or the interests of senior
White House staff?
Answer. I commit to comply with all ethics laws, regulations, and
rules, and to raise concerns that I may have through appropriate
channels.
Question. Do you or do any members of your immediate family have
any financial interests in any country abroad?
Answer. No.
Question. Advancing the rights of women and girls globally should
be central to U.S. foreign policy. The Office of Global Women's Issues
leads the Department's efforts to include women and girls in U.S.
diplomacy, partnerships, and programs, and to promote their rights and
wellbeing around the world.
Please describe your experience as a champion for the equality,
rights, and empowerment of women and girls. How have you
leveraged your role in the U.S. government to advance women's
and girls' rights specifically?
Answer. As I mentioned in my testimony, I have had the tremendous
honor throughout my career to work alongside and learn from so many
amazing advocates, practitioners, political leaders, and survivors. I
have also had the privilege of serving under the Under Secretary of
State for Global Affairs Dobriansky, who led the Bush administration's
global women's issues efforts. In every position I have held, whether
in government or outside, I have always looked for opportunities to
promote the rights of women and girls. Whether it was supporting
women's political participation at the country level while working at
IRI or working on sexual violence in armed conflict at the U.N.
Security Council, these issues have always been of fundamental
importance to my work. I ensured that my team at the U.S. Mission to
the U.N. was comprised of strong women leaders who demonstrated every
day our firm commitment to equality, fundamental freedoms and women's
empowerment.
Question. What more can the U.S. government broadly, and GWI
specifically, do to lead by example on women's empowerment?
Answer. Advancing the role of women and girls around the world,
socially, politically, and economically, is central to achieving U.S.
foreign policy goals, and it is something to which I am deeply
committed. We have to focus our efforts, build new partnerships with
the international community, effectively utilize the new tools Congress
and the White House have built out, and be bold in our advocacy. But we
cannot do this alone; we need strong partners here in the United States
and abroad.
If confirmed, I look forward to working with our colleagues and
counterparts across the U.S. government and around the world to advance
and protect the rights of women and girls. I believe GWI should be the
policy and diplomatic focal point for U.S. leadership on the Women,
Peace and Security and Women's Global Development and Prosperity
agendas, and look forward to working with Congress to ensure U.S.
leadership on these key initiatives.
Question. What is your opinion on whether the Office of Global
Women's Issues and the Ambassador-at-large position for Global Women's
Issues be enacted into law?
Answer. I believe that decision resides with Congress. If
confirmed, I look forward to leveraging the position of Ambassador-at-
Large for Global Women's Issues to its fullest extent.
Question. The Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women's Issues must
espouse a commitment to opposing all forms of discrimination and
violence, and to empowering vulnerable populations, including
religious, racial and ethnic minorities; indigenous peoples; people
with disabilities; LGBTQI; people living with HIV or AIDS; migrants,
refugees and internally displaced people; older persons, married or
unmarried adolescents and youth; widows; or people who are economically
disadvantaged.
How have you demonstrated this commitment to opposing
discrimination in your career so far?
Answer. Throughout my career, I have had the privilege to serve in
various roles working to advance human rights protections for all, and
defend the rights of women and girls from regimes that are threatened
by the idea of freedom and equality. This included early efforts to
raise awareness about the Taliban's treatment of women in Afghanistan
and the Burmese military's systematic use of sexual violence against
ethnic women. From refugee camps to interagency policy discussions, I
have seen far too often how women's voices are marginalized, overlooked
and ignored. As someone who has faced discrimination and difficulty in
my own career, I try to be an effective and contentious mentor and
supervisor. I believe it is vitally important for women who have
achieved positions of leadership to ensure we are using our voices not
only to highlight critical issues that are often overlooked in national
security and foreign policy, but also to encourage the next generation
of women leaders.
Question. How will you address attempts within the administration
to limit the rights of these marginalized populations?
Answer. I believe respect for the rights and freedoms of others is
not only at the core of our nation, but also the foundation of
effective diplomacy and a stable foreign policy. If confirmed, I look
forward to working with our colleagues and counterparts across the U.S.
government and around the world to advance and protect the rights of
all women and girls.
Question. The Office of Global Women's Issues plays a critical role
in advancing several government-wide policies aimed at effectively
promoting women's and girls' rights around the world, including the:
(1) U.S. Global Strategy to Empower Adolescent Girls; (2) U.S. Strategy
to Prevent and Respond to Gender-Based Violence Globally; and the (3)
U.S. Strategy on Women, Peace, and Security, amongst others. The
overarching purpose of these policies is to integrate advancing the
rights of women and girls into the United States' foreign policy and
assistance.
How familiar are you with these strategies and the role the
Ambassador, the GWI office, and the State Department play in
implementing them?
Answer. I am familiar with these strategies. If confirmed, I commit
to using these and other tools to strengthen the Department's capacity
to promote women's empowerment and advance the status of women and
girls worldwide. I will seek to ensure that issues impacting women and
girls are fully integrated in the formulation and conduct of U.S.
foreign policy, and support a whole-of-government approach to
addressing these challenges.
Question. If confirmed as Ambassador, what immediate steps will you
take to ensure effective and accountable implementation of these
strategies in the State Department and across the U.S. government?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to leverage the expertise and
reach of our Department bureaus, offices, and embassies, and the
broader interagency available to advance these objectives. I see the
Ambassador at Large for GWI as a critical element in the implementation
of these strategies by the State Department and other relevant
agencies, as well as key allies and multi-lateral partners. By
leveraging the diplomatic reach and policy expertise of the Department,
and the GWI office in particular, I look forward to leading U.S.
government efforts to mainstream protection and promotion of the rights
of women and girls into our national security and foreign policy
apparatus at all levels.
Question. What is your assessment of the Trump administration's
latest Women, Peace, and Security strategy?
Answer. I support the Trump administration's commitment to
protecting the United States and promoting global peace and stability
by enhancing women's leadership in efforts to prevent conflict, stem
terrorism, and promote security around the world. I am proud that the
United States was the first country to pass a legislative framework to
implement UNSCR 1325, and that we continue to lead with our new WPS
Strategy.
The WPS Strategy directs various departments and agencies with
foreign policy and assistance missions to increase efforts to guarantee
the meaningful participation of women in conflict resolution and
disaster recovery; to increase women and girls' level of physical
safety, access to assistance, and justice in areas experiencing
conflict or disaster; and to ensure that the impact of our efforts are
lasting. If confirmed, I commit to leveraging all available resources
and Department tools to advance this goal.
Question. As Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Western
Hemisphere, Transnational Crime, Civilian Security, Democracy, Human
Rights, and Global Women's Issues, I was proud to cosponsor the Women,
Peace, and Security Act of 2017 that calls for the creation of a Women,
Peace, and Security Strategy and seeks to promote women's meaningful
participation in conflict prevention around the world. Studies have
shown that when women have meaningful involvement in peace processes,
the outcomes are more successful and peace lasts longer. Women are more
likely to build coalitions, speak up for marginalized groups, and
promote human rights and national reconciliation.
If confirmed, what will you do to encourage countries to include
women in decision making and peace processes?
Answer. I am committed to advancing women's meaningful
participation in decision making and peace processes. Women's
leadership in peace processes positively correlates with the reduction
of armed conflict, the sustainability of peace agreements and post-
conflict political frameworks, the evolution of democratic systems of
governance, and the long-term security and recovery of communities and
nations.
If confirmed, I commit to leveraging all available resources and
Department tools to advance this goal, including the WPS Strategy.
Question. What challenges would you face in trying to increase
women's participation in countries that historically do not include
women in decision making roles? How do you plan to overcome these
challenges?
Answer. Supporting women's participation, voice, and empowerment in
decision-making about security issues is key to achieving U.S. foreign
policy goals, to which I am committed. Although they have led peace
movements and driven community-led recovery efforts, women have
historically been absent from places where decisions are made about
their countries' and communities' future, such as relief and recovery
programs, peace negotiations, political office, and security
institutions.
If confirmed, I commit to encouraging countries to promote
political and social equality, and addressing legal, cultural, and
historical barriers, including violence against women that preclude
women's participation in decision making roles.
Question. As you know, in the 115th Congress, Senator Boozman and I
sponsored the Women's Entrepreneurship and Economic Empowerment Act
(WEEE Act), which was signed into law at the end of 2018. Among other
things, the WEEE Act requires that 50 percent of USAID's small and
medium sized enterprise resources be targeted to reach those controlled
by women, and makes it USAID policy to reduce gender disparity related
to economic opportunity.
How can the U.S. government better lead by example on women's
empowerment?
Answer. The whole of government approach to the Women's Global
Development and Prosperity Initiative and the Women, Peace, and
Security Act boldly showcases to the world how ensuring women's
empowerment both requires a holistic approach and directly impacts
national security and prosperity. I am proud of the administration's
leadership in developing these innovative tools to promote women's
economic and political empowerment, and am committed to advancing these
and other initiatives, if confirmed.
Question. If confirmed, how do you plan to work with the White
House to advance the mission of the GWI office?
Answer. I look forward to working with the National Security
Council, National Economic Council, the Office of Economic Initiatives
and other relevant partners across the executive branch to advance
women's empowerment. The GWI office will have a critical leadership
role in coordinating the whole-of-government efforts to advance the
Women's Global Development and Prosperity Initiative and the U.S.
Strategy on Women, Peace, and Security and, if confirmed, I look
forward to working closely and collaboratively to ensure we are using
all the tools at our disposal to move these agendas forward.
Question. As Ambassador at-large for Global Women's Issues, how
will you ensure that the health and protection needs of women and girls
in crises around the world are being met when the State Department has
decided to defund one of the largest providers of lifesaving care in
these settings?
Answer. I am committed to advancing the health and protection needs
of women and girls globally. The United States remains the largest
provider of health assistance for women and girls in the world, and we
will continue to be a leading funder of family planning, child and
maternal health, HIV/AIDS, cancer research and treatment, and other
programs that address the life-long health needs of women and girls.
These efforts are critical, as the good health of women and girls
positively impacts the health, stability, and development of their
families and communities. If confirmed, I look forward to working with
Congress and my colleagues within the Department on this important
issue.
Question. During the past year, there have been reports that U.S.
officials have sought to remove language on sexual and reproductive
health from U.N. documents addressing women's issues and the State
Department's annual human rights reports. Most recently, administration
officials reportedly requested that such language be removed from a
draft U.N. Security Council Resolution on women, peace, and security
that addressed sexual violence in conflict.
To your knowledge, what are the administration's concerns about
such language?
Answer. The United States was responsible for the first-ever
resolution in the Security Council on sexual violence in armed
conflict, and has consistently fought to ensure that this issue remains
on the Council's agenda--including over the objections of certain
Council members. My understanding is that another delegation proposed a
draft resolution that contained a number of problematic proposals, some
of which were contrary to the hard-fought consensus that successive
U.S. administrations had carefully built and preserved within the
Council over a period of many years. After difficult negotiations,
including the introduction of a poison pill text that would have set
this agenda back more than a decade, Council members were able to
achieve consensus on a resolution text that maintained the status quo
and allowed for some additional scope for the work of the Special
Representative of the Secretary General on Sexual Violence in Conflict.
The administration remains a strong supporter of the SRSG's work, and I
have personally met with her several times to discuss issues of shared
concern. If confirmed, I pledge to continue to support her efforts to
prevent conflict-related sexual violence and assist the victims of
these heinous crimes.
Question. Do you share those concerns? If not, how do you plan to
address this issue as Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women's Issues?
Answer. It is the policy of this administration, consistent with
the laws of the United States, that U.S. taxpayer dollars should not be
used to promote or provide abortion as a method of family planning. The
administration supports the 1995 Beijing consensus and the ICPD,
neither of which includes an international right to abortion. In
supporting the highest attainable standard of health for women and
girls, the administration will seek to ensure that programs and
activities that receive U.S. taxpayer funding are carried out in a
manner consistent with U.S. law. Recognizing that different countries
have different approaches to these sensitive issues, if confirmed, I
will seek to find consensus with a wide group of Member States on
terminology that captures our common commitment to meeting the health
needs of women and girls in conflict settings, while still respecting
national political spaces and prerogatives.
Question. I strongly believe that women's access to health care,
including sexual and reproductive health care like modern
contraceptives, plays a significant role in their ability to advance
their education, participate in the economy, and support their families
and communities.
Do you believe women's ability to control their own sexual and
reproductive health is essential for them to have agency over
other aspects of their lives?
Answer. I am committed to advancing the health and well-being of
women and girls globally. These efforts are critical, as the good
health of women and girls positively affects the health, stability and
development of their families and communities. If confirmed, I look
forward to working with Congress and my colleagues within the
Department on this important issue.
Question. If confirmed, how do you plan to ensure the U.S. is not
imposing additional barriers on women's critical right to fully
participate in their education, economy, and community?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to working with Congress and
my colleagues within the Department on this important issue. I support
ongoing U.S. efforts to ensure that women and girls achieve the highest
attainable standard of health and well-being. I commit to addressing
the many legal, cultural, and historical barriers, including violence
against women that preclude girls' access to health care, quality
education and women's participation in the workforce.
Question. In February 2019, the Trump administration launched the
Women's Global Development and Prosperity (W-GDP) Initiative, which
aims to bring economic empowerment to the forefront of the U.S.
development agenda by focusing on workforce development (ensuring women
have the necessary skills to achieve economic empowerment); women
entrepreneurs (ensuring women have equal access to capital networks
they need to succeed in business); and enabling environments (changing
laws, policies and norms that have limited women's economic potential).
What is your assessment of this initiative and what role should GWI
play in its implementation?
Answer. I am proud of the administration's commitment to women's
economic empowerment through the Women's Global Development and
Prosperity Initiative and am committed to advancing this ambitious
initiative, if confirmed. I will work across the Department of State to
carry out the diplomatic and policy tasks required to deliver on this
agenda. In particular, identifying and reducing the policy, legal,
political and regulatory barriers faced by women is critical to
building a strong and durable foundation for women's economic
empowerment. I look forward to leading U.S. efforts on this front.
Question. How does it differ from previous U.S. efforts to address
women's economic empowerment?
Answer. The Women's Global Development and Prosperity Initiative is
the Federal government's first integrated approach to global women's
economic empowerment across multiple departments and agencies. The
National Security Presidential Memorandum that the President signed on
this initiative specifically focuses on women's economic empowerment
and highlights women's economic empowerment as a national security
issue.
Question. What challenges do you think are likely in its
implementation and how can they most effectively be addressed?
Answer. The target of 50 million women reached is ambitious and
intended to focus our efforts beyond the length of the administration.
I believe making real progress on this issue will require sustained
work over multiple years under strong leadership. By looking ahead to
2025, we must align our programs, partnerships, and resources over the
long term to ensure our impact is lasting. If confirmed, I will strive
to align and advance all existing efforts to help achieve this target.
Question. Research has found that access to quality education for
girls can lead to increased economic empowerment and independence for
women. Yet significant barriers to girls' education remain, including
gender-based violence and other safety concerns, lack of nearby
schools, family or societal pressure not to enroll in school or to drop
out, and limited financial resources for textbooks or other supplies.
How, if at all, should GWI work to address these issues and what
challenges do you anticipate?
Answer. It is important to harness bilateral and regional
diplomacy, multilateral diplomacy, public diplomacy, and programming to
encourage counterparts in other countries to support progress toward
the advancement of the status of women and girls, and address harmful
traditional practices that serves as barriers to participation. If
confirmed, I will strongly advocate for the girls of today to be the
leaders of tomorrow in every nation and every sector of the economy.
Question. Many experts contend that efforts to address
international violence against women should focus not only on treatment
and services for victims of violence, but also on eliminating certain
traditional practices that are harmful to women and present significant
health risks. Because these practices are often a part of a community's
culture, however, programs that introduce treatment and services may
meet resistance.
Does the U.S. government support programs that address such
traditional practices? Have these programs been successful?
How, if at all, can they be improved?
Answer. The prevention of violence against women and girls,
including the harmful traditional practices of female genital
mutilation and cutting and early and forced marriage, is critical to
achieving the equality and empowerment of women and girls. I understand
that various offices and agencies in the U.S. government manage
programmatic efforts that seek to address these harmful traditional
practices and, if confirmed, I will continue to support such efforts.
Question. Sexual and gender based violence (SGBV) is a violation of
human rights. It denies the human dignity of the individual and hurts
human development. The United States has sought to elevate the issue of
SGBV in conflict-affected settings. Despite these efforts, protection
in humanitarian and conflict settings remains an ongoing challenge.
Question. What are the Trump administration's priorities in
addressing SGBV?
Answer. I am committed to preventing and responding to sexual and
gender-based violence, especially violence against women and girls. Per
the Women's Global Development and Prosperity Initiative and the Women,
Peace and Security strategy, efforts to address violence against women
and girls are critical to addressing barriers to economic empowerment,
peace and security, and political participation. If confirmed, I pledge
to focus on using these tools to combat violence against women and
girls across U.S. foreign and national security policy efforts.
Question. To your knowledge, to what extent is the current
administration continuing to implement the strategy initiated by
President Obama?
Answer. I firmly see the Women's Global Development and Prosperity
Initiative and the U.S. Strategy on Women, Peace, and Security as
foundational priorities for this administration. The Office of Global
Women's Issues serves to strengthen the Department's capacity to
promote women's equality and advance the status of women and girls
worldwide, and seeks to ensure that issues impacting women are fully
integrated in the formulation and conduct of U.S. foreign policy. If
confirmed, I will continue to leverage all available resources and
tools to advance this goal.
Question. What, if any, are the areas of divergence?
Answer. I am not aware of the specific areas of divergence in which
you are referring.
Question. If confirmed, will you commit to work with Congress on
GBV-related issues?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to work with Congress on
issues related to violence against women and girls.
Question. To what extent, if any, will GWI coordinate its efforts
with other State Department and USAID offices on this issue,
particularly through PRM and the Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster
Assistance (OFDA)?
Answer. If confirmed, I commit to working with other State
Department and USAID offices on efforts to prevent and respond to
violence against women and girls.
Question. What are the SGBV risks and challenges that displaced
women and girls face, and how can international humanitarian actors
mitigate them?
Answer. Breakdowns in the rule of law and forced displacement from
conflict and disaster expose refugees and internally displaced persons,
particularly women and girls, to additional risks of violence and
exploitation. As the U.S. Strategy on Women, Peace, and Security
states, women cannot fully participate in the prevention or resolution
of conflict or participate in recovery efforts if they themselves are
victims of violence or intimidation, and pervasive violence against
women and girls undermines the recovery of entire communities and
countries affected by violence or disaster. International humanitarian
actors must design efforts to address the distinct needs of women and
girls, including women's economic security, safety and dignity.
Question. How, if at all, would you incorporate SGBV in the work of
GWI?
Answer. If confirmed, I would ensure that efforts to prevent and
respond to violence against women and girls continue to be a priority
for the Office of Global Women's Issues. The administration's
priorities on women's economic empowerment and women, peace, and
security, cannot be fully achieved if women and girls face violence in
their homes, communities, and places of work.
Question. This administration radically expanded the global gag
rule to apply to all global health assistance, and earlier this year
Secretary Pompeo announced in a press conference recently that the
State Department would be taking action to ``implement this policy to
the broadest extent possible.''
What actions will you take as the leader of Global Women's Issues
to address gaps in services that disproportionately impact
women and girls?
Answer. Global health programs are primarily the responsibility of
other agencies and offices in the U.S. government, including USAID and
the Department of Health and Human Services, but if confirmed, I will
work with my colleagues across the administration to help support our
global health objectives while safeguarding U.S. taxpayer dollars and
protecting the sanctity of life for people all around the globe.
Question. UNFPA, the U.N. agency mandated to provide reproductive
health care and coordinate GBV prevention and response in humanitarian
emergencies, has been deemed ineligible to receive U.S. funding due to
the administration's politically motivated negative Kemp-Kasten
determination.
How will you ensure that the health and protection needs of women
and girls in crises around the world are being met when the
State Department has decided to defund one of the largest
providers of lifesaving care in these settings?
Answer. The United States remains the largest funder of women's
health and family planning assistance in the world, providing more than
$400 million a year to programs in this area, including for health
services for refugee and IDP women and girls. The Department also
supports concrete steps to reduce child, early, and forced marriage;
prevent violence, human trafficking, and HIV in adolescent girls and
young women; and encourage governments to take steps to deliver quality
education. If confirmed, I look forward to working with Congress and my
colleagues within the Department on this important issue.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted to Kelley Eckels Currie by Senator Edward J. Markey
Question. The State Department Commission on Unalienable Rights was
established to ``make sure that we have a solid definition of human
rights upon which to tell all our diplomats around the world,''
according to Secretary Pompeo.
Do you believe a ``solid definition of human rights'' includes
women's human rights to be free from domestic violence and to
access reproductive healthcare?
Answer. Secretary Pompeo has asked members of the Department of
State's Commission on Unalienable Rights to assess rights that are by
their nature intrinsic and inherent, i.e. enjoyed by everyone, at all
times. Unalienable rights are the ultimate ``universal'' rights. The
United States was founded on the principle that all human beings are
born free and equal in rights, and therefore in dignity. This is the
aspiration that is embodied in our Declaration of Independence, and
reflected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Since our
founding, and to this day, we as a nation have struggled--often at
great costs--to move towards the fulfillment of this aspiration,
including for women. I am proud that today the United States plays a
leading role in supporting the rights of women and girls around the
world, working to strengthen democratic, transparent, representative,
and responsive governance that includes the voices of women and
marginalized communities. If confirmed, I will be honored to uphold
this leadership and fully support this U.S. commitment.
Question. During the past year, press reports indicate that U.S.
officials sought to remove language on sexual and reproductive health
services from U.N. resolutions, reports, and documents as well as from
the State Department's annual human rights reports. Recently,
administration officials reportedly requested that such language be
removed from a draft U.N. Security Council Resolution on women, peace,
and security that addressed sexual violence in conflict.
To your knowledge, what are the administration's concerns about
such language and do you share them?
Answer. The United States was responsible for the first-ever
resolution in the Security Council on sexual violence in armed
conflict, and has consistently fought to ensure that this issue remains
on the Council's agenda--including over the objections of certain
Council members. My understanding is that another delegation proposed a
draft resolution that contained a number of problematic proposals, some
of which were contrary to the hard-fought consensus that successive
U.S. administrations had carefully built and preserved within the
Council over a period of many years. After difficult negotiations,
including the introduction of a poison pill text that would have set
this agenda back more than a decade, Council members were able to
achieve consensus on a resolution text that maintained the status quo
and allowed for some additional scope for the work of the Special
Representative of the Secretary General on Sexual Violence in Conflict.
The administration remains a strong supporter of the SRSG's work, and I
have personally met with her several times to discuss issues of shared
concern. If confirmed, I pledge to continue to support her efforts to
prevent conflict-related sexual violence and assist the victims of
these heinous crimes
Question. During the past year, press reports indicate that U.S.
officials sought to remove language on sexual and reproductive health
services from U.N. resolutions, reports, and documents as well as from
the State Department's annual human rights reports. Recently,
administration officials reportedly requested that such language be
removed from a draft U.N. Security Council Resolution on women, peace,
and security that addressed sexual violence in conflict.
If confirmed, how would you work to ensure that the United States
is not erecting barriers on sexual and reproductive health and
rights globally?
Answer. The United States remains the largest provider of women's
health assistance, including for family planning, in the world. It is
the policy of this administration, consistent with the laws of the
United States, that U.S. taxpayer dollars should not be used to promote
or provide abortion as a method of family planning. The administration
supports the 1994 ICPD Program of Action and the 1995 Beijing
Consensus, neither of which includes an international right to
abortion. In supporting the highest attainable standard of health for
women and girls, the administration will seek to ensure that programs
and activities that receive U.S. taxpayer funding are carried out in a
manner consistent with U.S. law. Recognizing that different countries
have different approaches to these sensitive issues, if confirmed, I
will seek to find consensus with a wide group of Member States on
terminology that captures our common commitment to meeting the health
needs of women and girls in conflict settings, while still respecting
national political spaces and prerogatives.
Question. In June 2019, the Trump administration released the U.S.
Strategy on Women, Peace, and Security. This strategy seemed to suggest
a long-overdue understanding that women were a core tenet of U.S.
foreign policy--that women deserved a seat at the table. However, the
administration recently abandoned Kurdish allies, including Kurdish
women who dedicated themselves to our cause, fought violent extremism
on our behalf and for freedom and peace in their communities. In
Rojava, in northeast Syria, Kurdish women have earned representation in
every aspect of society. They have taken up arms, and now fight in all
female militias. Local communal assemblies are reportedly always co-
chaired by a woman. Even female politicians hold sway, giving voice to
those where it is most needed.
If confirmed, what would you do to empower Kurdish women and help
them maintain the rights they had before Turkey's military
operations in Syria, considering most experienced NGOs are
finding it difficult to impossible to operate there at this
time?
Answer. The State Department has a storied history in working with
the ethnic and religious minorities in Syria to maintain their safety
and rights, and I am extremely concerned by the reports of hundreds of
thousands of displaced people, including Kurdish women, in the
northeast Syria. I know that it is women and children who often bear
the brunt of violence and suffering in war and conflict. President
Trump has called on Turkey to ensure access for international
humanitarian organizations and facilitate the urgent delivery of
humanitarian assistance to those in need and displaced by the violence,
and to ensure that those operating under its authority conduct their
actions according to international humanitarian and human rights law.
The administration is currently working to implement the President's
announcement that the United States intends to obligate $50M in
stabilization assistance to protect members of persecuted ethnic and
religious minority groups, including Kurdish women, and advance human
rights and accountability in Syria. If confirmed, I will work with the
relevant bureaus and offices at the State Department and across the
U.S. government to ensure that our policies and programs in Syria are
sensitive to the protection of women and girls.
Question. What do you see as the U.S. role in refugee resettlement?
Answer. If confirmed, I am committed to coordinating efforts across
the Department to address the underlying issues that expose refugees
and internally displaced persons, particularly women and girls, to
additional risks of violence and exploitation. As the U.S. Strategy on
Women, Peace, and Security states, women cannot fully participate in
the prevention or resolution of conflict or participate in recovery
efforts if they themselves are victims of violence or intimidation, and
pervasive violence against women and girls undermines the recovery of
entire communities and countries affected by violence or disaster.
International humanitarian actors must design efforts to address the
distinct needs of women and girls, including women's economic security,
safety and dignity.
Question. Do you think the United States should be a leading
country for the resettlement of refugees, the majority whom are
vulnerable women and children?
Answer. Breakdowns in the rule of law and forced displacement from
conflict and disaster expose refugees and internally displaced persons,
particularly women and girls, to additional risks of violence and
exploitation. As the U.S. Strategy on Women, Peace, and Security
states, women cannot fully participate in the prevention or resolution
of conflict or participate in recovery efforts if they themselves are
victims of violence or intimidation, and pervasive violence against
women and girls undermines the recovery of entire communities and
countries affected by violence or disaster. International humanitarian
actors must design efforts to address the distinct needs of women and
girls, including women's economic security, safety and dignity.
Question. Many asylum seekers currently at our border who flee
Central America are women and girls fleeing well-documented and
widespread sexual violence and extortion by gangs and drug cartels in
Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador.
Do you think the United States should be a leading country for the
resettlement of refugees, the majority whom are vulnerable
women and children?
Answer. If confirmed, I commit to working within the Department to
address root causes of burgeoning immigration as they relate to women
and girls--such as sexual violence and lack of economic opportunity for
women--and work with others in the USG to address the broad security,
governance, and economic drivers of immigration from Central America.
Question. How will you ensure the United States continues to be a
leader in addressing sexual and gender-based violence, and holding
perpetrators of such violence accountable?
Answer. I am committed to preventing and responding to sexual and
gender-based violence (SGBV), especially violence against women and
girls. Per the Women's Global Development and Prosperity Initiative and
the U.S. Strategy on Women, Peace and Security, efforts to address
violence against women and girls are critical to addressing barriers to
economic empowerment, peace and security, and political participation.
Accountability for SGBV crimes is essential to punishing perpetrators
and deterring such crimes. If confirmed, I pledge to use various
diplomatic tools to combat violence against women and girls across U.S.
foreign and national security policy efforts.
__________
NOMINATIONS
----------
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2019
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in
Room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Johnson,
presiding.
Present: Senators Johnson [presiding], Risch, Gardner,
Romney, Young, Shaheen, and Kaine.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON JOHNSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN
Senator Johnson. Good afternoon. This hearing will come to
order.
We are holding this hearing to consider the nominations of
four individuals to be Ambassadors: one to the Marshall
Islands, one to Georgia, one to Lithuania, and one to Albania.
I want to, first, welcome our nominees. I want to thank you
for your past service.
I am pleased to note that all four of these nominees are
career members of the Senior Foreign Service. In my discussion,
as well as taking a look at the background, not only are they
highly qualified in their past service, but also for these
ambassadorships for which they have been nominated.
So, again, really appreciate your past service and your
willingness to continue serving this nation as Ambassadors.
I do welcome their families and their friends. I want to
encourage you, in your opening statements, to point them out
and introduce the people that are here supporting you, because
I think we both recognize--these positions are full-time
positions. This takes a lot of effort, and there is a lot of
sacrifice of, you know, members of the Senior Foreign Service,
so they oftentimes--you know, work long hours, even when family
members are in-country, but oftentimes, you know, worlds away,
as well. So, again, we really appreciate that level of service
and sacrifice. So, please point out your family members.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEANNE SHAHEEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE
Senator Shaheen. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I want to echo your congratulations to all of our
nominees today and thank both you and your families for your
service.
I think, these days, that career officers in our Foreign
Service are under some stress, and that you feel the weight of
great responsibility on your shoulders. And I want you to know
how much all of--I and all of my colleagues appreciate the work
that you do for the United States to uphold the values of this
country. And I--I am sure that, as you take on these new
positions, that you will also continue to uphold the country's
values.
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Senator Shaheen.
So, we will go from my right to my left. Our first nominee
is Ms. Roxanne Cabral, is--Ms. Cabral is the President's
nominee to be Ambassador to the Marshall Islands. Ms. Cabral is
a career member of the Senior Foreign Service and until
recently served as Deputy Chief of Mission and Charge
d'Affaires at the U.S. Embassy in Panama. Her previous posts
include Director of the Office of Policy, Planning, and
Resources in the Office of the Under Secretary for Public
Diplomacy and Public Affairs, and Public Affairs Officer at the
U.S. Consulate General in Guangzhou, China; and at the U.S.
Embassy in Tirana, Albania. She also served in the Office of
South Central Europe in the Bureau of European and Eurasian
Affairs.
Ms. Cabral.
STATEMENT OF ROXANNE CABRAL, OF VIRGINIA, A CAREER MEMBER OF
THE SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE, CLASS OF MINISTER-COUNSELOR,
NOMINEE TO BE AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO THE REPUBLIC OF THE MARSHALL
ISLANDS
Ms. Cabral. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee, I am honored to appear to--I am honored to appear
before you today as the President's nominee for U.S. Ambassador
to the Republic of Marshall Islands. I am grateful to President
Trump and Secretary Pompeo for their confidence in nominating
me for this position, and am equally grateful to receive your
consideration.
With the Chairman's permission, I would like to present my
family. My husband, David Schroeder, and twin sons, Roman and
Evan, are watching via video from Panama, but I am thrilled
that my oldest son, Quinn, my mother and father-in- law, Nancy
and Tom Schroeder, my niece, Grace, my sister-in- law, Sue
Charlton, and her mother, Deborah, are present here, as well as
my mother, Nancy, and my sister, Lisa, who inspired me to
public service. I am grateful for their love and support.
Over my 22-year career as a Foreign Service Officer, I have
worked in Washington and around the world to promote U.S.
interests and build strong partnerships. If confirmed, I will
draw on my leadership experience in regional policy, public
diplomacy, and managing government institutions and programs to
advance the United States' enduring strategic interests in the
Indo-Pacific.
The Marshall Islands is a reliable partner that supports
U.S. engagement in the region and our priorities globally. The
Marshall Islands shares our positions on many important issues
at the United Nations and is also one of Taiwan's remaining
diplomatic partners, playing an important role in maintaining
stability in cross-strait relations. If confirmed, I will work
to maintain our strong partnership and leverage the goodwill
fostered in May of this year, when President Trump met jointly
with the Presidents of the Freely Associated States.
If confirmed, I will focus on three priorities; first,
maintaining a strong security relationship; second, fostering
economic prosperity and stability as our countries approach a
critical juncture under the Compact of Free Association; and,
third, strengthening democratic institutions.
Mutual security of our nations is a core feature of our
special relationship. The Marshall Islands host an important
military installation, which provides critical testing and
support for our missile systems, and also will serve as a
location for our space fence.
More broadly, I will work to strengthen our ongoing
partnership to keep the Indo-Pacific region free and open,
implement U.N. Security Council sanctions, promote maritime
security, combat illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing,
and tackle transnational crime.
If confirmed, I will work with the Marshall Islands
government to advance sustainable economic development. The
United States is the Marshall Islands' largest donor partner, a
key trading partner, and a contributor, along with Taiwan, to a
jointly managed trust fund. I will advocate for the most
effective use of U.S. assistance, look for ways to attract more
private-sector interests, and work with the Marshall Islands as
they build a prosperous, healthy, and more self-sustaining
future.
I recognize that the Marshall Islands, as a country with a
maximum elevation of six feet above sea level, has profound
concerns about the impact of rising sea levels. If confirmed, I
will support ongoing and future efforts to enhance resilience
and mitigation, and to engage with the Marshall Islands on
these issues.
If confirmed, my third goal would be to strengthen
governance, rule of law, democratic institutions, and civil
society through partnerships, technical assistance, and
education exchange programs, especially for future leaders and
women and girls. I also recognize the already rich people-to-
people ties that include service by Marshall Islands citizens
in the U.S. Armed Forces.
Shared history and common values make our friendship with
the Marshall Islands one of the strongest in the world. If
confirmed, I will continue our work with the Marshall Islands
on issues of mutual concerns to both our country. The history
of the Nuclear Testing Program and settlement of claims arising
from that program are but one facet of our unique and
longstanding relationship.
I will seek constructive, realistic approaches that will be
grounded in areas of mutual agreement while respecting the
differences we may have in the evaluation of such issues.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, I pledge to protect American
interests, ensure fair treatment for U.S. citizens and their
businesses, and to promote our values.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today,
and I am pleased to answer your questions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Cabral follows:]
Prepared Statement of Roxanne Cabral
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am honored to appear
before you today as the President's nominee for U.S. Ambassador to the
Republic of the Marshall Islands. I am grateful to President Trump and
Secretary Pompeo for their confidence in nominating me for this
position, and I am equally grateful to receive your consideration.
With the Chairman's permission, I would like to present my family.
My husband, David Schroeder, and sons, Roman and Evan, are watching via
video from Panama. My eldest son Quinn, my brother Neal, my sister-in-
law Sue Charlton and my niece Grace, and my mother and father-in-law,
Nancy and Tom Schroeder, are present here. I would also like to thank
all my family for their support during my career, especially my mother
Nancy and sister Lisa, who inspired me to public service.
Over my 22-year career as a Foreign Service Officer, I have worked
in Washington and around the world to promote U.S. interests and build
strong partnerships. If confirmed, I will continue to draw on my
leadership experience in regional policy, public diplomacy, and
managing government institutions and programs to advance the United
States' enduring strategic interests in the Indo-Pacific.
The Marshall Islands is a reliable partner that supports U.S.
engagement in the region and U.S. strategic priorities globally. The
Marshall Islands shares our positions on many important issues at the
United Nations. The Marshall Islands is also one of Taiwan's 15
diplomatic partners and plays an important role in maintaining
stability in cross-Strait relations. If confirmed, I will work to
maintain our strong partnership and leverage the goodwill fostered in
May of this year when President Trump met jointly with the Presidents
of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, Federated States of
Micronesia, and Palau.
If confirmed, I will focus on three priorities: maintaining a
strong security relationship; fostering economic prosperity and
stability as our countries approach a critical juncture under the
Compact of Free Association; and strengthening democratic institutions.
Mutual security of our nations is a core feature of our special
relationship. The Marshall Islands hosts the U.S. Army's Ronald Reagan
Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site, which provides critical testing
support for our missile systems and also will serve as the location for
our Space Fence, enabling the U.S. Air Force to locate and track the
many objects orbiting Earth with more precision.
More broadly I will work to strengthen our ongoing partnership with
the Marshall Islands to keep the Indo-Pacific region free and open,
implement U.N. Security Council sanctions, promote maritime security,
combat illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, and tackle
transnational crime.
If confirmed, I will work with the Marshall Islands government to
advance sustainable economic development. The United States is the
Marshall Islands' largest donor partner, is a key trading partner, and
a contributor, along with Taiwan, to a jointly-managed Trust Fund
established by the United States and the Marshall Islands, that will
provide a source of revenue for the Marshall Islands in the coming
decades. I will focus my efforts to be a responsible steward of
taxpayer funds, advocating for the most effective use of U.S.
assistance, while working to improve the investment climate to attract
more private sector interest, and otherwise working with the Marshall
Islands as they build a prosperous, healthy, and more self-sustaining
future.
I recognize that the Marshall Islands, as a country with a maximum
elevation of six feet above sea level, has profound concerns about the
impacts of rising sea levels. If confirmed, I look forward to
continuing to support ongoing efforts to enhance resilience, and to
engaging with the Marshall Islands on these issues.
If confirmed, my third goal would be to strengthen governance, rule
of law, democratic institutions, and civil society through
partnerships, technical assistance, and education and exchange
programs. I look forward to working with the government and people of
the Marshall Islands to expand opportunities, especially for future
leaders, for exchanges between our two countries. I also recognize the
already rich people-to-people ties that include service by Marshall
Islands citizens in the U.S. Armed Forces.
Shared history and common values make our friendship with the
Marshall Islands one of the strongest in the world, and if confirmed I
look forward to continuing to work with the RMI on a host of issues of
mutual concern to both our countries. The history of the nuclear
testing program and the settlement of claims arising from that program
are but one facet of the unique and longstanding relationship our two
nations enjoy.
If confirmed, I will seek constructive, realistic approaches that
will be grounded in areas of mutual agreement while respecting the
differences we may have in the evaluation of such issues.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, I want to make a pledge to the committee
to protect American interests, ensure fair treatment for U.S. citizens
and their businesses, and to promote our values in every engagement I
have.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today and am
pleased to answer your questions.
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Ms. Cabral.
Our next nominee is Ms. Kelly Degnan. Ms. Degnan is the
President's nominee to be the Ambassador to Georgia. Ms. Degnan
is a career member of the Senior Foreign Service and currently
serves as the Political Advisor to the Commander of U.S. Naval
Forces in Europe and Africa. Her previous posts include Deputy
Chief of Mission of the U.S. Mission to Italy; Deputy Executive
Secretary of the Department of State; and Deputy Chief of
Mission of the U.S. Embassy in Pristina, Kosovo. Ms. Degnan has
been awarded the Secretary of State's Expeditionary Service
Award. She speaks Italian, French, Turkish, and Urdu. Urdu. I
cannot even pronounce it.
[Laughter.]
Senator Johnson. Ms. Degnan.
STATEMENT OF KELLY C. DEGNAN, OF CALIFORNIA, A CAREER MEMBER OF
THE SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE, CLASS OF MINISTER-COUNSELOR,
NOMINEE TO BE AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO GEORGIA
Ms. Degnan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Shaheen. I am deeply honored to appear before you today as
President Trump's nominee to serve as the United States
Ambassador to Georgia. If confirmed, I pledge to work closely
with this committee to advance U.S. interests and values in
Georgia, and to build on the productive partnership between our
two countries.
I am very grateful to my family and friends for their
unending support during my 26 years of government service,
especially my sisters, Kate and Kim, and my partner, Doug
Morris. They are watching from San Francisco and Italy. But, I
have a nice contingent of friends--local friends who have come
to support me today.
I so wish my parents could be here today, as well. They
were originally from small towns in Upstate New York and
Colorado, and the core values that they lived by--hard work,
respect, integrity, personal accountability--continue to guide
me.
While I have not yet had the chance to visit Georgia, the
issues facing Georgia are not new to me. I was serving in
neighboring Turkey when Russia invaded Georgia in 2008. A year
later, I served at NATO headquarters, where Georgia was, and
is, a valued partner. Allies reaffirmed their 2008 pledge that
Georgia will become a member of NATO just last year at their
summit. And during my 3 years at NATO, I was always impressed
by Georgia's commitment to making the reforms that were
necessary and strengthening its military. We saw that
commitment in Afghanistan, where Georgia has deployed one of
the largest contingents of forces, fighting with no caveats and
at the cost of 32 Georgian lives and 290 wounded. Georgia is
still there with us with almost 900 soldiers deployed to NATO's
Resolute Support mission.
Now, as the Foreign Policy Advisor to U.S. Naval Forces
Europe, I have seen Georgia's value as a capable, dedicated
partner supporting U.S. and NATO presence in the Black Sea. Our
outstanding security cooperation underscores the fact that
Georgia is a key partner in a geostrategic region of vital
importance to the United States. We will continue our steadfast
support of Georgia as it makes the reforms necessary for NATO
membership and economic integration into the European Union and
the West. Our work together is aimed at strengthening Georgia's
capacity to defend its borders while it builds a prosperous,
integrated, democratic society. If confirmed, I look forward to
working with the Georgian government on these and other
priorities.
The progress that Georgia has made has not been easy, and
there is still much work to do to hold and build on those
achievements, especially in promoting a pluralistic
legislature, an independent judiciary, a diverse media, and a
vibrant civil society. A continued commitment to the principles
of democracy and rule of law is absolutely fundamental to
Georgia's Euro-Atlantic integration. If confirmed, I will make
it a priority to work with all stakeholders in Georgia to
ensure that next year's elections are free and fair.
Perhaps because of its successes, Georgia still finds
itself the target of destabilizing and destructive Russian
actions. The United States will continue to be a vocal advocate
of Georgia's sovereignty and territorial integrity within its
internationally recognized borders. We strongly condemn the
ongoing occupation of Georgia's Abkhazia and South Ossetia
regions by Russian forces and Russia's attempts at
borderization of the administrative boundary line.
The solution to this conflict, which is a result of Russian
aggression, is for Russia to fulfill its obligations under the
2008 cease-fire agreement, including withdrawing its forces to
preconflict positions, allowing humanitarian access, and
reversing its recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
If confirmed, I commit to sustaining our efforts to help
the Georgian government and people build a resilient,
prosperous society that values its rich and diverse heritage,
and that can withstand the pressures of Russian malign
activities and growing Chinese influence.
Thank you again for considering my nomination. If
confirmed, I will be a strong representative of our country and
all that it stands for. I look forward to your questions. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Degnan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kelly C. Degnan
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, distinguished members of the
committee, I am deeply honored to appear before you as President
Trump's nominee to serve as the United States Ambassador to Georgia. I
am grateful to the President, and Secretary Pompeo, for the confidence
they have placed in me. If confirmed, I pledge to work closely with
this committee to advance U.S. values and interests in Georgia, and
build on the productive partnership our two countries have developed.
I am also very grateful to my family and friends for their unending
support during my 26 years of government service, especially my two
sisters, Kim and Kate, and my partner, Doug Morris.
I deeply regret that my parents are not here with me today. They
were both originally from small towns--in upstate NY and Colorado--and
the core values they lived by--hard work, integrity, respect--continue
to guide me.
While I have not yet had a chance to visit the Republic of Georgia,
the issues Georgia faces are not new to me. I was serving in Turkey
when Russia invaded Georgia in August 2008. A year later, I served at
NATO, where Georgia was, and is, a valued partner. Allies reaffirmed
just last year NATO's 2008 pledge that Georgia will become a member of
NATO. During my three years at NATO, I was very impressed by Georgia's
commitment to reforming and strengthening its institutions and
military.
I saw that same commitment serving in Afghanistan, where Georgia
has deployed one of the largest contingents of forces, fighting with no
caveats, and at the cost of 32 Georgian lives, and 290 wounded. Georgia
is still with us there, with almost 900 soldiers deployed to NATO's
Resolute Support Mission.
Now, as Foreign Policy Advisor to U.S. Naval Forces Europe, I have
seen Georgia's value as a capable, dedicated partner supporting U.S.
and NATO efforts in the Black Sea. Just this summer, Georgia conducted
a major, multilateral exercise in the Black Sea, involving 14
countries, including the U.S.
Our outstanding security cooperation underscores the fact that
Georgia is a key partner, in a geostrategic region of vital importance
to the United States. We will continue our steadfast support of Georgia
as it seeks NATO membership and economic integration with the EU and
the West. Our work together is aimed at strengthening Georgia's
capacity to defend its borders, while it builds a prosperous,
integrated, democratic society. If confirmed, I look forward to working
with the Georgian government on these and other priorities.
The progress Georgia has made hasn't been easy, and in many cases,
it has come through U.S. engagement and foreign assistance. Georgia has
repaid that investment by taking concrete action, such as increasing
parliamentary oversight, and making significant judicial reforms.
There is still much work to be done to hold and build on those
achievements, especially in promoting a pluralistic legislature, an
independent judiciary, a diverse media, and a vibrant civil society. A
continued commitment to the principles of democracy and the rule of law
is fundamental to Georgia's continued Euro- Atlantic integration. If
confirmed, I look forward to working with all parties in Georgia to
ensure free and fair elections next year.
Despite its successes, Georgia still finds itself the target of
destabilizing and destructive Russian actions. The United States will
continue to be a vocal advocate of Georgia's sovereignty and
territorial integrity within its internationally recognized borders. We
strongly condemn the ongoing occupation of Georgia's Abkhazia and South
Ossetia regions by Russian forces, and Russia's attempts at
"borderization" of the Administrative Boundary Line.
The solution to this conflict, which was created by Russian
aggression, is for Russia to fulfill all of its obligations under the
2008 ceasefire agreement, including withdrawing its forces to pre-
conflict positions, allowing humanitarian access, and reversing its
recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
Georgia's tenacity in the face of Russian malign activities is
clear from its efforts to create a transparent business environment and
spur much-needed economic growth. As Ambassador, I would make it a
priority to promote a level playing field, to foster economic
development, and create more opportunities for U.S. companies.
If confirmed, I commit to sustaining our efforts to help the
Georgian government and people build a resilient society, that values
its diverse heritage, and that can withstand the pressures of Russian
malign activities and growing Chinese influence.
Thank you again for considering my nomination. If confirmed, I will
be a strong representative of our country, and all that it stands for.
I look forward to answering your questions.
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Ms. Degnan.
Our next nominee is Mr. Robert Gilchrist. Mr. Gilchrist is
the President's nominee to be the Ambassador to Lithuania. Mr.
Gilchrist is a career member of the Senior Foreign Service and
currently serves as the Director of the State Department's
Operations Center. Previously, he served as Deputy Chief of
Mission of the U.S. Embassies in Sweden and Estonia, Director
of Nordic and Baltic Affairs in the Bureau of European and
Eurasian Affairs, and Chief of the Political Section of the
U.S. Embassy in Romania. He speaks Spanish, French, Estonian,
and Romanian.
Mr. Gilchrist.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT S. GILCHRIST, OF FLORIDA, A CAREER MEMBER
OF THE SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE, CLASS OF MINISTER- COUNSELOR,
NOMINEE TO BE AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
Mr. Gilchrist. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, distinguished
members of the committee, it is a privilege to appear before
you today as the President's nominee to serve as the United
States Ambassador to the Republic of Lithuania. I am grateful
to President Trump and Secretary of State Pompeo for the
confidence they have placed in me. If confirmed, I look forward
to working with the committee, your staffs, and your
congressional colleagues to build on the strong and vibrant
relationship between the United States and Lithuania.
Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would like to
acknowledge some of my family members who are here today. I am
deeply grateful to my two big brothers here, David and Donald,
for their continued support and consistently honored--honest
opinions, as you can get from brothers. They are here with my
sister-in-law, Lynn, niece, Amelia, and nephews, Duncan and
Liam. My parents are no longer with us, but I would like to
think that, somewhere, they are watching, as none were prouder
of my Foreign Service career. They gave me a sense of adventure
and curiosity about the world that I have carried with me
everywhere I have gone.
For 29 years, I have cherished the privilege of serving my
country as a career diplomat in Europe, the Middle East, and
South America. I served in Romania as that country acceded to
NATO and the EU. I served in Iraq during one of its most
violent periods as we worked to lay the foundation of eventual
stability. And I served for 9 years in leadership positions
focused on the Nordic and Baltic region.
The relationship between the United States and Lithuania
runs long and deep. It is a relationship built on more than 100
years of unbroken diplomatic engagement between two republics,
including during Lithuania's half- century of forced
incorporation into the Soviet Union. It is a relationship
nurtured by the transatlantic ties with the many American
citizens of Lithuanian ancestry, and it is strengthened through
the partnership of the United States with Lithuania in
addressing today's threats to freedom and security worldwide.
Since Lithuania proclaimed the restoration of its
independence in 1990, it has energetically embraced democracy
and free-market principles. It joined NATO and the EU in 2004.
And, with the United States, it has partnered with us in
numerous fora in support of democracy and human rights.
Lithuania has also been a particularly staunch supporter of
the Euro-Atlantic integration of Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova,
providing generous assistance. Since the Russian invasion of
Ukraine in 2014, the Lithuanian government has worked with us
to maintain strong sanctions and press for full implementation
of the Minsk Agreements.
Increased Russian aggression over the past decade has
elevated security concerns along NATO's eastern flank. A
proponent of burden-sharing, Lithuania has met the NATO target
of dedicating 2 percent of GDP to defense spending since 2018.
The funds, supplemented by U.S. military assistance, are used
to modernize Lithuania's armed forces and training facilities
while enhancing NATO interoperability. Next summer, Defender
2020, a joint multinational U.S. Army-led exercise, will test
the effectiveness of this investment. The United States also
works with the Lithuanian government to counter Russian-
sponsored disinformation campaigns and cyberhacking.
Beyond Europe, Lithuania is a committed ally, as well. It
is a partner in the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS, and
actively contributes to counterterrorism operations. This
includes deploying trainers to U.S.-led Operation Inherent
Resolve in Iraq, redeploying its special operation forces to
Afghanistan as part of the Resolute Support mission, and
providing financial support for the Afghan National Defense and
Security Forces. If confirmed, I will work to continue our
close operation in addressing global challenges to the security
of the United States and our allies.
Lithuania further enhances its security by building the
resilience of its economy. After a 17-percent drop in GDP in
2009, Lithuania's economy rebounded to become one of the most
vibrant in the EU. To reverse an immigration trend, the
government has created a financial and regulatory environment
favorable to innovation, startups, and foreign direct
investment. The United States is Lithuania's 15th-largest
investor, with 13,000 Lithuanian residents employed by U.S.
companies.
Lithuania has also moved expeditiously to diversify its
energy sources and roots, substantially increase its energy
security. In 2014, Lithuania completed the unbundling of its
gas and electricity sectors, and opened an LNG import terminal
in 2015, providing the first means for non-Russian natural gas
to enter the Baltic region.
Through the U.S.-EU Energy Council and bilateral engagement
with the Departments of State and Energy, we have helped
advance projects creating new gas and electricity links between
Lithuania as well as Estonia and Latvia and their EU neighbors.
If confirmed, I will continue the strategy to further enhance
Lithuania's energy security as well as that of the entire
Baltic region.
Lithuania is a partner and ally on whom we can rely, and
that partnership is due, in part, to the ties of friendship
between Lithuanians and Americans. If confirmed, I will
prioritize public engagement throughout the country and across
the Atlantic to multiply those ties, and to increase business,
educational, professional and cultural exchanges.
In sum, if confirmed, I'll seek to advance U.S. interests
and enhance the resilience of our Lithuanian ally by
strengthening bilateral defense and economic ties and promoting
the democratic values we share.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for this opportunity to
appear before you today. I look forward to answering your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilchrist follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert S. Gilchrist
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, distinguished members of the
committee: It is a privilege to appear before you today as the
President's nominee to serve as the United States Ambassador to the
Republic of Lithuania.
I am grateful to President Trump and Secretary of State Pompeo for
the confidence they have placed in me. If confirmed, I look forward to
working with the committee, your staffs, and your Congressional
colleagues to build on the strong and vibrant partnership between the
United States and Lithuania.
Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would like to acknowledge
some family members who are here today. I am deeply grateful to my two
brothers, David and Donald, for their continued support and
consistently honest opinions. They are here with my sister-in-law
Lynne, niece Amelia, and nephews Duncan and Liam. My parents are no
longer with us, but I like to think they are somewhere watching, as
none were prouder of my foreign service career. They gave me a sense of
adventure and curiosity about the world that I have carried with me
wherever I have served.
For 29 years I have cherished the privilege of serving my country
as a career diplomat in Europe, the Middle East, and South America. I
served in Romania as that country acceded to NATO and the EU. I served
in Iraq during one of its most violent periods, as we worked to lay the
foundation for eventual stability. And I served for nine years in
leadership positions focused on the Nordic and Baltic region, while
Russia increased its aggressive activities and the region's economies
recovered from the 2008 financial crisis.
The relationship between the United States and Lithuania runs long
and deep. It is a relationship built on more than 100 years of unbroken
diplomatic engagement between two republics, including during
Lithuania's half-century of forced incorporation into the Soviet Union.
It is a relationship nurtured by the transatlantic ties of the many
American citizens of Lithuanian ancestry, and it is strengthened
through the partnership of the United States with Lithuania in
addressing today's threats to freedom and security worldwide.
Since Lithuania proclaimed the restoration of its independence in
1990, it has energetically embraced democracy and free market
principles. It joined NATO and the EU in 2004, and chaired the
Community of Democracies and the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe in 2010-2011. In 2013, Lithuania held the
Presidency of the European Union and used its position to champion
democratic principles in countries of the former Soviet Union. During
Lithuania's 2014-2015 tenure on the U.N. Security Council, it actively
partnered with the United States to combat terrorism and advance human
rights. During the past five years Lithuania has emerged as a leader in
advancing energy security in the Baltic region, including through the
establishment of the U.S.-Baltic Energy Dialogue in 2019.
Lithuania has been a particularly staunch supporter of the Euro-
Atlantic integration of Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova, providing
generous assistance, including in the form of advisors and development
aid. Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014, the Lithuanian
government has worked with us to maintain a strong sanctions regime on
Russia and press for full implementation of the Minsk Agreements.
Increased Russian aggression over the past decade has elevated
security concerns along NATO's eastern flank. A proponent of burden
sharing, Lithuania's budget has met the NATO target of dedicating two
percent of GDP to defense spending since 2018. The funds, supplemented
by U.S. military assistance, are used to modernize Lithuania's armed
forces and training facilities while enhancing NATO interoperability.
Next summer Defender 2020, a joint multi-national U.S. Army-led
exercise, will test the effectiveness of this investment. The United
States also works with the Lithuanian government to counter Russian-
sponsored disinformation campaigns and cyber hacking.
Beyond Europe, Lithuania is a committed ally as well. It is a
partner in the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS and actively contributes
to counterterrorism operations. This includes deploying trainers to
U.S.-led Operation Inherent Resolve in Iraq, redeploying its special
operation forces to Afghanistan as part of the Resolute Support
Mission, and providing financial support for the Afghan National
Defense and Security Forces. If confirmed, I will work to continue our
close cooperation in addressing global challenges to the security of
the United States and our allies.
Lithuania further enhances its security by building the resilience
of its economy. After a nearly 17 percent drop in GDP in 2009,
Lithuania's economy rebounded to become one of the fastest growing in
the EU. Since 2017, the growth of its GDP has averaged between 3.5 and
3.9 percent. Lithuania joined the Eurozone in 2015 and the Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development in 2018. To reverse an
emigration trend, the government has created a financial and regulatory
environment favorable to innovation, start-ups, and foreign direct
investment. The United States is Lithuania's 15th largest investor,
with 13,000 Lithuanian residents employed by U.S. companies. In support
of government efforts to bring economic growth to less developed
regions in Lithuania, our embassy has developed programs that encourage
entrepreneurship and public-private partnerships at the local level.
Lithuania has also moved expeditiously to diversify its energy
sources and routes, substantially increasing its energy security. In
2014, Lithuania completed the unbundling of its gas and electricity
sectors. The break-up of Gazprom's monopoly paved the way for Lithuania
to open an LNG (liquefied natural gas) import terminal in 2015,
providing the first means for a non-Russian supply of natural gas to
the Baltic states. Lithuania can now purchase gas at competitive market
rates, and in 2017, Lithuania received its first two shipments of U.S.
LNG. Through the U.S.-EU Energy Council and bilateral engagement with
the Departments of State and Energy, we have helped advance projects
creating new gas and electricity links between Lithuania, as well as
Estonia and Latvia, and their EU neighbors. If confirmed, I will
continue to support this strategy to further enhance Lithuania's energy
security as well as that of the entire Baltic region.
Lithuania is a partner and ally on whom we can rely. And that
partnership is due in large part to the ties of friendship between
Lithuanians and Americans. If confirmed, I will prioritize public
engagement throughout the country and across the Atlantic, to multiply
those ties through increased business, educational, professional, and
cultural exchanges.
In sum, if confirmed, I will seek to advance U.S. interests and
enhance the resiliency of our Lithuanian ally by strengthening
bilateral defense and economic ties, and promoting the democratic
values we share.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for this opportunity to appear before
you today. I look forward to answering your questions.
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Gilchrist.
Our final nominee is Ms. Yuri Kim. Ms. Kim is the
President's nominee to be the Ambassador to Albania. Ms. Kim is
a career member of the Senior Foreign Service, and most
recently served as the Director of the Office of Southern
European Affairs. Her previous posts include Director of the
State Department's Center for the Study of Diplomacy, Chief of
Staff to the Deputy Secretary of State, and Director of the
Office of European Security and Political-Military Affairs. She
speaks Korean, Mandarin, Japanese, and Turkish.
Ms. Kim.
STATEMENT OF YURI KIM, OF GUAM, A CAREER MEMBER OF THE SENIOR
FOREIGN SERVICE, CLASS OF COUNSELOR, NOMINEE TO BE AMBASSADOR
EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA TO THE REPUBLIC OF ALBANIA
Ms. Kim. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Shaheen,
and distinguished members of the committee. It is a distinct
honor for me to appear today as President Trump's nominee to be
our next Ambassador to the Republic of Albania. I am grateful
to the President and to Secretary Pompeo for the confidence
they have placed in me.
If confirmed, I would be the first Korean-American woman to
represent our great Nation as an Ambassador. I would also be
our first Ambassador from the great U.S. Territory of Guam.
Mr. Chairman, you had said earlier that you would encourage
us to introduce our friends and family. And I am really afraid
that they are going to all-too-enthusiastically introduce
themselves back here, so----
[Laughter and applause.]
Ms. Kim. I am particularly pleased to have with me two of
my four siblings, Yeong-Sae and Air Force Lieutenant Minwoo
Kim. One is fostering innovation and entrepreneurship in
Silicon Valley, and the other proudly keeps our Nation safe as
a munitions officer at Minot Air Base. My parents and other
family members are also, no doubt, watching from Guam and
wherever else they might be, and I thank them for their
support.
For more than two decades, I have had the privilege of
serving our country as a Foreign Service Officer. From Beijing
to Baghdad and points in between, I have sought to ensure that
the United States remains strong, safe, and secure, that our
people and our businesses thrive, and that we continue to shape
the rules and lead the institutions that have undergirded
America's peace and prosperity over the last century. If
confirmed, I look forward to continuing those efforts by
further strengthening our already robust and productive
relationship with Albania.
Few friends have embraced America more warmly. Poll after
poll shows Albanian support for the United States remains among
the highest in the world. Few allies have been more loyal.
Albanian troops have been at our side in Afghanistan, Kosovo,
Bosnia, and on NATO's eastern flank. Few partners are more
ready and willing to do more with the United States. We have a
strong and loyal friend in Albania, and it is imperative that
we hold friends like Albania close to us, especially in the
face of strategic challenges to our shared interests, values,
and institutions.
If confirmed, I would advance three priorities:
First, I would encourage Albania to maintain its steady
course to reach the 2-percent Wales Defense Investment Pledge
by 2024 so that Albania is an even stronger and more capable
ally. Since Albania joined NATO in 2009, Albanian soldiers have
fought side by side with American troops. In Afghanistan, the
Albanians have been with us, advising and training Afghan's
forces. Albania has also been a reliable partner in the Global
Coalition to Defeat ISIS. Albania's actions demonstrate that it
not only appreciates the benefits of NATO membership, but that
it embraces the responsibilities of NATO membership.
Second, I would continue to promote Albania's development
as a democratic nation. In the immediate term, I would press
Albania's leaders to resolve the current political impasse in a
way that reinforces Albania's EU accession bid and best
positions it to succeed during its term as OSCE chair-in-office
in 2020. Albania's EU aspirations and the reforms that they
entail will lead to more prosperity and stability for the
country and for the region. It will also make Albania a
stronger and more capable ally of the United States. More
fundamentally, I would reinforce U.S. diplomatic and foreign
assistance support for strengthening the rule of law, combating
corruption, and combating organized crime. The United States
should continue to encourage Albania to fully implement
judicial reforms, continue the vetting of judges and
prosecutors, and establish an independent Special Structure
against Corruption and a National Bureau of Investigation. I
would also redouble U.S. engagement and technical assistance in
the investigation, prosecution, and punishment of corruption
and transnational organized crime.
Third, if I were confirmed, I would work to promote U.S.
exports and U.S. investment in Albania so as to provide
opportunities for both U.S. and Albanian citizens and to
generate jobs in both countries. U.S. investment requires a
welcoming business environment and a level playing field for
our companies and investors. In this respect, I would
underscore that confidence in the rule of law and transparency
are essential.
As we pursue our priorities, I would do my utmost to manage
and safeguard our resources abroad, especially our most
important resource, the dedicated employees of our Embassy.
Their hard work and dedication are essential to achieving the
goals of the United States and the American people. We owe it
to ourselves to take care of our people, to make sure that they
are safe, and to provide the support and the resources they
need to succeed on behalf of our Nation.
If confirmed, I look forward to advancing the interests of
the United States by working together with Congress and this
committee to continue strengthening our strong bonds with the
government and people of Albania.
Thank you for considering my nomination, and I look forward
to taking your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kim follows:]
Prepared Statement of Yuri Kim
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and distinguished members of the
committee, it is a distinct honor to appear before you today as
President Trump's nominee to be our next ambassador to Albania. I am
grateful to the President and Secretary Pompeo for the confidence they
have placed in me. If confirmed, I would be the first Korean-American
woman to represent our great nation as an ambassador. I would also be
our first ambassador from the U.S. Territory of Guam. In fact, I am
joined today by a small cheering section from home, including my
brothers Yeong-Sae and Air Force Lt. Minwoo Kim--one fostering
innovation and entrepreneurship in Silicon Valley, the other keeping
our nation safe as a munitions officer at Minot Air Force Base. My
parents and other family members are also no doubt watching from Guam
or wherever else they might be.
For more than two decades, I have had the privilege of serving our
country as a Foreign Service Officer. From Beijing to Baghdad, and
points in between, I have sought to ensure that the United States
remains strong, safe, and secure; that our people and our businesses
thrive; and that we continue to shape the rules and lead the
institutions that have undergirded America's peace and prosperity over
the last century.
If confirmed, I look forward to continuing those efforts by further
strengthening our already robust and productive relationship with
Albania. Few friends have embraced America more warmly--poll after poll
shows Albanian support for the United States remains among the highest
in the world. Few Allies have been more loyal--Albanian troops have
been at our side in Afghanistan, Kosovo, Bosnia, and NATO's Eastern
Flank. And few partners are as ready and willing to do more with the
United States. We have a strong and loyal friend in Albania, and it is
imperative that we hold friends like Albania close to us, especially in
the face of strategic challenges to our shared interests, values, and
institutions.
If confirmed, I would advance three priorities:
First, I would encourage Albania to maintain its steady course to
reach the two percent Wales defense investment pledge by 2024
so that Albania is an even stronger and more capable Ally.
Since Albania joined NATO in 2009, Albanian soldiers have
fought side by side with American troops. In Afghanistan, the
Albanians have been with us advising and training Afghan
forces. Albania has also been a reliable partner in the Global
Coalition to Defeat ISIS. Albania's actions demonstrate that it
not only appreciates the benefits of NATO, but embraces the
responsibilities of membership.
Second, I would continue to promote Albania's democratic
development. In the immediate term, I would press Albania's
leaders to resolve the current political impasse in a way that
reinforces Albania's EU accession bid and best positions
Albania to succeed during its term as OSCE Chair-in-Office in
2020. Albania's EU aspirations--and the reforms they entail--
will lead to more prosperity and stability for the country and
for the region. It will also make Albania a stronger, more
capable Ally of the United States. More fundamentally, I would
reinforce U.S. diplomatic and foreign assistance support for
strengthening the rule of law and combatting corruption and
organized crime. The United States should continue to encourage
Albania to fully implement judicial reforms, continue the
vetting of judges and prosecutors, and establish an independent
Special Structure Against Corruption and a National Bureau of
Investigation. I would also redouble U.S. engagement and
technical assistance in the investigation, prosecution, and
punishment of corruption and transnational organized crime.
Third, I would work to promote U.S. exports and U.S. investment in
Albania so as to provide opportunities for both U.S. and
Albanian citizens and generate jobs in both countries. U.S.
investment requires a welcoming business climate and a level
playing field for our companies and investors. In this respect,
I would underscore that confidence in the rule of law and
transparency are essential.
As we pursue our priorities, I would do my utmost to manage and
safeguard our resources abroad, especially our most important resource:
the dedicated employees of ourEmbassy. Their hard work and dedication
are essential to achieving the goals of the United States and the
American people. We owe it to ourselves to take care of our people, to
make sure they're safe, and to provide the support and the resources
they need to succeed on behalf of our nation.
If confirmed, I look forward to advancing the interests of the
United States by working together with Congress and this committee to
continue strengthening our strong bonds with the government and people
of Albania.
Thank you for considering my nomination. I would be pleased to take
your questions.
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Ms. Kim.
I really appreciate the attendance of my colleagues here.
And, out of respect for their time, I will defer to Senator
Shaheen.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to begin with you, Ms. Kim--no, I am sorry--
Mr. Gilchrist. last week, when we withdrew our troops from
Syria, we deployed a battalion to Lithuania for an
unprecedented 6-month rotation, clearly a move intended to
deter Russian aggression in the Baltics and Lithuania. So, can
you--as you assess the challenge--challenges facing Lithuania,
do you see Russia as a threat? And what kinds of actions do you
see Russia engaging in in Lithuania that would be of concern to
the country?
Mr. Gilchrist. Thank you for the question, Senator.
No, indeed, I think Lithuania is certainly a valuable ally,
and one of our staunchest allies along the eastern frontier of
the alliance. Lithuania, over the past decade, has seen a
number of challenges from Russia as the Russian government has
increased military spending and as they have increased their
attention towards the Baltic states. I think one of the biggest
challenges has been Russian disinformation. The Lithuanians
have been at the forefront, in terms of countering that
disinformation, including through public-private partnerships,
but also working closely with us.
We are happy that the Lithuanians have increased their
defense budget. They have increased it to 2 percent of GDP,
with a commitment to actually increase it to 2.5 percent by
2030. And certainly, we are working closely with them to ensure
that that additional funding is spent wisely, in terms of
increasing interoperability and in terms of increasing their
preparedness.
They are certainly happy to have American troops on the
ground in such substantial numbers. We have supported the
presence of the NATO-enhanced forward presence, led by the
Germans for the past few years, which has been 1,000--roughly
1,000 NATO troops in a very forward manner in Lithuania. We
have also staunchly supported NATO air policing, which has gone
on for several years, and participated in that actively.
The Lithuanians continue to seek greater engagement, I
think. The larger our footprint is in the Baltic region, I
think, the happier the Baltic countries are, themselves. And
certainly, if confirmed, I would work to strengthen that
relationship in every way I possibly can.
Senator Shaheen. So, it has been several years since I was
in the Baltics, but one of the concerns that I heard when I was
there was the disinformation campaigns that you referenced. So,
what kinds of engagement can we participate in with Lithuania
to address that disinformation?
Mr. Gilchrist. Well, we have--the Embassy is already
engaged in training journalists and in working ways to support
the traditional media that is already in Lithuania. We have
worked with the Lithuanian government on--and with Lithuanian
security services--on programs that allow them, very early on,
to detect Russian misinformation. And, I think, if you look
through some of the recent press, you will see how the
Lithuanians, really in a masterful way, have gotten out ahead
of an issue before it became an issue domestically. And so,
they have--they are, indeed, at the forefront, in many ways. I
think there are some things that we could possibly learn from
them, as well.
Senator Shaheen. Do you have any--do you want to be more
definitive about what you think we could learn from them?
Mr. Gilchrist. Well, I have--they have this very active
public-private partnership, I think, across the Baltic region,
where private citizens are actively looking at what is showing
up in the media, and then working with the government on that.
And I think it is something that is interesting, but also it
has been very productive in Lithuania.
Senator Shaheen. Well, certainly I would agree that there--
we need to take a look at disinformation here in the United
States, as well.
Let me now go to Ms. Kim. Albania and Kosovo have had an
ongoing dispute, as I know you are aware, and there has been
some concern that ethnic Albanian Albin Kurti, who is poised to
become Kosovo's next Prime Minister, has advocated for Kosovo's
strong integration with Albania. So, the Serbian government
believes this view to be provocative and not helpful to Serbia-
Kosovo normalization. Is there a role for you, as Ambassador,
to work with the governments of all three of those countries to
help reduce tensions and to try and encourage normalization of
relations?
Ms. Kim. Thank you, Senator, for that extremely timely and
important question.
There is no doubt that the United States can play a major
role in helping to resolve a very prickly, potentially
explosive issue. As Ambassador to Albania, if I were confirmed,
I would work with leaders there to emphasize a few points.
Number one, the United States has made a tremendous investment
in the region, in bringing peace and in working with countries
in the region to develop their capacity to stand independently,
to stand peacefully, and to stand as, in a word, a team.
Secondly, I would emphasize that reverting to calls that appeal
to ethnicity, as opposed to values and to respecting existing
borders, is not helpful. Third, I think you are aware, Senator,
that we have not just one Special Representative, but two
Special Envoys, actually, to deal with exactly this issue. So,
I think there is no doubt that the administration is strongly
committed to doing what we can to help resolve the issue.
Senator Shaheen. Well, with respect to your second point,
about the ethnic tensions within Albania, can you talk a little
bit about what are some of the things that Albania is doing to
reduce those tensions?
Ms. Kim. My understanding, Senator, is that Albania--I do
not know that ethnic tensions are a specific problem in
Albania. They are a problem in the region, and have been for a
long time, as we all know. Within Albania, they tend to be
secular, and I think that we would want to encourage them to
look towards building institutions that cut across identity
politics.
Senator Shaheen. On another note, one of the things that I
and others on this committee were very pleased to see was when
Albania agreed to take the residents of Camp Ashraf, who had
been stuck--the Iranians who had been stuck in Iraq. And can
you give us any update on how they are doing and whether the
government continues to welcome them to the country?
Ms. Kim. We have been working closely with the Albanian
government for the last few years. We have close to 3,000 MEK
residents living just outside the capital. We continue to work
closely with the Albanians to ensure that--number one, that
they are safe; number two, that they have the means to
integrate into Albania and to become productive citizens for
the duration that they are there.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Johnson. Senator Young.
Senator Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Before we get started, I have just seven questions that, my
hope is, all of you can go ahead and answer at the same time.
They should be very easy.
Have you adhered to applicable laws in governing conflicts
of interest?
[The witnesses all replied in the affirmative.]
Senator Young. Okay. And you can all answer at the same
time to number two.
Have you assumed any duties or any actions that would
appear to presume the outcome of this confirmation process?
[The witnesses all replied in the negative.]
Senator Young. Okay, thank you.
Exercising this committee's legislative and oversight
responsibility makes it important we receive testimony,
briefings, reports, and recordings, records, and other
information the executive--from the executive branch on a
timely basis. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear and testify
before this committee, when requested by the Chairman and
Ranking Member?
[The witnesses all replied in the affirmative.]
Senator Young. All right. So, much of this is about the
prerogatives of the committee, which I think is very important.
Do you agree to provide documents and electronic
communications in a timely manner, when requested by this
committee, its subcommittees, or other appropriate committees
of Congress, and to the requestor?
[The witnesses all replied in the affirmative.]
Senator Young. All right, thank you.
Will you ensure that you and your staff comply with
deadlines established by this committee for the production of
reports, records, and other documents, including responding
timely to hearing questions for the record?
[The witnesses all replied in the affirmative.]
Senator Young. Will you cooperate in providing witnesses
and briefers in response to congressional requests?
[The witnesses all replied in the affirmative.]
Senator Young. And finally, will those briefers be
protected from reprisal from their briefings?
[The witnesses all replied in the affirmative.]
Senator Young. The word was ``reprisal.'' All right.
Well, thank you.
And congratulations, to all of you, for your nomination.
And I would expect confirmation here today.
I have a question for Ms. Cabral. We certainly appreciate
the hospitality of the Marshall Islands to be a strong ally in
the region and a host of our military. The history of our
missile testing done in that area was essential to the military
might that we still exhibit today. How do the Marshall Island
leaders and citizens feel about our ongoing military presence
there?
Ms. Cabral. Thank you for the question, Senator.
As you mentioned, we have a longstanding and historic
relationship with the Marshall Islands. We share the same
values, we share same common objectives, to maintain support
for a free and open Indo-Pacific with freedom of navigation.
And so, as I understand it, we still have that strong support
of the Marshall Islands, in this respect.
Thank you.
Senator Young. That is good to know.
So, following some news of the neighboring Solomon Islands
and Kiribati ending their diplomatic relations with Taiwan,
complying with the Chinese influence in the area, the Marshall
Islands went the other direction and adopted a resolution to
show its profound appreciation to the people and government of
Taiwan. The Marshall Islands President said, ``We have all seen
China's attempts to expand its territory and footprint, and
this should be of great concern to democratic countries.'' I
find this welcome news. What actions will you take, as
Ambassador, Ms.--to ensure that we remain a close ally of the
Marshall Islands?
Ms. Cabral. Thank you for that question.
It was good news to see that affirmation from the
Parliament. And the President of the Marshall Islands was just
in Taiwan last week to sign some bilateral cooperation
agreements in the areas of economic and education exchange. So,
if confirmed, I would try to strengthen this relationship,
encourage a stronger relationship, and help the Marshall
Islands create an environment that can push back on predatory
economic practices of China that we have been seeing around the
world.
Thank you.
Senator Young. I loved how you ended that. I have held a
couple of subcommittee hearings on China's predatory economic
practices. So that is, I think, the right direction, especially
in light of China's effort to expand its reach through the Belt
and Road Initiative. Our work to demonstrate our commitment to
the region is being challenged every day. You know that so
well. If confirmed, Ms. Cabral, how will you express our
commitment, support, not only to the Marshall Islands, but to
the broader region?
Ms. Cabral. I think there are three ways that we can
express our support for Taiwan and also against the predatory
economic practices that I mentioned. And one is to increase
transparency and expose bad deals. And another one is to
provide alternatives. We provide a better model. I strongly
believe this. And there are tools that this committee has
created, such as ARIA and the BUILD Act, that can help us do
that. And the third one is, just be present and work with our
allies on this. China has no allies. And I think this is
something important to remember. We have a longstanding
relationship with many of the countries in this region, an
historic relationship. We share the same values and the same
common objectives.
Thank you.
Senator Young. Yeah. Arguably--I do not think you
disagree--from a geopolitical standpoint, that is our greatest
natural resource, our alliance system, right?
All right. Thank you so much.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Johnson. Senator Kaine.
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And congratulations, to each of you. I have both a Virginia
resident, in Ms. Cabral, and a UVA graduate, in Mr. Gilchrist.
And so, it is particularly good to congratulate you on your
nominations and on your long careers of service.
I want to ask a question to Ms. Kim, Mr. Gilchrist, and Ms.
Degnan about Russia and NATO in the countries that you are
involved in.
So, Albania and Lithuania are NATO members, and Georgia is
not. Georgia, there has often been a discussion about NATO in
the future of Georgia. So, I think all of you are able to kind
of grapple with this one. And it really is to get advice.
There was a NATO-Russia Founding Act that was signed in
1997. And the reality at that time was the transition away from
the Soviet Union, and the breakup of the Soviet Union, and new
countries emerging. And so, the Act basically established that
NATO would not--in a whole series of ways, would not, sort of,
present itself as a hostile face to Russia. But, the phrase
that was used in the Act was also--also put some burdens on
Russia. Let us see. Russia was obligated, quote, ``to exercise
similar restraint in its conventional-force deployments in
Europe.'' The invasion of the regions of Georgia, the seizure
of Crimea, Russian-supported separatists in the Donbas area of
eastern Ukraine--Russia really has not abided by its portion of
this agreement.
One of my proud possessions as a dad is a photo of my son
being sworn in as a captain, being elevated from first
lieutenant in the United States Marine Corps in a snowy field
in the middle of Lithuania in December of 2016. He was deployed
there as part of the European Defense Initiative. And I know,
in Lithuania, there has been a desire for more presence,
possibly permanent NATO presence. Thus far, we have decided to
have large exercises. There is one coming up next year,
Defender 2020, where we will be doing significant exercises.
I just, sort of, for purposes of the committee--and I am on
the Armed Services Committee, as well, but NATO is one of these
things that is both Armed Services and Foreign Relations. As
professionals, what do you think about the NATO-Russia Founding
Act? There have been some who suggest we should scrap it. There
are some that suggest it is already a dead letter. How should
we be thinking about this, as policymakers, in terms of how we
approach diplomacy or military engagements with the nations
that are near Russia? They have not exercised restraint in
their military deployments in the region. So, what does that
mean about how we should approach this particular agreement?
Ms. Degnan. Thank you very much. That is a very interesting
question, Senator.
Having served at NATO, I have seen the value of the NATO-
Russia Council. It is--can be a very frustrating forum, but it
is a forum for dialogue, and continuing that dialogue is
absolutely essential. As you pointed out, NATO is a political-
military organization. And the political part of it has been
essential to bringing peace and stability and prosperity to
Europe. It is a defensive organization that has served Europe
and the United States and Canada well.
I think it is essential that we continue to put that
forward, that opportunity forward, to have dialogue with
Russia. It goes in waves, in terms of how constructive it is.
But, again, it underscores the fact that--nations have the
right to choose the alliances they belong to, such as Georgia,
such as Lithuania and Albania. And I think NATO will continue
to be a strong force for stability in Europe as a result.
Thank you.
Senator Kaine. Other comments?
Mr. Gilchrist. I would agree with that, in terms of the
need to ensure that there is still a forum for dialogue.
Obviously, over the past 5 to 10 years, the relationship--
NATO's relationship with Russia--has been on the decline, in
light of the Russian invasion, first of Georgia, then of
Ukraine. It has been a particular concern to the Baltic states.
Although Lithuania does not have a substantial Russian
population per se, it is strategically located as a border
country with Kaliningrad.
Senator Kaine. Kaliningrad.
Mr. Gilchrist. And, you know, what we get from the Baltics
is, they want greater U.S. engagement in any way possible. And
certainly, they welcome the enhanced presence--enhanced NATO
presence, which I think has been critical, continued NATO air
policing, and the Defender 2020 exercise--I have just been
reading the press today, some of the statements coming out from
the senior leadership of Lithuania. They are certainly very
pleased about this exercise and having 500 troops on the
ground.
Senator Kaine. Do you have an opinion about permanent NATO
presence in Lithuania? Thus far, it has been significant
forward deployments and exercises and things like that. There
has often been a request by Lithuania that there be a permanent
presence there.
Mr. Gilchrist. I think the Lithuanians and all of the
Baltic states will continue asking for as much as we are
willing to give. And certainly, we have to be understanding and
sensitive to what their security concerns are. With regard to a
permanent president--presence, I am not prepared to comment on
that right now, but I certainly think a robust relationship on
security, on every level, is fundamentally important, if not
existential, for the security of the Baltic states.
Senator Kaine. Ms. Kim.
Ms. Kim. Senator, thanks for that question.
I think the key to the strength of NATO and its utility,
going forward, for the United States relies on three things:
solidarity, integration, and interoperability. In all three of
those respects, Albania could not score higher. Thankfully, the
Russian narrative does not get much traction in Albania. And I
think, as I said in my statement, it behooves us to hold
friends like this more closely at this time.
Senator Kaine. I will just say, editorially, that I do not
like the U.S. walking away from agreements, but I do think,
after 20-plus years, whether it is NAFTA or the NATO- Russia
Founding Act, you have probably learned some things, and the
situation in the world, situation in the region, has changed
dramatically. Russian behavior in the last years has been very,
very different. So, it may be a time to assess the continuing
value of the Founding Act and decide whether it might be
improved upon and what kind of dialogue might lay that to
happen.
But, I appreciate your answers and congratulate you on your
nominations.
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Senator Johnson. Senator Romney.
Senator Romney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, to each of you who have decided to make the
State Department your career, and appreciate your willingness
to serve on behalf of our country and to serve in foreign
places. It is a enormous sacrifice, I understand, and it is
very much appreciated by those of us who get to live here and
enjoy the freedoms that we have.
There are two great, if you will, geopolitical competitors
that are increasingly visible on the world stage. Russia has
been such for a long, long time. China is increasingly so. And,
in the case of Russia, my perception is that they have a real
problem: a shrinking population, a weak industrial base. Yes,
they have enormous natural resources--energy resources, in
particular--but, they have got some real problems with smaller
population, and certainly a small population relative to us and
relative to their other neighbor, China. So, I would anticipate
them continuing to have their eyes set on their neighbors as a
way to grab population and to grab industrial base and to try
and strengthen their hand. And therefore, I do believe that our
posture in Georgia, in Lithuania--to a degree, in Albania--that
those are areas where it is important for us to evidence our
commitment to these nations and to the principles of
sovereignty that have been violated by Russia in Georgia in the
past, and also in Ukraine.
From the standpoint of the three of you that are in nations
that are confronting that concern, are there things that we
should be doing that we are not doing? Are there things we
should be emphasizing more to make it very clear that we have a
full and complete commitment to preventing the invasion of
other sovereign nations by Russia?
Ms. Degnan. Thank you, Senator. That is a very timely
question for Georgia.
I think we have demonstrated on all fronts on Georgia,
especially the United States, the importance of continued vocal
advocacy of Georgia's territorial integrity and its
sovereignty, and our strong commitment to support Georgia as it
makes the kinds of reforms that are necessary to strengthen its
institutions, to follow on the path that Georgia has chosen, to
integrate into the European Union and the West. This is where
we can really be a true friend to Georgia. I think the
assistance that we have been providing to Georgia, especially
in terms of building Georgia's capacity, its resilience, its
self-reliance, its ability to defend its own borders, is
absolutely essential. And we are not the only ones. We have
well-coordinated assistance provided with the European Union
and others who want to see Georgia succeed. And Georgia has
made tremendous progress in the last 20 years.
There is more work to be done, as I mentioned in my
statement, but I think the progress they have made demonstrates
their commitment to integrating into the West. It is the choice
they have made.
Senator Romney. Thank you.
Ms. Degnan. Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrist. Yes. Thank you, Senator, for your question.
I think that anytime a United States Senator makes
reference to the inviolability of Article 5, it is a message
that resonates, certainly throughout the Baltic states, and
throughout NATO.
Since before Lithuania's membership in NATO, the United
States played a central role in helping Lithuania rebuild its
military forces. And we have developed an incredibly strong
relationship with them, sharing information at multiple levels.
And the Lithuanians have, in turn, fought with us side by side
in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and in the war against terrorism.
I think there is always more that we can do, and I know
that they are always seeking more, but I will say that the
presence right now of the 500 troops with Abrams tanks on the
ground has been welcomed tremendously by Lithuania and, I know,
by its Baltic neighbors, as well.
Senator Romney. Thank you.
I have just got to note, before we leave Lithuania, that I
was born and raised in Michigan, and there is a very
substantial Lithuanian-American community in Michigan. My
father was a Governor and a politician there, and we spent a
number of occasions in the Lithuanian community enjoying
extraordinary food and culture. So, I am sure you will enjoy
your experience there, and please give my best to my Lithuanian
friends.
Mr. Gilchrist. I will.
[Laughter.]
Senator Romney. Thank you.
Any comment from Albania that----
Ms. Kim. Sir, I think, in Albania, what we want to do is
two things. One, help the Albanians strengthen their
institutions so that they are more resilient against attempts
by Russia, as well as, more importantly, I think, in Albania's
case, China, to infiltrate their economy and to futz around
with their political moorings. Secondly, I think we want to
work very closely with the Albanians to develop their
capabilities as a NATO ally. There is something to be said
about strength and solidarity in these times, and that is what
I would focus on, if confirmed.
Senator Romney. Thank you.
I would turn, for a moment, to our friends in the Marshall
Islands, extraordinary friends over such a long period of time,
which have housed our military, and we share many values with
the people of the Marshall Islands. I salute them for their
recognition of a important relationship with Taiwan, and hope
that other nations in the Pacific will recognize the importance
of transport of open oceans and maintaining the sovereignty of
respective states.
The commitment which Marshall Islands has made is a model.
To what do you attribute this kind of commitment that they have
made in a way where other nations in the region have shrunk
from that kind of support?
Ms. Cabral. I think that is an interesting question. And
I--our--the Compact of Free Association, I think, a large part
of our relationship which is built on a mutually beneficial
relationship, has a lot to do with that. It is--we have a very
strong partnership with the Marshall Islands. We are there and
we are--will continue to be there. And I think that has a lot
to do with it.
Senator Romney. Yeah. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman.
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Senator Romney.
You know, I think three of you mentioned the commitment and
the contribution that our allies have made to NATO operations.
Ms. Degnan, I think you mentioned 32 killed from Georgia. I do
not know the exact numbers from the other nations. I know, in
total, it has been about 1,000 since NATO invoked Article 5 in
support of America after 9/11. So, it is something I do not
think we talk enough about. It is something that we need to,
and we need to acknowledge that.
A lot of conversation about disinformation, the persistent
nature of it coming out of Russia. I thought it was
interesting. I am glad to hear, Ms. Kim, that, in Albania, they
are just not buying it. They do not have much to sell. So, as a
result--and we have held hearings on this, as well--you know,
Russia's primary goal in their disinformation campaign is just
simply to try and convince people they cannot believe anything.
And so, we did have, a couple of weeks ago, in a--an
interesting hearing, we had the nominee for the Broadcast Board
of Governors. And I was not able to stay, because the hearing
dragged on a little bit too long, but one of the questions I
wanted to talk to him about--we submitted this for the record--
was our ability--and I think Senator Shaheen is aware of this,
as well--we have an ability to circumvent the firewalls to
provide Internet access to Russia, to China. The Broadcast
Board of Governors is not using the resources that we have
allocated to actually accomplish that goal.
One way I think we can get them to--convince them to do
that--you know, they will focus on programming, and I do not
think we will ever keep up with Russia today, and--you know,
the pervasive disinformation campaign in Russia, but just
opening up, circumventing those firewalls, I think, would be
incredibly important. I think the more Ambassadors that that
message comes from, I think, the more pressure will be on the
Broadcast Board of Governors. So, I would just like to ask all
of you--because we are talking about both into Russia and to
China. You know, Russia, obviously, is fomenting this
proactively. China is just--obviously, just closing things up
and preventing freedom as a result. So, can you just comment on
your commitment to trying to get the Board of Governors to pay
more attention to that issue?
We will start with you, Ms. Kim.
Ms. Kim. Senator, I think what you say makes an awful lot
of sense. And if I have the opportunity, I would certainly
explore that.
Senator Johnson. Mr. Gilchrist?
Mr. Gilchrist. I agree, as well, Senator. And I imagine
that my Lithuanian counterparts would agree with that, as well.
Senator Johnson. Ms. Degnan?
Ms. Degnan. Thank you. Yes, I--if I am confirmed, I would
certainly be happy to work with the committee on that. And I
agree with you, it is worth exploring.
Thank you.
Senator Johnson. Ms. Cabral.
Ms. Cabral. I also concur. The world has changed in many
dramatic ways in the last 5, 10 years, and especially the way
we communicate. And it is important that we keep up with the
types of communications that work today.
Thank you.
Senator Johnson. Ms. Cabral, real quick, I--it was either
in your testimony or in the briefing on the Marshall Islands,
is--the whole issue of our nuclear testing there, and the issue
of waste, and the protection of it. You--I did not realize it
is only 6 feet, is the maximum elevation there. That, in
itself, could potentially threaten nuclear waste. What do you
know about that issue? And what do we need to do to protect
that, both from, you know, natural disaster, but also just
from, you know, malign intervention?
Ms. Cabral. This is a complicated question, and I am just
getting briefed on the ramifications of this. I know we just
committed almost $2 million to do some additional monitoring
and testing of some of the sites there. But, it is something I
would really like to dig in deeper, if I am confirmed.
Senator Johnson. Ms. Kim, you particularly mentioned
organized crime. Organized crime is not the same, region to
region, country to country. So, can you just kind of describe
the type of organized crime you are really referring to in
Albania? What is either particularly unique about that, or not
unique?
Ms. Kim. Albania has an unfortunate reputation, at this
point, for being the locus of organized crime that moves
people--in particular, women--as well as narcotics across
borders. It is a serious problem.
Senator Johnson. Ms. Degnan, Georgia has--you know, from my
standpoint, it has made some great progress, in terms of rule
of law, reducing corruption. I mean, there is no such thing as
a corrupt-free society. It is just where you are on that scale.
And this has been in the face of, just, persistent aggression
on Russia's part. Talk about what we can do to support Georgia.
Again, I appreciate the fact--I also want all of you to comment
on this, as well--our concern--we just ratified North
Macedonia's accession to NATO. From my standpoint, incredibly
credible, incredibly important, what I have seen, the
incentives that the ability to join NATO, to join the EU,
creates for those governments to enact important reforms.
Georgia has had that incentive out there for quite some time,
since, what, I think, 2008, you mentioned, reaffirmed in 2018.
And yet, you have what France just did to North Macedonia, you
know, and I think to Albania. Can you just comment on how
important that is--that aspiration, but also what can we do to
keep those reforms moving forward?
Ms. Degnan. Thank you, Senator.
NATO being a political-military organization has very high
standards. It is a rigorous process to become a member of NATO.
And it should be. It should not be easy. And I think, at least
from my experience when I was at NATO, Georgia is very aware of
what the expectations are, and, I agree with you, has made
great progress, especially in the military area, and is working
hard on meeting the political standards, as well. We have been
there to assist them, and we will continue to assist them. As
that pledge from 2008 indicates, the allies are behind
Georgia's membership, but it is on Georgia, also, to meet those
very high standards of political-military requirements that are
essential to NATO's strength.
Senator Johnson. Talk a little bit about what you--what
your knowledge is of Russia's persistent aggression. I mean,
they continue--from my meetings, they continue to just move
those lines forward--kidnappings, lack of ability of Georgians
to cross borders to meet--to visit family members. I mean, talk
a little bit about, you know, really what Russia is doing
there.
Ms. Degnan. Thank you. It is very concerning, actually, the
pressure that remains. And I think we saw that in August, where
there were increased tensions over Georgia building a police
post near South Ossetia. We have a mechanism in place, the
Geneva International Discussions, that is designed to address
those kinds of tensions. Some of the mechanisms, like the
Incident Prevention and Response Mechanisms, are not being used
as fully as they could be. And I think that has been a constant
effort on our part and other members, participants in the
Geneva International Discussions, to try and reactivate those.
Our call for the EU Monitoring Mission to have greater
access, perhaps even the establishment of an OSCE monitoring
mission so that there is more transparency on what is going on
in the occupied territories so that we have more opportunities
also to build solutions on the ground, I think, would be very
helpful in terms of breaking that kind of Russian aggression
and control.
Fundamentally, I think, the most important support we can
provide is to be a constant advocate for Georgia's sovereignty
and territorial integrity, and to call continually for Russia
to fulfill its obligations under the 2008 cease-fire agreement.
We simply cannot stop with that message.
Thank you.
Senator Johnson. Thank you.
Senator Gardner.
Senator Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to the nominees here before us today. Thank you
for your public service, and welcome to your families this
afternoon.
Ms. Cabral, thank you very much for your time you took with
me, here, several weeks ago in the office, to discuss issues
surrounding the Asia-Pacific, the Indo-Pacific, and how we can
enhance our presence and commitment to the region. I also know
that you had a little bit of interaction earlier today. I think
it was Senator Young, talking a little bit about ARIA. Thank
you very much for your commitment to the Asia Reassurance
Initiative Act. I think this committee has worked to get that
legislation not only through the committee, but signed into
law. Now we have about 2-and-a-half-billion dollars' worth of
appropriations in the State and Foreign Operations
appropriations bill. That really goes a long ways in showing to
our allies in the region that the U.S. is committed, that we
are going to be a longtime player in power--a long-term player
in power in the Pacific, Indo- Pacific, and laying out how we
can do a better job of doing just that. So, thank you very much
for the commitment to the legislation.
I want to talk a little bit about Taiwan, in particular. We
have been working on a bill called the TAIPEI Act, which would
create sort of a diplomatic roadmap, so to speak, of how the
United States can enhance our support for Taiwan around the
globe, but also how we can encourage our allies and other
countries to continue their support for Taiwan, to step up
their support for Taiwan, and, of course, in the case of the
Marshall Islands, a country that continues to support the
relationship that it has with Taiwan. What can we be doing more
to show our appreciation for the Marshall Islands in that
regard?
Ms. Cabral. Thank you for that question. It is an important
one.
And, just last week, the President of the Marshall Islands
was in Taiwan to sign a bilateral economic agreement and some
other educational exchange programs. So, I think, fostering
that relationship is something that we could do more of. And,
if I am confirmed, I will work to strengthen this relationship.
Thank you.
Senator Gardner. Thank you. And could you just talk a
little bit about China and what the United States can be doing
to stand up within the region on the Chinese malign influences
in the region?
Ms. Cabral. We--Senator, we offer a better model. We really
do. We offer a model that is based on rule of law, respect for
country sovereignty and their own local laws, on fairness, on
transparency. And that is why tools like the BUILD Act and ARIA
are really important for us to help create a fair and even
playing field so that our companies can compete evenly with
China. And when we do compete, we win. So, I would like to use
more of those tools to foster that kind of environment, if I am
confirmed.
Senator Gardner. Thank you. And U.S. compact assistance,
obviously, with the Marshall Islands is beyond just any kind of
an economic partnership. This is--goes to the very strategic,
core interests of our relationship and presence in the Indo-
Pacific. Could you talk, or describe, perhaps, the strategic
interests in the compact?
Ms. Cabral. It is the foundation for our relationship, and
it is really based on mutual benefits that we agree on. We
share the same values, we have the same common objectives. And
so, this relationship, through the compact, will last in
perpetuity. Right now, there are certain provisions in the
compact related to economic assistance that are under review.
So, I look forward to seeing what kind of outcomes they----
Senator Gardner. Thank you.
Ms. Cabral. Yeah.
Senator Gardner. And could you talk, perhaps, about some of
your experiences in Panama, and how that relates--with Panama,
and how it relates to Marshall Islands?
Ms. Cabral. I have been spending quite a bit of time in
Panama trying to educate them on the risk of doing business
with Panama. As you know, they have----
Senator Gardner. With China, yeah.
Ms. Cabral. With China. They flipped, a couple of years
ago. It was a popular decision in Panama, and it still is. But,
the new government has said all the right things about
maintaining the U.S. as its number-one partner in security, in
commerce, and encouraging our people-to- people ties. And I
think that is a good foundation for which to build on, if I am
confirmed, to go to the Marshall Islands and do, the same--
deliver the same kinds of messages.
Senator Gardner. Thank you.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Johnson. Senator Shaheen.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Cabral, some women's organizations estimate that more
than half of all women in the Marshall Islands experience
domestic violence. Various studies have suggested that sexual
violence of all kinds is common, but frequently unreported. And
I know there is a new woman President, the first woman
President. Is there any effort that she has announced to
address gender-based violence and the rights of women in the
country?
Ms. Cabral. Thank you, Senator. That is a really important
topic.
And the role of women in--you know, increased role of women
in societies has shown that societies are more secure and more
prosperous. I am not familiar with anything that she has
introduced, but I would like to get back to you on that. I know
she has been a champion of women's rights in her presidency.
[The information referred to had not been received when
this hearing was printed.]
Senator Shaheen. And are there things that you think, as
Ambassador, you could do to try and encourage some action to
address this problem?
Ms. Cabral. I do. I think, if you look at our Trafficking
in Persons Report, for example, the Marshall Islands need to
improve on investigations, prosecutions, and convictions in
that area. So, if I am confirmed, I would try to enhance our
law enforcement cooperation in this area.
Senator Shaheen. That would be great. Thank you. I hope you
will get back to us with the other question, because I think
that is something we should share with the committee.
Ms. Degnan, you and Senator Johnson were talking about NATO
and Georgia's contributions to NATO despite the fact that it is
not a member. They became an aspirant country in 2011, and yet
they have not become a NATO member yet. They also signed an
Association Agreement with the EU in 2014, but it is still not
on the Brussels list of candidates or potential candidates for
joining the EU in the future. So, one of the--it seems to me
that one of the challenges that we have is, How do we keep
Georgia on a path of reform, continuing to look to the West as
where they would like to be, when their aspirations have not
yet been achieved with respect to NATO or the EU? So, can you
talk a little bit about what--how you think the Georgians view
the failure to have been admitted to NATO at this point,
recognizing that they have made a lot of reforms? As I am sure
you are aware, there are discussions among--there are rumors
that suggest that Georgia will not be admitted to NATO because
of the impact that that would have on Russia. So, can you talk
a little bit about what we should be thinking about, in terms
of continuing to encourage Georgia to look to the West and to
continue their positive contributions to NATO and their
aspirations to the EU?
Ms. Degnan. Thank you, Senator.
As you say, Georgia has made a great deal of progress. And
my impression, when I was at NATO, was that Georgia understands
how much work is involved in becoming a member of that
organization. The same with the European Union. These are
designed, these were created, to help countries come a long
way. And Georgia has, from a Soviet state to the democratic
state that it is today. It is remarkable. But, I think there is
real recognition that there is still work to be done to have an
independent judiciary, a pluralistic legislature, a diverse
media, space for civil society to really operate and play that
role that is so important in a democracy.
I think the confidence of Georgia is evident in the high
percentages that still favor joining NATO--I think it is about
70 percent--and joining the European Union, which is close to
75 percent of the Georgian public still have chosen that path
despite how hard it is, despite how long it takes.
So, what we can do is, again, to provide the kinds of
assistance to help them make the reforms they need--as we
have--and to continue to be a close partner and a strong
supporter of their sovereignty. I think our military
cooperation alone has been just a perfect example of what we
can do together with the shared values we have and the same
objectives, to have stability in that region.
Thank you.
Senator Shaheen. And so, do you think there is concern
because of the continued frozen conflict there with Abkhazia
and Ossetia, that--and Russia's interest in those two
territories, that that will prevent them from actually being
able to join NATO in the near future?
Ms. Degnan. I am sure that is Russia's hope and objective,
and that is why we have put so much effort into resolving that
conflict and keeping the pressure on Russia to meet its
obligations under the cease-fire, to use the Geneva
International Discussions and other fora to find ways to
resolve that. And Georgia itself has come up with some
interesting initiatives to try and integrate those populations,
to do some people-to-people exchanges. Some of our assistance
is also oriented at people-to-people exchanges to try and
increase communication flow with the people in Abkhazia and
South Ossetia.
It is going to take some time. This is a very complex game
that is being played there. But, I think those two tracks of
trying to resolve the situation on the ground and trying to
keep Georgia moving forward to its integration into the
European Union and the West is essential.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Ms. Kim, I want to go back to Albania. Everybody--you
pointed out about Albania's contributions to NATO, about their
contribution to the Global Coalition to Counter ISIS. And that
has been very important. As I am sure you are aware, there are
reports that show that about 120 Albanians have served as
foreign fighters with ISIS, and they have been detained in
Syria and Iraq. If confirmed as Ambassador, will you commit to
working with the Albanian government to urge them to take back
those citizens who have been serving as foreign fighters. As
you are aware, I am sure, this has been a huge challenge that
we have had with many of the countries who are home to some of
these fighters. And terrorists who have fought with ISIS are
now being detained and are not being taken back to their home
country.
Ms. Kim. Yes, Senator.
The disposition of these foreign terrorist fighters who are
in detention is a major issue for the administration. And
certainly, if I were confirmed to be Ambassador to Albania, I
would work very closely with the Albanian government to resolve
their share of that issue.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
We have--in the defense bill, if it gets through, there is
a position of a coordinator to help with detainees. So,
hopefully, that will get done, and that person can help focus
on this issue. Because, as we know, with our withdrawal from
Syria and the unsteady situation there, we have a real
challenge with those people who have been in detention.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Senator Shaheen.
So, again, we will note that Chairman Risch came to
demonstrate his support for these nominations. I am assuming.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Correctly assumed.
Senator Johnson. But, I just wanted to thank the nominees
again for your past service, for your testimony, for your
willingness to serve in the future. I want to thank your
families for their support for this career path you have all
chosen. Again, it is quite the commitment, and we truly do
appreciate it.
So, with that, the hearing record will remain open for
statements or questions until the close of business on
Thursday, October 31st.
This hearing is adjourned.
----------
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted to Roxanne Cabral by Senator Robert Menendez
Question. In your written testimony, you stated ``I recognize that
the Marshall Islands, as a country with a maximum elevation of six feet
above sea level, has profound concerns about the impacts of rising sea
levels. If confirmed, I look forward to continuing to support ongoing
efforts to enhance resilience, and to engaging with the Marshall
Islands on these issues:''
You mention ``rising sea-levels'' but no mention of climate change
as a cause of rising sea levels. Do you believe that climate
change is real? Do you believe that it poses a serious threat?
If so, how should the United States most effectively position
itself to partner with the Marshall Islands to deal with these
issues?
Answer. The United States recognizes that addressing environmental
degradation and climate change is a priority to the Pacific Island
countries, especially atoll nations like the Marshall Islands. Given
the threat posed to the Marshall Islands by sea level rise and the
region's vulnerability to natural disasters, the United States is
committed to reducing the risks and impacts of flooding and other
natural disasters. We have long been engaged in supporting disaster
risk reduction programs aimed at saving lives and reducing the impact
of disasters worldwide, including in the Marshall Islands.
For example, the United States recently committed $10 million to
provide support for disaster resilience, weather forecasting, and to
address environmental challenges in the Pacific region. NOAA also
provides weather services and related programs through the Weather
Service Office in the Marshall Islands under the Federal Programs and
Services Agreement.
If confirmed, I look forward to assisting the Marshall Islands to
protect natural resources, increase resilience, provide reliable and
affordable energy, and respond to natural disasters.
Question. You will be representing a President who has executed an
unprecedented rollback of constructive efforts to address climate
change, including walking away from the Paris Accord, and has cemented
an environmental legacy that will be felt by generations to come:
How do you plan on being effective as Ambassador to a country that
is watching their land fall underwater every day if the
administration you serve refuses to acknowledge the reality of
climate change?
Answer. The United States recognizes that addressing environmental
degradation and climate change is a priority for Pacific Island
countries due to the threat posed by sea level rise and the region's
vulnerability to natural disasters.
We have long been engaged in supporting disaster risk reduction
programs aimed at saving lives and reducing the impact of disasters
worldwide, including in the Marshall Islands.
The Department of State works with interagency partners to support
resilience work with the Pacific Islands to improve drinking water
quality and wastewater management; to support water and weather
forecasting infrastructure; and to improve early warning and disaster
resilience and response capability.
Our recent commitment of $10 million to the region provides support
for disaster resilience, weather forecasting, and other means to
address environmental challenges in the Pacific region. If confirmed, I
look forward to assisting the Marshall Islands build resilience,
protect its natural resources, and more effectively respond to natural
disasters.
Question. It is no secret that China is maneuvering in the Indo-
Pacific to become an increasingly dominant player, using a wide range
of tools including diplomacy, loans and assistance, infrastructure
development, trade, and tourism--not to mention money under the table
and other forms of corruption:
In the face of rising Chinese influence in the Marshall Islands,
what will you do to promote U.S. economic engagement as
Ambassador?
Answer. Good governance is a core pillar of the U.S. vision for a
free and open Indo-Pacific. As part of the Indo-Pacific Transparency
Initiative, the United States, with allies and partners, will promote
just, transparent, and responsive governance through anti-corruption
efforts while encouraging strong civil society and honest business
practices. If confirmed, I would work with the RMI to create the
conditions needed to unlock greater private investment, combat
corruption, and secure the RMI from malign foreign influence. I will
also work with other U.S. agencies to capitalize on opportunities for
more private investment from the United States. I see this as
beneficial for U.S. businesses as well as the Marshallese people.
The United States provides the government of the RMI roughly $35
million a year in grants to provide economic assistance for six
sectors: health, education, public infrastructure, the environment,
public sector capacity development, and private sector capacity
development, with priorities in the education and health care sectors.
If confirmed, I would work closely with the Department of the Interior
and other U.S. departments and agencies operating in the RMI to
encourage the RMI government to take an outcome-oriented approach in
the use of economic assistance provided under the Amended Compact that
would encourage the development of the RMI's economy.
Question. What do you think will be the key or keys to ensuring
that the Marshall Islands retains independence and autonomy in the face
of increasing Chinese pressure?
Answer. If confirmed, I would continue to highlight the benefits of
our special, unique relationship and the mutual advantages that such a
partnership confers. I would work to ensure that critical programs,
provided for under our Compact of Free Association and U.S. domestic
legislation, are identified so that we can encourage the RMI's
continued development. These programs help reduce RMI's vulnerability
to the People's Republic of China. The United States and the RMI also
enjoy a special relationship with respect to security and defense
matters which contributes to broader regional security, stability, and
prosperity and supports RMI's resiliency. Our special relationship,
with roots in our shared history and the free association of our two
states, supports RMI's resiliency and ability to resist third country
pressures.
If confirmed, I would also encourage the Marshall Islands to employ
a skeptical approach and insist on transparency and a rigorous,
objective evaluation of any proposal or overture made by private firms
affiliated with the Chinese government.
The Marshall Islands and the United States share a profound
commitment to democracy and open societies. These shared values are the
foundation of, and a driving force in, our relationship. The RMI is one
of 15 countries that maintains diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Taiwan is a
democratic success story, a reliable partner, and a force for good in
the world.
Investment in the region's economic prosperity would be another key
factor. On September 27, Secretary Pompeo announced $65 million in new
assistance at a meeting with Pacific Island leaders. This new
assistance is in addition to $36.5 million announced at the 50th
Pacific Islands Forum in August, as well as approximately $350 million
that U.S. agencies invest annually in projects, assistance, and
operations to build a more prosperous future for the people of the
region, including the RMI.
Question. What are the most important actions you have taken in
your career to date to support democracy and human rights? What has
been the impact of your actions?
Answer. As a public diplomacy coned-FSO, much of my work in
developing countries has focused on strengthening human rights,
providing capacity building for NGOs and civil society organizations,
and training and exchange programs for leaders of human rights
organizations, including students.
While posted in Washington, DC, my job was focused on ensuring PD
sections' strategic plans focused on human rights issues as a priority
and providing for program funding for such efforts.
In China, the public diplomacy office I led focused grant activity
on establishing and fostering women's rights groups, LGBT groups and
others who lacked a convening authority to bring together and empower
like-minded people to advocate more effectively for their rights. We
reinforced this activity by arranging exchange programs so that leaders
within these groups, NGOs and civil society leaders could come to the
U.S. and see our model of governance and respect for human rights. The
impact was immediate in most cases. For example, with the women's
groups, participants not only expressed genuine gratitude for the
opportunity to meet and coordinate with peers, they also formed
longstanding bonds. These groups still exist today, eight or nine years
after we helped put them together, and while it can be difficult for
their voice to be heard in China, they continue to advocate for their
rights.
As charge d'affaires in Panama, I have directed our entire
interagency team to shape our country strategy to incorporate the
protection of human rights and promotion of democracy in all of our
engagements within Panama. Every relevant embassy activity showcases
our values and beliefs in support of human rights. While it is hard to
gauge impact, the feedback that my staff and I have received has been
very positive.
Question. How will you utilize U.S. government assistance resources
at your disposal, including the Democracy Commission Small Grants
program and other sources of State Department and USAID funding, to
support democracy and governance, and what will you prioritize in
processes to administer such assistance?
Answer. Our vision for a free and open Indo-Pacific seeks to ensure
the freedom of the seas and skies, promote market economies, support
good governance, and insulate sovereign nations from external pressure.
The mission objectives of Embassy Majuro are already aligned with this
strategy: empowering women in political and economic life,
strengthening democratic institutions, and promoting inclusive and
transparent economic growth. If confirmed, these are the key tenets I
will seek to advance in the Marshall Islands through U.S. government
assistance.
Question. If confirmed, do you commit to meet with civil society
members, human rights and other non-governmental organizations in the
U.S. and with local human rights NGOs, and other members of civil
society in the Marshall Islands?
Answer. The Marshall Islands is a relatively new but strong and
evolving multiparty democracy. If confirmed, I look forward to meeting
with civil society members to hear about their goals and objectives and
to learn how we might work together in areas of common concern. The
United States values the voice and opinions of civil society and has a
long history of engaging leaders both inside and outside the
government. Civil society organizations have a critical role to play in
supporting efforts to ensure a healthy democracy. In the Marshall
Islands women are generally underrepresented in political bodies
relative to their proportion of the population. If confirmed, I would
seek opportunities to encourage greater inclusivity, possibly through
U.S. government-sponsored programs.
Question. If confirmed, will you advocate for access and
inclusivity for women, minorities and youth within political parties?
Answer. Yes, if confirmed, my Embassy team and I will actively
engage with the government of the Marshall Islands and civil society to
advocate for such inclusivity. The Marshall Islands is a relatively new
but strong and evolving democracy. Although the Marshall Islands has a
female President, the first for any independent Pacific island country,
female participation in government is still low. Encouraging broader
political participation is a priority, and it starts at the community
level, in schools and advocacy organizations. If confirmed, I intend to
encourage women and youth to participate in discussions about important
issues--to give them a voice and a platform that they are not yet
accustomed to having. If confirmed, I intend to develop strong
relationships with members of parliament to encourage them to promote
diversity in government. I view this advocacy role as a key element of
my position as Ambassador.
Question. Will you and your embassy team actively engage with civil
society and government counterparts on countering disinformation and
propaganda disseminated by foreign state or non-state actors in the
Marshall Islands?
Answer. Yes, if confirmed, my Embassy team and I will actively
engage with the government of the Marshall Islands and civil society to
counter disinformation. My team and I would engage to promote
transparency and good governance as well as strengthen the skills and
capacity of local journalists through strategic use of public diplomacy
tools including reporting tours and International Visitor Leadership
Programs.
Question. Will you commit to using your position, if confirmed, to
defend the human rights and dignity of all people in the Marshall
Islands, no matter their sexual orientation or gender identity? What
challenges do the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ)
people face in the Marshall Islands? What specifically will you commit
to do to help LGBTQ people in the Marshall Islands?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work to protect and defend human
rights for all--including LGBTI persons. governments have an obligation
to ensure that everyone can freely enjoy the human rights and
fundamental freedoms to which they are entitled. The RMI has recently
been elected to the U.N. Human Rights Council for 2020-2022.
As stated in the Department of State's most recent Human Rights
Report, neither the RMI's constitution nor law provides specific
protection against discrimination for LGBTI persons. There were no
reports of societal violence based on sexual orientation or gender
identity. There were no reports of official or societal discrimination
based on sexual orientation or gender identity in employment, housing,
statelessness, or access to education or health care. The law prohibits
same-sex couples or individuals involved in a same-sex relationship
from adopting Marshallese children. If confirmed, I will work with the
government to advocate for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of
all individuals in the Marshall Islands, and urge the government to
speak out against discrimination against LGBTI persons.
Question. Do you commit to respond promptly to all requests for
information by members of this committee?
Answer. Yes, with the understanding that any such response would be
organized through the Department of State's Bureau of Legislative
Affairs and conducted in accordance with long-standing Department and
Executive Branch practice.
Question. Do you commit to appear before this committee upon
request?
Answer. Yes, with the understanding that any such appearance would
be organized through the Department of State's Bureau of Legislative
Affairs and conducted in accordance with long-standing Department and
Executive Branch practice.
Question. If you become aware of any suspected waste, fraud, or
abuse in the Department, do you commit to report it to the Inspector
General?
Answer. I commit to comply with all relevant federal laws,
regulations, and rules, and to raise concerns that I may have through
appropriate channels, including required reporting to the Office of the
Inspector General.
Question. Has anyone ever made a formal or informal complaint or
allegation of sexual harassment, discrimination (e.g., racial, ethnic,
religious, etc.), or inappropriate conduct against you, in a workplace
or any other setting? If so, please describe the nature of the
complaint or allegation, your response, and any resolution, including
any settlements.
Answer. No, I am not aware of any formal or informal complaint or
allegation of sexual harassment, discrimination, or inappropriate
conduct against me, in a workplace or any other setting. If confirmed,
I will make taking care of my team and fostering a high-performing,
healthy, and secure workplace a priority, with zero tolerance for
misconduct, including sexual harassment.
Question. Have you ever addressed concerns or allegations of sexual
harassment, discrimination (e.g., racial, ethnic, religious, etc.), or
inappropriate conduct made against any employee over whom you had
supervisory authority? If so, please describe the outcome and actions
taken.
Answer. If confirmed, I will make taking care of my team and
fostering a high-performing, healthy, and secure workplace a priority,
with zero tolerance for misconduct, including sexual harassment. In
leadership positions I have held in the Department, I have guided my
teams on handling potential personnel matters. In all such
circumstances I have immediately responded to any issues raised in
accordance with the Department of State's policies, including
encouraging any employee who feels they have been harassed or
discriminated against to report such behavior to any supervisor under
my management or the Department's Office of Civil Rights for
appropriate action.
Question. Do you agree that any targeting of or retaliation against
career employees based on their perceived political beliefs, prior work
on policy, or affiliation with a previous administration, is wholly
inappropriate and has no place in the federal government? If confirmed,
what will you do to ensure that all employees under your leadership
understand that any retaliation, blacklisting, or other prohibited
personnel practices will not be tolerated?
Answer. Yes. I take allegations of such practices seriously and
will ensure they are dealt with through department rules and Federal
law, including referral to the Department's Inspector General when
called for. As a career member of the Senior Foreign Service, I am
keenly aware and respectful of employee rights. In addition to ensuring
compliance with mandatory training on prohibited personnel practices
and discrimination, if confirmed, I will prioritize taking care of my
team and fostering a healthy and secure workplace a priority, with zero
tolerance for discrimination, harassment, retaliation, or other
misconduct.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted to Roxanne Cabral by Senator Benjamin L. Cardin
Human Rights
Question. What are the most important actions you have taken in
your career to date to promote human rights and democracy? What has
been the impact of your actions?
Answer. As a public diplomacy coned-FSO, much of my work in
developing countries has focused on strengthening human rights,
providing capacity building for NGOs and civil society organizations,
and training and exchange programs for leaders of human rights
organizations, including students.
While posted in Washington, DC, my job was focused on ensuring PD
sections' strategic plans focused on human rights issues as a priority,
and providing for program funding for such efforts.
In China, the public diplomacy office I led focused grant activity
on establishing and fostering women's rights groups, LGBT groups and
others who lacked a convening authority to bring together and empower
like-minded people to advocate more effectively for their rights. We
reinforced this activity by arranging exchange programs so that leaders
within these groups, NGOs and civil society leaders could come to the
U.S. and see our model of governance and respect for human rights. The
impact was immediate in most cases. For example, with the women's
groups, participants not only expressed genuine gratitude for the
opportunity to meet and coordinate with peers, they also formed
longstanding bonds amongst each other. These groups still exist today,
eight or nine years after we helped put them together, and while it can
be difficult for their voice to be heard in China, they continue to
advocate for their rights.
In Panama, I have directed our entire interagency team to shape our
country strategy to incorporate the protection of human rights and
promotion of democracy in all of our engagements within Panama. Every
relevant embassy activity showcases our values and beliefs in support
of human rights. While it is hard to gauge impact, the feedback that my
staff and I have received has been very positive.
Question. What are the most pressing human rights issues in the
Marshall Islands? What are the most important steps you expect to
take--if confirmed--to promote human rights and democracy in the
Marshall Islands? What do you hope to accomplish through these actions?
Answer. The government of the Republic of the Marshall Islands
(RMI) generally respects human rights. In the Department of State's
most recent Human Rights Report, the Department noted that civilian
authorities maintained effective control over the police and there were
no reports of egregious human rights abuses. Impunity remains a
problem, however, particularly regarding alleged corruption. Some other
problems persist, including continued discrimination and violence
against women. If confirmed, I will work through advocacy, outreach
programs, and cooperation with local NGOs to address corruption,
violence against women, and increase women's political and economic
participation.
Question. If confirmed, what are the potential obstacles to
addressing the specific human rights issues you have identified in your
previous response? What challenges will you face in the Marshall
Islands in advancing human rights, civil society and democracy in
general?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work to leverage available resources,
including working with other embassies, international organizations,
and local NGOs, to prevent and respond to gender-based violence and
corruption. I will look for opportunities to strengthen current
programs for judicial and law enforcement training. I will also work to
increase political and economic participation for women. With the RMI's
recent election to the U.N. Human Rights Council, I would encourage the
RMI during their tenure to advance mutual democratic values and respect
for human rights.
Question. Are you committed to meeting with human rights, civil
society and other non-governmental organizations in the U.S. and with
local human rights NGOs in the Marshall Islands? If confirmed, what
steps will you take to pro-actively support the Leahy Law and similar
efforts, and ensure that provisions of U.S. security assistance and
security cooperation activities reinforce human rights?
Answer. Yes. I am committed to meeting with human rights, civil
society, and other non-governmental organizations in the Marshall
Islands. Obtaining the views of civil society is essential in
understanding the country conditions, including in support of
democratic institutions and respect for human rights, and plays a key
role in informing and advancing U.S. foreign policy. Supporting a
rules-based and transparent order that advances democratic governance
and empowers civil society is a key goal of the administration and is
enshrined in our vision for a free and open Indo-Pacific. If confirmed,
I will continue the embassy's strong engagement with civil society.
RMI does not have a military of its own. Under the Compact and
Amended Compact, the United States has full authority and
responsibility for security and defense matters in or relating to the
RMI. As RMI does not generally receive U.S. assistance for security
forces, the Leahy Law is generally not relevant to RMI. However, in the
rare instances when U.S. assistance could be directed toward an RMI
security unit, I am committed to the effective implementation of the
Leahy Law.
Question. Will you and your embassy team actively engage with the
Marshall Islands to address cases of key political prisoners or persons
otherwise unjustly targeted by the Marshall Islands?
Answer. There were no reports of political prisoners or detainees
in the Marshall Islands. Should such a situation arise, I would, if
confirmed, of course bring U.S. concerns to the attention of the
government at the highest levels.
Question. Will you engage with the Marshall Islands on matters of
human rights, civil rights and governance as part of your bilateral
mission?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I will work with the Marshall Islands to
engage on matters of human rights, fundamental freedoms, and
governance. I would also seek to exchange best practices between our
governments. Good governance is a core pillar of the U.S. vision for a
free and open Indo-Pacific. As part of the Indo-Pacific Transparency
Initiative, the United States, with allies and partners, will promote
just, transparent, and responsive governance through anti-corruption
efforts while encouraging strong civil society and honest business
practices. If confirmed, I will work with the RMI to create the
conditions needed to unlock greater private investment, combat
corruption, and secure the RMI from malign foreign influence. I would
continue to promote transparency, openness, rule of law, and the
protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Diversity
Question. Research from private industry demonstrates that, when
managed well, diversity makes business teams better both in terms of
creativity and in terms of productivity. What will you do to promote,
mentor and support your staff that come from diverse backgrounds and
underrepresented groups in the Foreign Service?
Answer. Encouraging, mentoring, and supporting staff with diverse
backgrounds both in the Foreign Service and Civil Service is something
I have done throughout my career. If confirmed, I would make strong
mentoring relationships an integral part of the Embassy culture by
promoting initiatives that support employee engagement, job
satisfaction, development of leadership skills, and increased teamwork.
It is my expectation that by doing so, workplace diversity, employee
retention, productivity, and morale will all improve.
Question. What steps will you take to ensure each of the
supervisors at the Embassy are fostering an environment that is diverse
and inclusive?
Answer. If confirmed, I will meet with the direct hire and local
staffs in the Mission to determine where inclusivity is perceived as
lacking, review our HR processes to determine where and how we can
mitigate unconscious biases and provide access to training that will
support these efforts. I would also meet with Mission supervisors and
the management team to discuss what I have heard from the employees,
where improvements are needed and, based on all of the information
gathered, put a plan in place to correct any weaknesses or gaps.
Conflicts of Interest
Question. Do you commit to bring to the committee's attention (and
the State Department Inspector General) any change in policy or U.S.
actions that you suspect may be influenced by any of the President's
business or financial interests, or the business or financial interests
of any senior White House staff?
Answer. I commit to comply with all relevant federal ethics laws,
regulations, and rules, and to raise any concerns that I may have
through appropriate channels.
Question. Do you commit to inform the committee if you have any
reason to suspect that a foreign government, head of state, or foreign-
controlled entity is taking any action in order to benefit any of the
President's business or financial interests, or the interests of senior
White House staff?
Answer. I commit to comply with all relevant federal ethics laws,
regulations, and rules, and to raise any concerns that I may have
through appropriate channels.
Question. Do you or do any members of your immediate family have
any financial interests in the Marshall Islands?
Answer. My investment portfolio includes mutual funds that may have
or may acquire investments in companies in the Marshall Islands;
however, these funds are exempt from the conflict of interest laws. I
am committed to ensuring that my official actions will not give rise to
a conflict of interest. I will divest my interests in any investments
the State Department Ethics Office deems necessary in the future to
avoid a conflict of interest, and will remain vigilant with regard to
my ethics obligations.
Corruption
Question. How do you believe political corruption impacts
democratic governance and the rule of law generally, and in the
Marshall Islands specifically?
Answer. Corruption undermines democratic governance and the rule of
law, including in the Marshall Islands. The law provides criminal
penalties for corruption by officials, and although the RMI government
generally implemented the law effectively, officials sometimes engaged
in corrupt practices with impunity. This erodes public confidence in
institutions, systems of governance, and impedes achievement of the
goals of our vision for a free and open Indo-Pacific. The RMI can only
reach its full potential if we make efforts to end these corrupt
practices. The government of the RMI continues to work to address
corruption.
Question. What is your assessment of corruption trends in the
Marshall Islands and efforts to address and reduce it by that
government?
Answer. As stated in the Department of State's Human Rights Report,
the Attorney General's Office reported it received 13 allegations of
bribery in official matters through August 2018. These involved theft,
check forgeries, securing execution of documents by deception,
embezzlement, bid rigging, abuse of public office for private gain, and
misappropriation of public funds. One notable corruption case concluded
in March 2018, when the High Court found a former senator from Mili
Atoll, Kejjo Bien, guilty of ``civil theft'' for wrongfully taking and
converting $40,000 in grant money from Taiwan for his own use.
Question. If confirmed, what steps will you take to strengthen good
governance and anticorruption programming in the Marshall Islands?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the government of
the RMI and U.S. law enforcement to strengthen good governance and
anticorruption efforts. I would work with allies and likeminded
partners to coordinate our efforts on these important issues. Through
new funding for USAID on governance under the Indo-Pacific Strategy,
including under the Indo-Pacific Transparency Initiative, I would work
to ensure these programs are implemented to maximum effect in the RMI.
I would also work closely with interagency partners to ensure that U.S.
taxpayer resources are used for their intended purpose.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted to Kelly C. Degnan by Senator Robert Menendez
Question. On October 28, 2019, Georgia was hit by a significant
cyber-attack that took down more than 2,000 websites, including the
presidential website and court websites, as well as the national TV
station. Who does the State Department assess was responsible for this
cyber-attack? Does State assess that the attack triggers sanctions
under CAATSA Section 224?
Answer. I am aware of the October 28, 2019, cyber-attack in
Georgia, which the U.S. government is in the process of analyzing. The
United States works to support allies and partners, like Georgia, in
resisting cyber-threats and cyber-enabled efforts to destabilize them.
If confirmed, I will work with the Georgian government and U.S.
government partners to continue existing U.S. efforts to strengthen
Georgia's cyber security, particularly in the run up to Georgia's 2020
parliamentary elections. The Department is fully committed to
comprehensive implementation of CAATSA and is continually engaged with
the Treasury Department to assess potentially sanctionable activity.
Question. Russia has maintained its illegal presence in the
Georgian regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia for over a decade now.
What is the human rights situation in those two regions? What evidence
is there of serious human rights abuses in the regions? Does the State
Department assess that the human rights situation triggers sanctions
under CAATSA Section 228?
Answer. Georgians living in the Russian-occupied territories of
Abkhazia and South Ossetia face severe restrictions on their
fundamental freedoms, including but not limited to onerous restrictions
on their freedom of movement and right to transfer property, and risk
of arrest and detention by Russian and de facto security forces. In the
past few years, a number of Georgian citizens have died while in
detention in the occupied territories.
Evidence of these human rights abuses comes from a variety of
sources, including our Embassy's reporting on the ground, observations
from the EU Monitoring Mission, conversations with the Geneva
International Discussions Co-Chairs, UNHCR, and local NGOs and
activists. We document these abuses in our annual Human Rights Report
on Georgia.
If confirmed, I will direct Embassy Tbilisi to continue to monitor
human rights abuses in the occupied territories. The administration has
not hesitated to designate individuals pursuant to CAATSA Section 228,
and if there is evidence of human rights abuses in the occupied
territories, I will forward that information to the State Department
and interagency partners for proper assessment.
Question. Corruption is a major concern in Georgia and will have a
negative impact on its ability to potentially accede to NATO and the
EU. How does the State Department assess the role of Bidzina
Ivanishvili in Georgian politics, particularly in the judicial system,
and in Georgian media?
Answer. Corruption and the impact of informal governance, including
by the unelected leader of the ruling Georgia Dream party, in Georgia
are major concerns. If confirmed, I will support efforts to strengthen
the Georgian government's democratic institutions and processes, so
that decisions are transparent and made by accountable elected
officials. If confirmed, I will support reform to strengthen judicial
independence in Georgia and continue exchange programs with Georgia's
legislators, prosecutors, and law enforcement bodies to bolster
anticorruption efforts. I will also continue efforts to ensure Georgia
maintains media pluralism and press freedoms, including programs to
support media literacy, investigative reporting, and strengthen local,
high-quality independent media. If confirmed, I plan to work with all
groups, including government officials, party leaders, media outlets,
and various civil society actors to address these concerns and advance
U.S.-Georgia relations.
Question. Next year's Georgian election is likely to happen under a
new system that includes proportional representation and a 0% threshold
for parties to win seats, among other changes. How does the State
Department assess the changes will impact Georgia's political system?
How does State assess they will impact Georgia's democratic trajectory?
Answer. The Department has welcomed the ruling Georgian Dream
party's stated support to switch to a fully proportional election
system for elections in 2020--a change opposition parties have been
requesting. While the full impact of the changes is unclear, we expect
that it will require Georgian political leaders to work together,
perhaps even in a coalition government, to face Georgia's democratic,
economic, and security challenges. Nevertheless, much remains to be
done in advance of next year's parliamentary elections. If confirmed, I
plan to focus my efforts on ensuring a level playing field, preventing
the misuse of administrative resources, and strengthening campaign
finance regulations, among other issues. I will stress to the Georgian
government that the conduct of the 2020 parliamentary election will be
an important bellwether in Georgia's democratic development.
Question. What are the most important actions you have taken in
your career to date to support democracy and human rights? What has
been the impact of your actions?
Answer. During my 26 years of government service, I have had the
privilege of working to promote American values and principles around
the world, including respect for human rights, religious freedom, due
process, and equal rights under the law. At the U.S. Mission to NATO, I
negotiated to include strong language in support of Women, Peace, and
Security (WPS) initiatives in NATO Summit communiques, which helped
make WPS a standard component of NATO planning and policies. In Kosovo,
my team and I worked with the Kosovo government to find ways to protect
the rights of members of the minority Kosovo Serb community and better
integrate Kosovo Serbs into Kosovo society. In Italy, I was a strong
advocate for much-needed judicial reform to ensure timely resolution of
disputes. The Italians implemented the reform, which cleared the docket
of an extensive backlog and allowed for justice to be administered more
efficiently. It has been my honor to advocate strongly for respect for
human rights, including freedom of religion or belief and freedom of
expression, due process, equal protection under the law, and other
fundamental American principles. I am committed to continuing to be a
strong representative of America, and all that we stand for.
Question. What issues are the most pressing challenges to democracy
or democratic development in Georgia? These challenges might include
obstacles to participatory and accountable governance and institutions,
rule of law, authentic political competition, civil society, human
rights, and press freedom. Please be as specific as possible.
Answer. Electoral reform in advance of the 2020 Georgian
parliamentary elections to ensure a level playing field, reforms
advancing judicial independence, and further strengthening
parliamentary oversight including of the security and law enforcement
sector are the most pressing challenges in Georgia's democracy and
democratic development. The ongoing occupation of Abkhazia and South
Ossetia by Russia is also a major challenge to Georgia's democracy, as
is informal governance.
Question. What steps will you take--if confirmed--to support
democracy in Georgia? What do you hope to accomplish through these
actions? What are the potential impediments to addressing the specific
obstacles you have identified?
Answer. If confirmed, I will stress the importance of free and fair
elections, parliamentary oversight, and respect for the human rights of
all, protected by an independent judiciary as crucial for Georgia's
development and long-term stability. I support an environment in which
political groups do not face political violence or undue restrictions
on their ability to register, to raise funds, to organize and recruit
members, to reach out to citizens and hold public events, to gain
access to the mass media, or to compete in elections. Integration of
2018 OSCE/ODIHR electoral reform recommendations into legislation, as
promised by the government, would help level the playing field ahead of
the 2020 elections. I will also continue to be a vocal advocate of
Georgia's sovereignty and territorial integrity within its
internationally recognized borders. I will also explore how to use U.S.
assistance effectively to support these goals.
The goal of our efforts is a Georgia that is more democratic and
capable of resisting Russian malign influence, and more capable of
defending the rights of its citizens throughout its internationally-
recognized territory. Potential impediments to strengthening democracy
in Georgia include a lack of judicial independence, a lack of security
sector accountability, election legislation that does not prevent the
misuse of administrative resources, tension between the ruling party
and civil society, and entrenched interests.
Question. How will you utilize U.S. government assistance resources
at your disposal, including the Democracy Commission Small Grants
program and other sources of State Department and USAID funding, to
support democracy and governance, and what will you prioritize in
processes to administer such assistance?
Answer. Current Department of State and USAID democracy assistance
seeks to strengthen civil society, encourage and facilitate citizen
participation in local decision-making, and support electoral processes
and an independent media. We stand ready to assist the Georgian
government in making sustainable institutional changes in the justice
and law enforcement sectors that will assist the government's anti-
corruption policies, support an independent judiciary, continue to
build transparency and accountability through civil society, and
strengthen local media's ability to be professional, competitive, and
independent. If confirmed, I will continue to support these assistance
efforts and will look for other ways to productively utilize assistance
funds to promote shared objectives.
Question. If confirmed, do you commit to meet with civil society
members, human rights and other non-governmental organizations in the
U.S. and with local human rights NGOs, and other members of civil
society in Georgia? What steps will you take to pro-actively address
efforts to restrict or penalize NGOs and civil society via legal or
regulatory measures?
Answer. If confirmed, it will be among my top priorities to meet
with those outside of the government, such as civil society
representatives, including human rights-focused NGOs in the United
States and Georgia, to demonstrate our commitment to human rights and
fundamental freedoms. Georgia has a strong cadre of civil society
organizations, and I look forward to engaging actively with the groups
and individuals who are advocating for these important issues. If
confirmed, I will speak out and use all diplomatic means to prevent any
legal or regulatory measures that would restrict or penalize NGOs and
civil society, as well as speak out against unfair and unjustified
accusations against NGO and civil society leaders by government
officials.
Question. If confirmed, do you commit to meet with democratically
oriented political opposition figures and parties? What steps will you
take to encourage genuine political competition? Will you advocate for
access and inclusivity for women, minorities, and youth within
political parties?
Answer. Yes, if confirmed, I will continue the Embassy's current
commitment to have Embassy officers, at all levels, meet with those
outside of the government, including political opposition figures and
parties, to demonstrate our support for pluralism, checks and balances,
and genuine political competition. I will continue efforts to advance
electoral reform in advance of the 2020 Georgian parliamentary
elections to ensure a level playing field. Finally, if confirmed, I
will advocate for equal access and inclusivity for women, minorities,
and youth in all spheres, including in political life, as well as
explore how to use U.S. assistance effectively to support these goals.
Question. Will you and your embassy team actively engage with
Georgia on freedom of the press and address any government efforts
designed to control or undermine press freedom through legal,
regulatory, or other measures? Will you commit to meeting regularly
with independent, local press in Georgia?
Answer. Maintaining space for pluralistic media in Georgia is a
continuing U.S. priority in Georgia due most recently to the context
and timing of recent investigations of media actors not aligned with
the ruling party. If confirmed, my Embassy team and I will engage
actively on freedom of the press and will support the Embassy's
continued commitment to meet with independent, local journalists. If
confirmed, I will also support existing programs aimed at promoting a
sustainable independent media environment, improving access to
independent and reliable sources of information through media literacy
programs and by strengthening professional standards, media management,
and quality content of independent media.
Question. Will you and your embassy team actively engage with civil
society and government counterparts on countering disinformation and
propaganda disseminated by foreign state or non-state actors in the
country?
Answer. If confirmed, engaging with civil society and Georgian
government officials to counter disinformation and malign propaganda,
particularly Russian and other disinformation, will be one of my top
priorities. Through foreign assistance, diplomatic efforts, and the
Embassy's public diplomacy team, we can help mitigate Georgia's
vulnerabilities to Russian pressure, counter Russian and other
disinformation, assist Georgia's efforts to strengthen transparency and
accountability of its democratic institutions, and communicate our
positive message regarding the progress Georgia has made through its
partnership with the United States.
Question. Will you and your embassy teams actively engage with
Georgia on the right of labor groups to organize, including for
independent trade unions?
Answer. If confirmed, my Embassy team and I will continue the
Embassy's engagement with labor groups, including independent trade
unions. If confirmed, I will work to promote worker rights in Georgia
by focusing on internationally-recognized labor rights related to the
freedom of association, effective recognition of the right to
collective bargaining, and the elimination of forced labor, child
labor, and employment discrimination. I will urge Georgia to enhance
its labor laws and implement a fully functioning labor inspectorate.
Question. Will you commit to using your position, if confirmed, to
defend the human rights and dignity of all people in Georgia, no matter
their sexual orientation or gender identity? What challenges do the
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people face in
Georgia? What specifically will you commit to do to help LGBTQ people
in Georgia?
Answer. governments have an obligation to ensure that everyone can
freely enjoy the human rights and fundamental freedoms to which they
are entitled, and I commit to work to protect and defend human rights
for all.
As documented in the Department's Human Rights Reports, LGBTI
persons continued to experience violence, oppression, abuse,
intolerance, and discrimination in Georgia. Societal discrimination
against LGBTI individuals on the basis of sexual orientation or gender
identity negatively affected all aspects of life, including employment,
housing, education, and health care.
If confirmed, I will urge Georgian authorities to ensure the safety
of LGBTI and all other demonstrators in rallies, conduct independent
and credible investigations into reports of attacks on LGBTI
individuals, hold any perpetrators responsible as soon as possible, and
speak out against such practices and ensure the effective
implementation of the country's anti-discrimination laws.
Question. Do you commit to respond promptly to all requests for
information by members of this committee?
Answer. Yes, with the understanding that any such response would be
organized through the Department of State's Bureau of Legislative
Affairs and conducted in accordance with long-standing Department and
Executive Branch practice.
Question. Do you commit to appear before this committee upon
request?
Answer. Yes, with the understanding that any appearance would be
organized through the Department of State's Bureau of Legislative
Affairs and conducted in accordance with long-standing Department and
Executive Branch practice.
Question. If you become aware of any suspected waste, fraud, or
abuse in the Department, do you commit to report it to the Inspector
General?
Answer. If confirmed, I commit to comply with all relevant laws,
regulations, and rules, and to raise concerns that I may have through
appropriate channels, including, as applicable to the Inspector
General.
Question. In the wake of President Trump's comments welcoming
derogatory information on a U.S. political figure from foreign
entities, it is important that the State Department have explicit
guidance for all of its personnel on how to deal with this scenario.
Guidance on handling interactions that prompt concern about
exploitation by a foreign entity, such as FAM Chapter 12, Section 262,
does not clearly address this situation. If a foreign person or
government approaches you or a staffer at the embassy with derogatory
information on a U.S. political figure, what is your understanding of
official State Department policy on how to handle this specific
situation? Has a cable with clear guidance on how to handle this
specific situation been sent to all U.S. embassies?
Answer. If confirmed, I commit to comply with all relevant laws,
regulations, and rules regarding interactions with foreign officials
and other foreigners, both at home and abroad. It would not be
appropriate to comment on hypothetical scenarios, however, if
confirmed, I would continue, and reinforce, such policy and practice at
my Mission.
Question. Has anyone ever made a formal or informal complaint or
allegation of sexual harassment, discrimination (e.g., racial, ethnic,
religious, etc.), or inappropriate conduct against you, in a workplace
or any other setting? If so, please describe the nature of the
complaint or allegation, your response, and any resolution, including
any settlements.
Answer. I have never had a formal or informal complaint or
allegation of sexual harassment, discrimination, or inappropriate
conduct raised against me. I take these maters seriously and would
ensure that all Embassy staff also understand the importance of
handling any matter that arises promptly and appropriately.
Question. Have you ever addressed concerns or allegations of sexual
harassment, discrimination (e.g., racial, ethnic, religious, etc.), or
inappropriate conduct made against any employee over whom you had
supervisory authority? If so, please describe the outcome and actions
taken.
Answer. As Deputy Chief of Mission, I have handled personnel
issues, including conduct and performance matters. I have worked
closely with the Embassy's Human Resources Officer (HRO) and
appropriate State Department offices in Washington to address possible
issues.
Question. Do you agree that any targeting of or retaliation against
career employees based on their perceived political beliefs, prior work
on policy, or affiliation with a previous administration, is wholly
inappropriate and has no place in the federal government? If confirmed,
what will you do to ensure that all employees under your leadership
understand that any retaliation, blacklisting, or other prohibited
personnel practices will not be tolerated?
Answer. Any targeting of or retaliation against career employees
based on their perceived political beliefs, prior work on policy, or
affiliation with a previous administration, is wholly inappropriate. I
take allegations of such practices seriously and will ensure they are
referred to the appropriate channels, including the Department's
Inspector General. If confirmed, I will maintain a policy of zero
tolerance in U.S. Embassy Tbilisi for any retaliation, blacklisting, or
other prohibited personnel practices. I will hold U.S. Embassy Tbilisi
employees accountable to the highest standards in accordance with anti-
discrimination, merit principle, and whistleblower protection statutes,
laws, and regulations, including the Notification and Federal Employee
Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002. I will also ensure
employees comply with their NO FEAR Act training requirements.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted to Kelly C. Degnan by Senator Benjamin L. Cardin
Question. What are the most important actions you have taken in
your career to date to promote human rights and democracy? What has
been the impact of your actions?
Answer. During my 26 years of government service, I have had the
privilege of working to promote American values and principles around
the world, including respect for human rights, religious freedom, due
process, and equal rights under the law. At the U.S. Mission to NATO, I
negotiated to include strong language in support of Women, Peace, and
Security (WPS) initiatives in NATO Summit communiques, which helped
make WPS a standard component of NATO planning and policies. In Kosovo,
my team and I worked with the Kosovo government to find ways to protect
the rights of members of the minority Kosovo Serb community and better
integrate Kosovo Serbs into Kosovo society. In Italy, I was a strong
advocate for much-needed judicial reform to ensure timely resolution of
disputes. The Italians implemented the reform, which cleared the docket
of an extensive backlog and allowed for justice to be administered more
efficiently. It has been my honor to advocate strongly for respect for
human rights, including freedom of religion or belief and freedom of
expression, due process, equal protection under the law, and other
fundamental American principles. I am committed to continuing to be a
strong representative of America, and all that we stand for.
Question. What are the most pressing human rights issues in
Georgia? What are the most important steps you expect to take--if
confirmed--to promote human rights and democracy in Georgia? What do
you hope to accomplish through these actions?
Answer. Restricted fundamental freedoms of Georgians living in the
Russian-occupied territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, electoral
reform in advance of the 2020 Georgian parliamentary elections to
ensure a level playing field, greater oversight of the security and law
enforcement sector, and reforms advancing judicial independence are
among Georgia's most pressing democracy, governance, and human rights
issues.If confirmed, I will stress the importance of free and fair
elections, security sector oversight, and respect for the human rights
of all, protected by an independent judiciary as crucial for Georgia's
development and long-term stability. I will support Embassy programs to
engage all sectors of Georgian society on these issues. I will continue
to raise awareness in the international community of human rights
abuses by Russia and the de facto authorities in the occupied
territories. The goal of our efforts is a Georgia that is more
democratic and capable of resisting Russian malign influence, and more
capable of defending the rights of its citizens throughout its
internationally recognized territory.
Question. If confirmed, what are the potential obstacles to
addressing the specific human rights issues you have identified in your
previous response? What challenges will you face in Georgia in
advancing human rights, civil society, and democracy in general?
Answer. Potential impediments to addressing human rights issues
include security sector accountability, corruption, lack of capacity
among some of our Georgian partners, challenges to judicial
independence, and entrenched interests. Russia's continued illegal
occupation of Georgian territory and the de facto authorities' refusal
to abide by international human rights norms and standards despite
pressure applied on them in the context of the Geneva International
Discussions serves as an obstacle to addressing human rights issues. If
confirmed, I will work closely with the Georgian government, opposition
political parties, civil society, the international community, and
other stakeholders to address such impediments and advocate for
progress in all of the areas crucial for strengthening democratic,
accountable governance. Political will is a key first step to improving
Georgia's electoral system and building a strong independent judiciary,
but building up institutions is equally important.
Question. Are you committed to meeting with human rights, civil
society, and other non-governmental organizations in the U.S. and with
local human rights NGOs in Georgia? If confirmed, what steps will you
take to pro-actively support the Leahy Law and similar efforts, and
ensure that provisions of U.S. security assistance and security
cooperation activities reinforce human rights?
Answer. Yes, if confirmed, it will be among my top priorities to
meet with those outside of the government, including civil society
representatives and human rights-focused NGOs, to demonstrate our
commitment to human rights and fundamental freedoms. Georgia has a
vibrant civil society, and I look forward to engaging actively with the
groups and individuals who are at the forefront of pushing for
meaningful change in Georgia.If confirmed, I will ensure that the
Embassy team continues to adhere to all applicable laws, including the
Leahy laws, to ensure that U.S. security assistance and security
cooperation in Georgia reinforce human rights.
Question. Will you and your embassy team actively engage with
Georgia to address cases of key political prisoners or persons
otherwise unjustly targeted by Georgia?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, my embassy team and I will actively
engage with Georgia to address any cases of political prisoners,
selective prosecutions, or persons otherwise unjustly targeted by
Georgia that may arise. More broadly, I will also continue to work with
civil society and the international community to reinforce calls to
reform the judiciary toward greater independence and transparency.
Question. Will you engage with Georgia on matters of human rights,
civil rights, and governance as part of your bilateral mission?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I will stress to government officials,
civil society, and the broader public the importance of respect for
human rights and the rule of law. I will stress the important role of
civil society, independent media, and opposition politicians to hold
the government accountable and advocate publicly and privately for full
respect for political pluralism and a level playing field for
democratic competition.
Question. Research from private industry demonstrates that, when
managed well, diversity makes business teams better both in terms of
creativity and in terms of productivity. What will you do to promote,
mentor and support your staff that come from diverse backgrounds and
underrepresented groups in the Foreign Service?
Answer. Diversity and inclusion on teams is very important to me.
Diversity not only strengthens our effectiveness but also promotes a
workplace culture that values the efforts of all members and enhances
the professional experience of our valued public servants. If
confirmed, I commit to promoting the Department's goal of ensuring a
diverse workforce at Embassy Tbilisi.
Question. What steps will you take to ensure each of the
supervisors at the Embassy are fostering an environment that is diverse
and inclusive?
Answer. If confirmed, I would lead by example and promote the
highest standards from our management team. Any behavior that hinders
an inclusive environment will not be tolerated. Throughout my career, I
have worked to foster inclusive and respectful work environments, and I
will make clear to all supervisors at U.S. Embassy Tbilisi that every
team member be treated equally with dignity and respect.
Question. Do you commit to bring to the committee's attention (and
the State Department Inspector General) any change in policy or U.S.
actions that you suspect may be influenced by any of the President's
business or financial interests, or the business or financial interests
of any senior White House staff?
Answer. I commit to comply with all relevant federal ethics laws,
regulations, and rules, and to raise any concerns that I may have
through appropriate channels.
Question. Do you commit to inform the committee if you have any
reason to suspect that a foreign government, head of state, or foreign-
controlled entity is taking any action in order to benefit any of the
President's business or financial interests, or the interests of senior
White House staff?
Answer. I commit to comply with all relevant federal ethics laws,
regulations, and rules, and to raise any concerns that I may have
through appropriate channels.
Question. Do you or do any members of your immediate family have
any financial interests in Georgia?
Answer. I am not aware of any financial interest in Georgia held by
me or my immediate family. My investment portfolio includes mutual
funds as well as individual stocks below the $15,000 threshold that may
have or acquire investments in companies in Georgia; however, these
funds are exempt from the conflict of interest laws. I am committed to
ensuring that my official actions will not give rise to a conflict of
interest. I will divest my interests in any investments the State
Department Ethics Office deems necessary in the future to avoid a
conflict of interest, and will remain vigilant with regard to my ethics
obligations.
Question. How do you believe political corruption impacts
democratic governance and the rule of law generally, and in Georgia
specifically?
Answer. Corruption erodes the social contract between citizens and
government, weakens government institutions and the trust that the
public places in them, and has a corrosive impact on democratic
governance and the rule of law. Georgia has implemented significant
anticorruption reforms since 1991 and has largely eliminated petty
corruption in public administration, but more work is needed. For
example, work remains to be done to enforce anticorruption legislation
and increase transparency and accountability in the judiciary.
Additional efforts to combat corruption would assist the government in
attracting investment and would improve adherence to democratic
principles and rule of law in Georgia. Furthermore, recognizing that
informal governance and abuse of administrative resources during
elections can erode public trust, I will work to advance U.S. efforts
to institutionalize rule of law and electoral reforms that will
mitigate the abuse of administrative resources.
Question. What is your assessment of corruption trends in Georgia
and efforts to address and reduce it by that government?
Answer. Georgia has made great strides in fighting corruption and
currently ranks 41 out of 180 countries in Transparency International's
2018 Corruption Perceptions Index, the highest ranking for any post-
Soviet country outside the Baltics. However, there is more work to be
done. I will encourage Georgia to increase its enforcement of
anticorruption legislation and advance transparency and accountability
in the judiciary. If confirmed, I will work broadly with the Georgian
government, the business community, and civil society to support
anticorruption efforts.
Question. If confirmed, what steps will you take to strengthen good
governance and anticorruption programming in Georgia?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with my team at the Embassy in
Tbilisi to engage Georgian officials at all levels of government in
support of good governance and anti-corruption. I will advocate for a
level playing field in elections, strong institutions accountably to
the Georgian people, and government systems free of corruption and
bribery. My team and I will encourage the Georgian Parliament to
exercise oversight to provide for public accountability, prevent
corruption, and enhance transparency, including in local government in
support of the government's ambitious decentralization plans. I will
support judicial reform in Georgia and continue exchange programs with
Georgia's legislators, prosecutors, and law enforcement bodies to
bolster anticorruption efforts.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted to Richard S. Gilchrist by Senator Robert Menendez
U.S. Support for the Baltics
Question. While President Trump did not divert European Deterrence
Initiative funding from Lithuania to fund his border wall, he did
divert nearly $16 million from its fellow Baltic State and NATO Ally,
Estonia. Given that the Baltic States share common interests and
frequently partner with each other, what message does this diversion of
funds send to Lithuania about U.S. commitment to our Allies in the
region?
Answer. Lithuanian officials have not raised concerns with Embassy
Vilnius about the re-programming of European Deterrence Initiative
(EDI) funds to enhance border security at the U.S.-Mexico border. The
Lithuanian government and public reactions to the October 21 arrival of
a battalion-sized element from the U.S. Army's First Cavalry Division
under the EDI-funded Operation Atlantic Resolve, however, have been
overwhelmingly positive. Minister of Defense Raimondas Karoblis called
the six-month training deployment of approximately 500 troops ``a vital
factor of deterrence'' and noted that the EDI-funded rotation ``sends a
message to Lithuania and neighboring NATO countries... that Allies are
with us.''
Question. I understand that the State Department is considering
adding Lithuania to the European Recapitalization Incentive Program
(ERIP). What is the status of discussions with Lithuania regarding
ERIP, particularly regarding its bidding laws that could preclude it
from purchasing American equipment?
Answer. Lithuania has formally expressed interest in ERIP within
the context of efforts to replace its legacy Soviet-era helicopters
with a modern U.S.-manufactured alternative. Discussions are ongoing
between the Department of State and U.S. European Command regarding
additional allocations of ERIP. No funding decisions have been made
thus far, but Lithuania is under consideration as a participant, along
with other European partners in the region. All such discussions take
into consideration relevant and applicable foreign country laws and
regulations.
Question. I understand that the proposed construction on the site
of the Snipiskes Jewish cemetery in Vilnius has drawn a lot of
criticism but may still proceed. How does the State Department assess
the Lithuanian government's handling of the situation? If confirmed,
what steps will you take to ensure the concerns of the Jewish
community, particularly the Jewish-American community, are heard in
this discussion?
Answer. In 2009, the Lithuanian government signed an agreement with
the Lithuanian Jewish Community and the London-based committee for the
Preservation of Jewish Cemeteries in Europe (CPJCE), approving
conditions for the protection of Snipiskes Jewish Cemetery and for the
development of land adjacent to it. In 2014, the Lithuanian government
announced plans to turn an empty sports center located in a ``buffer
zone'' next to the cemetery into a conference center. Per the 2009
agreement, the building is considered outside the cemetery's boundaries
since ground penetrating radar could detect no human remains in the
zone where the sports center is located.
A few members of the Jewish American community disagree with the
2009 agreement's definition of the boundaries of the cemetery,
contending that undetected human remains are still in the zone where
the sports center is located and that its renovation will desecrate the
burial grounds. The CPJCE assessed the renovation proposal and approved
the project, noting that the renovation would not desecrate the
cemetery because remains may no longer be present; the Lithuanian
Jewish Community concurred with the committee's assessment. Lithuania's
state property bank will work with the CPJCE during the renovation,
which is to begin in 2020, to avoid inadvertent disturbance of any
possible human remains.
The Embassy has remained in close contact with the Lithuanian
Jewish Community, the Department of State's Special Envoy for Holocaust
Issues (SEHI), the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, and
the U.S. Commission for the Preservation of America's Cultural Heritage
Abroad regarding this controversy. If confirmed, I look forward to
continuing such engagement to ensure the protection of Snipiskes
Cemetery.
Democracy and Human Rights
Question. What are the most important actions you have taken in
your career to date to support democracy and human rights? What has
been the impact of your actions?
Answer. I have made the promotion of human rights a core component
of my work throughout my career. During my second assignment as the
human rights officer at Embassy Caracas (1993-95), I helped secure
outside funding to keep a key human rights organization from closing.
While a political counselor in Bucharest (2003-6), I expanded the
Embassy's outreach to numerous Roma and other civil society groups. I
also obtained funding to provide training in the United States for a
number of human rights leaders, many of whom remain important figures
in Romania and have successfully pressed for government reform. While
Deputy Chief of Mission in Tallinn (2010-13), I arranged for a visit to
Estonia of anti-hate crime activists Judy and Dennis Shepard, who met
with the Estonian president and appeared in numerous public fora, which
gave unprecedented visibility to the grave problems of hate and
intolerance, particularly against LGBT youth. These are but a few
examples of my efforts to protect and promote human rights. If
confirmed, I will ensure that the promotion of human rights and respect
for individual human dignity remain central in the work of the United
States Embassy in Lithuania.
Question. What issues are the most pressing challenges to democracy
or democratic development in Lithuania? These challenges might include
obstacles to participatory and accountable governance and institutions,
rule of law, authentic political competition, civil society, human
rights and press freedom. Please be as specific as possible.
Answer. Lithuania is a vibrant democracy with resilient
institutions, established respect for rule of law, and a free press. It
is also a strong partner of the United States in advancing democracy
and promoting human rights, especially in countries from the former
Soviet space. Within Lithuania, the primary obstacles to addressing
human rights issues are insufficient government coordination and
financial assistance for NGOs. There is frequently a lack of
coordination between the national government and the municipalities,
which are the chief executors of key reforms. Civil society leaders say
that more government support for their efforts is needed, and they also
decry the weak spirit of volunteerism and philanthropy in Lithuanian
society. As such, civil society organizations depend on a shrinking
pool of assistance from foreign governments and international
organizations.
If confirmed, I will continue the work of Embassy Vilnius in
pressing the Lithuanian government to address these challenges to
protecting human rights, as the Embassy has successfully done to
improve government coordination in the fight against human trafficking.
Question. What steps will you take--if confirmed--to support
democracy in Lithuania? What do you hope to accomplish through these
actions? What are the potential impediments to addressing the specific
obstacles you have identified?
Answer. Lithuania is a vibrant democracy with resilient
institutions and established respect for rule of law. The protection of
human rights is essential to democracy, and the Lithuanian government
has made important recent advances in promoting human rights by passing
legislation to deinstitutionalize childcare for orphans, banning
violence against children, supporting the LGBTI community, and fighting
human trafficking.
However, work needs to be done to address the prevalence of the
sexual abuse of children, to create an environment that encourages
women to report domestic violence to the authorities, and to increase
tolerance toward members of minority groups. Furthermore, in the
justice system, conditions are substandard in a number of prison and
detention facilities, and lengthy pretrial detention is a problem.
If confirmed, I will press the government to implement existing
legislation and work to foster dialogue between the government and
civil society to implement those reforms. I will also work to connect
Lithuanian reformers with U.S. practitioners who can share their best
practices and experience.
Question. How will you utilize U.S. government assistance resources
at your disposal, including the Democracy Commission Small Grants
program and other sources of State Department and USAID funding, to
support democracy and governance, and what will you prioritize in
processes to administer such assistance?
Answer. The Department uses diplomatic and foreign assistance tools
to support democracy and governance. Given Lithuania's status as a
market-based economy with strong democratic institutions and membership
in the European Union, the United States no longer provides bilateral
development assistance to Lithuania. At the same time, the United
States has utilized regional programs to provide foreign assistance to
Lithuania on a case-by-case basis to address challenges related to
Russian malign influence. If confirmed, I will use all available tools
and resources the United States government has to support democracy,
governance and rule of law in Lithuania.
Question. If confirmed, do you commit to meet with civil society
members, human rights and other non-governmental organizations in the
U.S. and with local human rights NGOs, and other members of civil
society in Lithuania? What steps will you take to pro-actively address
efforts to restrict or penalize NGOs and civil society via legal or
regulatory measures?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I commit to meeting with civil society
members and representatives of human rights and other non-governmental
organizations in the United States and in Lithuania. I will engage
Lithuanian government and parliament officials and regulatory bodies to
address concerns regarding any undue restrictions or penalties imposed
upon non-government organizations and civil society groups.
Question. If confirmed, do you commit to meet with democratically
oriented political opposition figures and parties? What steps will you
take to encourage genuine political competition? Will you advocate for
access and inclusivity for women, minorities and youth within political
parties?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I pledge to engage with a range of
Lithuanian political parties and politicians to strengthen bilateral
ties and promote U.S. interests and objectives in Lithuania. I will
continue the efforts of our embassy in Vilnius to promote democracy and
good governance initiatives, including free and fair political systems.
I will advocate among Lithuanian government officials, political
parties, and civil society groups for access and inclusivity for women,
youth, and members of minority communities, including by advancing and
implementing the objectives articulated in the June 2019 U.S. Strategy
on Women, Peace, and Security.
Question. Will you and your embassy team actively engage with
Lithuania on freedom of the press and address any government efforts
designed to control or undermine press freedom through legal,
regulatory or other measures? Will you commit to meeting regularly with
independent, local press in Lithuania?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I will engage with Lithuanian government
officials, media groups, and civil society to enhance the capabilities
of independent media and ensure continued respect for freedom of
expression, including for the press. I will also continue U.S. Embassy
Vilnius' established practice of meeting with independent Lithuanian
press groups and bodies.
Question. Will you and your embassy team actively engage with civil
society and government counterparts on countering disinformation and
propaganda disseminated by foreign state or non-state actors in the
country?
Answer. Yes. The United States and Lithuania work closely together
to identify, recognize, and expose Russian disinformation in Lithuania
and other parts of the world. The Lithuanian Ministries of Foreign
Affairs and National Defense operate strategic communication (stratcom)
teams, which monitor disinformation, spot trends, and coordinate inter-
ministerial responses to propaganda. U.S. Embassy Vilnius meets
regularly with members of both stratcom teams. Lithuanian civil society
also counters disinformation via the homegrown watchdog initiative
debunk.eu, a Google-based web-scraping platform that partners with
volunteers and journalists to debunk trending and dangerous
disinformation. In addition, the United States and Lithuania partner to
strengthen independent media, promote media literacy, and reach out to
the small Russian and Polish minority communities to overcome societal
tensions and feelings of marginalization. If confirmed, I will continue
to support cooperation with and assistance to Lithuania to combat
Russian disinformation. It is among our most knowledgeable and capable
allies in countering such malign influence.
Question. Will you and your embassy teams actively engage with
Lithuania on the right of labor groups to organize, including for
independent trade unions?
Answer. Yes. Freedom of association and the right to collective
bargaining are key elements of labor rights. If confirmed, I will
actively engage with the Lithuanian government on protecting these
rights for labor groups, including independent trade unions.
Question. Will you commit to using your position, if confirmed, to
defend the human rights and dignity of all people in Lithuania, no
matter their sexual orientation or gender identity? What challenges do
the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) people face
in Lithuania? What specifically will you commit to do to help LGBTQ
people in Lithuania?
Answer. According to the U.S. Department of State's 2018 Human
Rights Report, societal attitudes in Lithuania toward lesbian, gay,
bisexual, transgender, and intersex persons (LGBTI) remain largely
negative. Stigma, discrimination, and violence remain significant
issues for the LGBTI community. U.S. Embassy Vilnius is active in
promoting a tolerant Lithuania, free from institutional homophobia and
transphobia, and safe for the LGBTI community. For example, the Embassy
provided a grant to bring a U.S. expert on homophobic bullying to
Lithuania to discuss with students, civil society, parliamentarians,
and media outlets, best practices for creating inclusive school
environments. If confirmed, I will continue the efforts of the Embassy
to defend the human rights and dignity of all people in Lithuania, no
matter their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Responsiveness
Question. Do you commit to respond promptly to all requests for
information by members of this committee?
Answer. Yes, with the understanding that any such response would be
organized through the Department of State's Bureau of Legislative
Affairs and conducted in accordance with long-standing Department and
Executive Branch practice.
Question. Do you commit to appear before this committee upon
request?
Answer. Yes, with the understanding that any such appearance would
be organized through the Department of State's Bureau of Legislative
Affairs in accordance with long standing Department and Executive
Branch practice.
Question. If you become aware of any suspected waste, fraud, or
abuse in the Department, do you commit to report it to the Inspector
General?
Answer. If confirmed, I commit to comply with all relevant laws,
regulations, and rules, and to raise concerns that I may have through
appropriate channels, including required reporting to the Office of the
Inspector General.
Administrative
Question. In the wake of President Trump's comments welcoming
derogatory information on a U.S. political figure from foreign
entities, it is important that the State Department have explicit
guidance for all of its personnel on how to deal with this scenario.
Guidance on handling interactions that prompt concern about
exploitation by a foreign entity, such as FAM Chapter 12, Section 262,
does not clearly address this situation. If a foreign person or
government approaches you or a staffer at the embassy with derogatory
information on a U.S. political figure, what is your understanding of
official State Department policy on how to handle this specific
situation? Has a cable with clear guidance on how to handle this
specific situation been sent to all U.S. embassies?
Answer. If confirmed, I will follow the Department of State's
guidance with regard to reporting derogatory information.
Question. Has anyone ever made a formal or informal complaint or
allegation of sexual harassment, discrimination (e.g., racial, ethnic,
religious, etc.), or inappropriate conduct against you, in a workplace
or any other setting? If so, please describe the nature of the
complaint or allegation, your response, and any resolution, including
any settlements.
Answer. No. I take the issues of sexual harassment, discrimination,
and inappropriate conduct with the utmost seriousness and throughout my
career, I have immediately addressed any issues raised to me in
accordance with the Department of State's policies. To my knowledge, I
have never been named as a responsible management official in a formal
or informal complaint of harassment or discrimination.
Question. Have you ever addressed concerns or allegations of sexual
harassment, discrimination (e.g., racial, ethnic, religious, etc.), or
inappropriate conduct made against any employee over whom you had
supervisory authority? If so, please describe the outcome and actions
taken.
Answer. I take the issues of sexual harassment, discrimination, and
inappropriate conduct with the utmost seriousness and throughout my
career, I have immediately addressed any issues raised to me in
accordance with the Department of State's policies, including
encouraging any employee who feels they have been harassed or
discriminated against to report such behavior to any supervisor under
my management or the Department's Office of Civil Rights.
Question. Do you agree that any targeting of or retaliation against
career employees based on their perceived political beliefs, prior work
on policy, or affiliation with a previous administration, is wholly
inappropriate and has no place in the federal government? If confirmed,
what will you do to ensure that all employees under your leadership
understand that any retaliation, blacklisting, or other prohibited
personnel practices will not be tolerated?
Answer. Yes. I agree that any targeting of or retaliation against
career employees based on their perceived political beliefs, prior work
on policy, or affiliation with a previous administration is wholly
inappropriate. I take allegations of such practices seriously and will
ensure they are referred to the appropriate channels, including the
Department's Inspector General. If confirmed, I will maintain a policy
of no tolerance for retaliation, blacklisting, or other prohibited
personnel practices at U.S. Embassy Vilnius. I will hold U.S. Embassy
Vilnius employees accountable to the highest standards in accordance
with applicable law, rules, and regulations on anti-discrimination and
prohibited personnel practices, including the Notification and Federal
Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002, as amended.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted
to Robert S. Gilchrist by Senator Benjamin L. Cardin
Human Rights
Question. What are the most important actions you have taken in
your career to date to promote human rights and democracy? What has
been the impact of your actions?
Answer. I have made the promotion of human rights a core component
of my work throughout my career. During my second assignment as the
human rights officer at Embassy Caracas (1993-95), I helped secure
outside funding to keep a key human rights organization from closing.
That organization remains an important independent voice in Venezuela
today. While a political counselor in Bucharest (2003-6), I expanded
the Embassy's outreach to numerous Roma and other civil society groups.
I also obtained funding to provide training in the United States for a
number of human rights leaders, many of whom remain important figures
in Romania and have successfully pressed for government reform. While
Deputy Chief of Mission in Tallinn (2010-13), I arranged for a visit to
Estonia of anti-hate crime activists Judy and Dennis Shepard, who met
with the Estonian president and appeared in numerous public fora, which
gave unprecedented visibility to the grave problems of hate and
intolerance, particularly against LGBT youth. These are but a few
examples of my efforts to protect and promote human rights. If
confirmed, I will ensure that the promotion of human rights and respect
for individual human dignity remain central in the work of the United
States Embassy in Lithuania.
Question. What are the most pressing human rights issues in
Lithuania? What are the most important steps you expect to take--if
confirmed--to promote human rights and democracy in Lithuania? What do
you hope to accomplish through these actions?
Answer. Recent achievements by the Lithuanian government in
promoting human rights include passage of legislation to
deinstitutionalize childcare for orphans, banning violence against
children, supporting the LGBTI community, and fighting human
trafficking.
Nonetheless, work needs to be done to address the prevalence of the
sexual abuse of children, to create an environment that encourages
women to report domestic violence to the authorities, and to increase
tolerance toward members of minority groups. Intolerance includes anti-
Semitism as well as continued prejudice against LGBTI persons and
members of ethnic minority communities. Lithuania's Roma community
continues to face social exclusion and bias and refugees from the
Middle East encounter discrimination when searching for employment and
housing. In the justice system, conditions are substandard in a number
of prison and detention facilities, and lengthy pretrial detention is a
problem.
If confirmed, I will press the government of Lithuania to implement
existing legislation and work to foster dialogue between the government
and civil society to implement those reforms. I will also work to
connect Lithuanian civil society with U.S. experts and practitioners to
share best practices and experience.
Question. If confirmed, what are the potential obstacles to
addressing the specific human rights issues you have identified in your
previous response? What challenges will you face in Lithuania in
advancing human rights, civil society and democracy in general?
Answer. The primary obstacles to addressing human rights issues in
Lithuania are insufficient government coordination and financial
assistance for NGOs. There is frequently a lack of coordination between
the national government and the municipalities, the chief executors of
key reforms. Civil society leaders say they need more government
support, and decry the weak spirit of volunteerism and philanthropy in
Lithuanian society. As such, civil society organizations depend on a
shrinking pool of assistance from foreign governments and international
organizations.
If confirmed, I will continue the work of U.S. Embassy Vilnius in
pressing the Lithuanian government to address these challenges, as the
mission successfully pressured the government to improve government
coordination in the fight against human trafficking.
Question. Are you committed to meeting with human rights, civil
society and other non-governmental organizations in the U.S. and with
local human rights NGOs in Lithuania? If confirmed, what steps will you
take to pro-actively support the Leahy Law and similar efforts, and
ensure that provisions of U.S. security assistance and security
cooperation activities reinforce human rights?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I will engage with civil society and
non-governmental organizations across the United States and in
Lithuania on a wide array of human rights. I will also ensure vetting
procedures for U.S. assistance to Lithuanian security forces are
implemented consistent with U.S. law and Department policy.
Question. Will you and your embassy team actively engage with
Lithuania to address cases of key political prisoners or persons
otherwise unjustly targeted by Lithuania?
Answer. Lithuania is a strong partner sharing our values and
principles on human rights. There are no reported cases of political
prisoners or people unjustly targeted by Lithuania. If such reports
become known in the future, I will engage Lithuanian government
officials, regulatory bodies, parliamentarians, and nongovernmental and
civil society organizations to address them.
Question. Will you engage with Lithuania on matters of human
rights, civil rights and governance as part of your bilateral mission?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I will engage Lithuanian officials on
promoting democracy, respect for rule of law, human rights, the
important role of civil society, and good governance practices,
measures, and programs.
Diversity
Question. Research from private industry demonstrates that, when
managed well, diversity makes business teams better both in terms of
creativity and in terms of productivity. What will you do to promote,
mentor and support your staff that come from diverse backgrounds and
underrepresented groups in the Foreign Service?
Answer. I fully support a diverse workforce. Diversity advances and
illustrates American values and improves work environments by
facilitating new perspectives and visions. Increasing diversity fosters
an inclusive workplace and promotes the exchange of new ideas and
innovative thinking. I strongly support the Department's goal of
fostering a workplace that reflects the rich diversity of the United
States. If confirmed, I will promote a workplace that encourages
tolerance, respect, collaboration, and inclusion.
Question. What steps will you take to ensure each of the
supervisors at the Embassy are fostering an environment that is diverse
and inclusive?
Answer. Diversity and inclusion must be a focus area for Embassy
planning and leadership. If confirmed, I will foster a positive work
environment by instituting diversity and inclusion as priority
objectives in Embassy strategy and planning documents. I will also
promote diversity and inclusion as focal points in my first meetings
with Embassy leadership. If confirmed, I will underscore that our
policies and outcomes are improved by drawing on inclusive, diverse
teams with a breadth of experiences and perspectives. I will also
communicate strongly the Department's EEO policies in my mission and
ensure they are followed.
Conflicts of Interest
Question. Do you commit to bring to the committee's attention (and
the State Department Inspector General) any change in policy or U.S.
actions that you suspect may be influenced by any of the President's
business or financial interests, or the business or financial interests
of any senior White House staff?
Answer. If confirmed, I commit to complying with all relevant
federal ethics laws, regulations, and rules, and to raise any concerns
that I may have through appropriate and applicable channels.
Question. Do you commit to inform the committee if you have any
reason to suspect that a foreign government, head of state, or foreign-
controlled entity is taking any action in order to benefit any of the
President's business or financial interests, or the interests of senior
White House staff?
Answer. If confirmed, I commit to complying with all relevant
federal ethics laws, regulations, and rules, and to raise any concerns
that I may have through appropriate and applicable channels.
Question. Do you or do any members of your immediate family have
any financial interests in Lithuania?
Answer. My investment portfolio includes mutual funds, which may
hold interests in companies with a presence in Lithuania, but which are
exempt from the conflict of interest laws. I am committed to ensuring
that my official actions will not give rise to a conflict of interest.
I will divest my interests in any investments the State Department
Ethics Office deems necessary to avoid a conflict of interest, and will
remain vigilant with regard to my ethics obligations.
Corruption
Question. How do you believe political corruption impacts
democratic governance and the rule of law generally, and in Lithuania
specifically?
Answer. Around the world, corruption saps economic growth, hinders
development, destabilizes governments, undermines democracy, and
provides openings for dangerous transnational criminal organizations
and malign actors. In addition, weak rule of law and a corrupt judicial
system constrain U.S. interests in promoting economic development,
democratic consolidation, and stability in our allies. In Lithuania,
political corruption is not endemic. The government has passed and
adheres to laws aimed at controlling corruption. However, when
corruption does occur, it weakens public confidence in judicial
institutions and democracy, impedes access to justice, and limits the
willingness of foreign investors to invest in the country.
Question. What is your assessment of corruption trends in Lithuania
and efforts to address and reduce it by that government?
Answer. Lithuania is a vibrant democracy with resilient
institutions, established respect for rule of law, and a free press.
Lithuanian law provides effective mechanisms to investigate and punish
corruption, including criminal penalties for corruption by government
officials, and the government generally implements the law effectively.
In 2017, Lithuania passed several new laws aimed at combatting
corruption, among them laws to apply criminal liability to officials in
the judicial system and to protect whistleblowers. That same year the
Special Investigative Service, Lithuania's main anticorruption agency,
conducted 171 pretrial investigations. As of September 2019, 155
pretrial investigations were in progress. Of note among those
investigations is a case of 48 persons, including eight judges and six
attorneys, who were being investigated for judicial corruption,
involving 110 criminal acts. According to the pretrial investigation,
the judges received a total of 400,000 euros ($440,000) in bribes in
exchange for favorable rulings. In September 2019, parliament passed
resolutions to dismiss four of the eight judges under investigation in
this case.
Question. If confirmed, what steps will you take to strengthen good
governance and anticorruption programming in Lithuania?
Answer. If confirmed, I will engage with Lithuanian officials on
promoting democracy, good governance, and anticorruption reforms,
measures, and programs. Through relevant U.S. programs and engagement,
I will also deepen and expand our cooperation with Lithuania on ways to
promote transparency and respect for rule of law. In addition, I will
leverage available U.S. assistance programs to promote good governance,
democracy, and human rights in Lithuania. Lithuania is currently a
target beneficiary for regional Department of State assistance
programming--implemented by the Department of Justice--to combat
corruption and transnational organized crime in Europe.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted to Yuri Kim by Senator Robert Menendez
Question. Former U.S. Ambassador to Albania Donald Lu played a key
role in jumpstarting judiciary reform in Albania. How does the State
Department assess the current Albanian government's response to
corruption? What role do you foresee for yourself in promoting
continued judicial and other reforms?
Answer. Albania's law enforcement institutions have delivered
important results in the fight against organized crime and corruption.
Albania is also proceeding apace on its reform track to overhaul the
judiciary, but there is more to do. The first step of establishing
independent judicial oversight bodies occurred in December 2018, and
other steps are underway. U.S. foreign assistance to Albania
facilitated the vetting of more than 140 judges and prosecutors. The
United States is also supporting through diplomatic engagement and
foreign assistance the establishment of an independent Special Anti-
Corruption Unit, consisting of the Special Prosecution Office and the
National Bureau of Investigation, modeled on the FBI.
If confirmed, I will continue U.S. efforts to encourage the
Albanian government to keep making progress on strengthening the rule
of law. U.S. assistance helps Albania strengthen its democratic
institutions and deter threats, pushing forward reforms necessary to
advance Albania on its chosen path of transatlantic integration. Our
programs support Albanian efforts to combat transnational organized
crime, strengthen judicial and law enforcement institutions, and
bolster civil society organizations and an independent media, which
promote government transparency and counter endemic corruption. If
confirmed, I will continue to support necessary reforms and to make
available needed technical assistance.
Question. I am deeply concerned by China's growing presence in
Albania and by the fact that the U.S. is reducing the number of
personnel present there just as China ramps up its presence. Please
describe the nature of China's growing presence in Albania and what
advantages that presence gives China in influencing the Albanian
government. How will the reduction of U.S. government personnel
presence with USAID's strategic transition impact our ability to
counteract this influence?
Answer. China's role in the Albanian economy to date is relatively
modest, though increasing in strategic sectors. With our encouragement,
the Albanian government is taking steps to counter these risks. If
confirmed, I will prioritize ensuring that U.S. foreign assistance is
formulated, calibrated, and implemented in a manner that advances U.S.
interests.
Supported by one Senior Development Advisor and two Locally
Employed Staff, USAID's $5.5 million legacy program, slated to launch
in 2020, will continue work in the areas of transparency and
accountability while regional programs will bolster economic growth.
These are sectors where USAID believes it can contribute most while
helping counter foreign malign influence. Other U.S. government
programs will continue. State Department programs advancing justice
sector reforms, strengthening border security, and preventing violent
extremism--among others--will remain after USAID's transition.
If confirmed, I will continue to press the government of Albania to
protect its strategic infrastructure. I will also continue efforts to
encourage Albania to consider whether proposed projects are
economically viable and whether Albania's regulations will be
respected.
Question. Who at the State Department was consulted before USAID
made its decision to reduce its presence in Albania? What feedback did
State, and in particular the EUR bureau, provide before the decision
was made, and how did USAID account for that feedback in its final
decision? How did State assess the drawdown would impact the U.S.'s
strategic interests in the Balkans? In your response, please do not
refer us to USAID.
Answer. The State Department was notified when USAID began planning
a strategic transition of its presence in Albania. State F, the
Assistance Coordinator's Office, the Albania desk, and Embassy Tirana
provided feedback on transition options, taking into account our policy
priorities and programmatic impact. Per its transition plan, USAID
would continue to implement programs in three areas: 1) justice sector
reform, 2) preventing violent extremism, and 3) local governance
through early 2021. In 2020, USAID would begin a new program to promote
job creation, counter corruption, and improve service delivery.
U.S. foreign assistance to Albania would not end with USAID's
transition. Albania is an important ally, and our priority remains
assisting Albania on its chosen EU path. The State Department will
continue to support Albania's Euro-Atlantic integration through
programming focused on strengthening the justice sector, promoting
freedom of expression, combatting organized crime and violent
extremism, and strengthening border security.
If confirmed as the next U.S. Ambassador to Albania, I commit to
working with Congress to assess how foreign assistance and other tools
can be used to support the desires of the Albanian people, as well as
to advance U.S. national security interests.
Question. I remain concerned by how the EU's failure to open
accession talks with Albania and North Macedonia will impact the two
countries' trajectory towards the West. Russia is already seeking to
take advantage of the non-decision by inviting the two countries to
join the Eurasian Economic Union. What steps should the U.S. take to
diplomatically encourage the EU to open accession talks with the two
countries, as its own European Commission has recommended? How should
the U.S. work constructively with Western Balkan countries to encourage
their reform and democratization processes in light of this
disappointment?
Answer. The United States strongly supports Albania's goal of Euro-
Atlantic integration and aspirations to join the European Union. The
European Council did not say ``no'' to Albania, nor did EU member
states establish new conditions for the opening of accession
negotiations, and we underscore these points in our advocacy for
Albania's reform efforts.
The State Department demarched all 28 EU member states in support
of North Macedonia and Albania's EU accession three times from March to
October. U.S. Ambassadors to France and Germany, Deputy Assistant
Secretary Palmer, and other senior State Department officials--
including Secretary Pompeo, Deputy Secretary Sullivan, and Under
Secretary Hale--spoke with senior foreign government officials to
encourage member states to reach consensus decisions at the European
Council in support of North Macedonia and Albania.
If confirmed, I will continue to advocate strongly for Albania's EU
accession. I will urge Albania to implement justice reforms, fight
corruption, and bolster its democracy in order to persuade the EU it is
committed to Euro-Atlantic integration. I will also continue to support
the government of Albania as it pursues these reforms.
Question. What are the most important actions you have taken in
your career to date to support democracy and human rights? What has
been the impact of your actions?
Answer. I have sought to promote human rights and democracy
throughout my career as a foreign service officer. In my first
assignment, in China in the late 1990s, I was responsible for covering
North Korea. My reports drew attention to the growing number of North
Koreans fleeing into China; described human rights violations occurring
in North Korea; and informed U.S. action to promote human rights in
North Korea and persuade Beijing to accommodate the migrants in a
humane way. In Seoul, I worked with local politicians, community
leaders, and the press to improve the ROK government's enforcement of
laws regarding human trafficking, freedom of expression and assembly,
and the rule of law. The ROK's improved performance was reflected in
the annual Trafficking in Persons Report and the Human Rights Report,
both of which I supervised. Most recently, in Turkey, I actively
advocated for the defense of democratic institutions and practices,
including as applied to American citizens and organizations. I am
particularly proud to have played a role in bringing about the release
of several unjustly detained American citizens and Turkish employees of
the U.S. diplomatic mission in Turkey. If confirmed, I would likewise
promote human rights and democracy in Albania.
Question. What issues are the most pressing challenges to democracy
or democratic development in Albania? These challenges might include
obstacles to participatory and accountable governance and institutions,
rule of law, authentic political competition, civil society, human
rights and press freedom. Please be as specific as possible.
Answer. Corruption is endemic at all levels in Albania. However,
Albania and the United States share common values, including the
importance of protecting and promoting democracy and democratic
development. Albania must take additional concrete steps to fight
corruption and reform its judiciary. The State Department's 2018 Human
Rights Report noted concerns about pervasive corruption, impunity for
the powerful and well-connected, and threats, violence, and
intimidation of journalists, which leads to self-censorship. Protecting
and promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom
of the press, is a core element of our foreign policy. Additionally, a
political standoff and polarization stemming from opposition party
boycotts led to municipal elections this year in which the people of
Albania did not have a meaningful choice.
If confirmed, I will do everything in my power to uphold our shared
values. I will particularly focus on implementing electoral reform and
fighting corruption, impunity, and intimidation of journalists to
support the Albanian people to craft a robust democracy whose elected
leaders act transparently, in accordance with the will of Albanian
voters, and in the interests of all Albanians. By promoting
transparency, equality, and democracy, Albania will contribute to a
more secure, just, and prosperous region.
Question. What steps will you take--if confirmed--to support
democracy in Albania? What do you hope to accomplish through these
actions? What are the potential impediments to addressing the specific
obstacles you have identified?
Answer. I recognize that Albania's Euro-Atlantic integration,
including future accession to the European Union, can only come with a
strong commitment to democratic principles, including respect for rule-
of-law and human rights. However, in Albania, pervasive corruption
persists and the impunity bred by this corruption hampers democratic
development, spurs emigration, and impedes access to justice. Every
person has the right to a fair hearing in court and every entity has
the right to a fair ruling by an independent, impartial judiciary,
based on the rule of law, not on a payoff or extortion. If confirmed, I
will continue to advance our key U.S. foreign policy interests in
Albania, including the full and timely implementation of judicial
reform and other rule-of-law reforms.
Question. How will you utilize U.S. government assistance resources
at your disposal, including the Democracy Commission Small Grants
program and other sources of State Department and USAID funding, to
support democracy and governance, and what will you prioritize in
processes to administer such assistance?
Answer. U.S. government assistance helps Albania deter threats and
strengthen its democratic institutions, pushing forward reforms that
are necessary to advance Albania on its chosen path of transatlantic
integration and its journey to self-reliance--defined as its ability to
finance and implement solutions to its own development challenges. U.S.
assistance programs support Albanian efforts to combat transnational
organized crime, strengthen judicial institutions, and bolster civil
society organizations and an independent media, which can work to
promote government transparency and counter endemic corruption. If
confirmed, I will use our assistance tools to prioritize projects that
serve U.S. national interests and help ensure a stronger democratic
partner in Albania.
Question. If confirmed, do you commit to meet with civil society
members, human rights and other non-governmental organizations in the
U.S. and with local human rights NGOs, and other members of civil
society in Albania? What steps will you take to pro-actively address
efforts to restrict or penalize NGOs and civil society via legal or
regulatory measures?
Answer. Human rights groups, civil society, and non-governmental
organizations are all important players in the democratic process. In
Albania, they are working to craft a robust democracy whose elected
leaders act transparently, in accordance with the will of Albanian
voters, and in the interests of all Albanians. If confirmed, I am
committed to sustaining engagement with a broad spectrum of civil
society groups.
The State Department's 2018 Human Rights Report states that
domestic and international human rights groups generally operated
without government restriction and that government officials generally
were cooperative and responsive to their views. In the event that the
situation changes, I will, if confirmed, actively engage so that these
groups are allowed to do their important work.
Question. If confirmed, do you commit to meet with democratically
oriented political opposition figures and parties? What steps will you
take to encourage genuine political competition? Will you advocate for
access and inclusivity for women, minorities and youth within political
parties?
Answer. A strong democracy requires a strong opposition. Albania's
opposition parties, however, cannot play their crucial role in
realizing Albania's EU aspirations while out of Parliament, protesting
in the streets. We urge them to be constructive while seeking
opportunities to re-engage in the democratic process. If confirmed, I
will continue to support positive engagement by all sides to develop
solutions for the benefit of all Albanians. Albania needs to overcome
the zero-sum thinking that so often typifies this region, alienates
Albanian voters, and damages democratic processes.
A strong democracy also benefits from the inclusion of a wide array
of views. If confirmed, I will continue the United States' regular
engagement with a broad spectrum of civil society actors in Albania,
including human rights activists advocating on behalf of historically
marginalized groups and young Albanians, and the organizations that
represent them.
Question. Will you and your embassy team actively engage with
Albania on freedom of the press and address any government efforts
designed to control or undermine press freedom through legal,
regulatory or other measures? Will you commit to meeting regularly with
independent, local press in Albania?
Answer. The U.S. Embassy in Tirana is actively engaged at many
levels to maintain Albania's constitutional freedom of expression,
including for the press. The embassy team is committed to the
development of Albania's NGO sector and its independent media as a
watchdog against possible abuses of power. If confirmed, I will
continue these efforts, including our regular engagement with members
of the press.
Question. Will you and your embassy team actively engage with civil
society and government counterparts on countering disinformation and
propaganda disseminated by foreign state or non-state actors in the
country?
Answer. I understand that the United States--through our Embassy in
Albania--is already actively engaged at many levels to develop a more
discerning public towards its media environment and to encourage a free
and active exchange of ideas. If confirmed, I will continue this
engagement.
Question. Will you and your embassy teams actively engage with
Albania on the right of labor groups to organize, including for
independent trade unions?
Answer. According to the Albanian Constitution and Labor Code,
Albanian workers have the right to form and organize independent
unions, and they exercise this right in practice. While the law
prohibits union discrimination, there have been informal reports of
direct and indirect threats by some employers, particularly in the
textile and footwear sectors, against employees because of their
involvement with unions. If confirmed, I will urge the government of
Albania to defend workers' rights to the fullest extent permitted under
law.
Question. Will you commit to using your position, if confirmed, to
defend the human rights and dignity of all people in Albania, no matter
their sexual orientation or gender identity? What challenges do the
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) people face in
Albania? What specifically will you commit to do to help LGBTQ people
in Albania?
Answer. Protecting and promoting human rights and fundamental
freedoms is a core element of our foreign policy. Societies are more
secure when they respect individual human rights, democratic
institutions, and the rule of law. Albania has one of the most sweeping
anti-discrimination laws in all of Europe, protecting numerous groups,
including the LGBTQ community. Yet, members of Albania's LGBTQ
community face challenges to participating in public life, obtaining
employment, and living free from serious threats to their well-being.
If confirmed, I look forward to continuing U.S. efforts to advocate for
equal protection and respect for all members of Albanian society. If
confirmed, I will continue the United States' engagement with civil
society organizations, including those that represent the LGBTQ
community in Albania, to protect the human rights and dignity of all
Albanians.
Question. Do you commit to respond promptly to all requests for
information by Members of this committee?
Answer. Yes, I commit to respond promptly to all requests for
information by Members of this committee, with the understanding that
any such response would be organized through the Department of State's
Bureau of Legislative Affairs and conducted in accordance with long-
standing Department and Executive Branch practice.
Question. Do you commit to appear before this committee upon
request?
Answer. If confirmed, I commit to appear before this committee upon
request, with the understanding that any such appearance would be
organized through the Department of State's Bureau of Legislative
Affairs and conducted in accordance with long-standing Department and
Executive Branch practice.
Question. If you become aware of any suspected waste, fraud, or
abuse in the Department, do you commit to report it to the Inspector
General?
Answer. If confirmed, I commit to comply with all relevant laws,
regulations, and rules, and to raise concerns that I may have through
appropriate channels, including as applicable to the Inspector General.
Question. In the wake of President Trump's comments welcoming
derogatory information on a U.S. political figure from foreign
entities, it is important that the State Department have explicit
guidance for all of its personnel on how to deal with this scenario.
Guidance on handling interactions that prompt concern about
exploitation by a foreign entity, such as FAM Chapter 12, Section 262,
does not clearly address this situation. If a foreign person or
government approaches you or a staffer at the embassy with derogatory
information on a U.S. political figure, what is your understanding of
official State Department policy on how to handle this specific
situation? Has a cable with clear guidance on how to handle this
specific situation been sent to all U.S. embassies?
Answer. If confirmed, I will follow the Department of State's
guidance with regard to reporting derogatory information.
Question. Has anyone ever made a formal or informal complaint or
allegation of sexual harassment, discrimination (e.g., racial, ethnic,
religious, etc.), or inappropriate conduct against you, in a workplace
or any other setting? If so, please describe the nature of the
complaint or allegation, your response, and any resolution, including
any settlements.
Answer. No.
Question. Have you ever addressed concerns or allegations of sexual
harassment, discrimination (e.g., racial, ethnic, religious, etc.), or
inappropriate conduct made against any employee over whom you had
supervisory authority? If so, please describe the outcome and actions
taken.
Answer. No, I have never had to address concerns or allegations of
sexual harassment, discrimination, or inappropriate conduct made
against an employee over whom I had supervisory authority. I take EEO
and sexual harassment in the workplace seriously, and if confirmed, I
will work to ensure that a message of zero tolerance for
discrimination, harassment, and misconduct is affirmed from the
beginning of my assignment.
Question. Do you agree that any targeting of or retaliation against
career employees based on their perceived political beliefs, prior work
on policy, or affiliation with a previous administration, is wholly
inappropriate and has no place in the federal government? If confirmed,
what will you do to ensure that all employees under your leadership
understand that any retaliation, blacklisting, or other prohibited
personnel practices will not be tolerated?
Answer. I agree that any targeting of or retaliation against career
employees based on their perceived political beliefs, prior work on
policy, or affiliation with a previous administration, is wholly
inappropriate. I take allegations of such practices seriously and will
ensure they are referred to the Department's Inspector General. If
confirmed, I will maintain a policy of zero tolerance in U.S. Embassy
Tirana for any retaliation, blacklisting, or other prohibited personnel
practices. I will hold U.S. Embassy Tirana employees accountable to the
highest standards in accordance with anti-discrimination, merit
principle, and whistleblower protection statutes, laws, and
regulations, including the Notification and Federal Employee
Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002. I will also ensure
employees comply with their NO FEAR Act training requirements.
__________
NOMINATION
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2019
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m. in
Room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. James E.
Risch, chairman of the committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Risch [presiding], Rubio, Gardner,
Romney, Barrasso, Portman, Young, Cruz, Menendez, Cardin,
Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, Kaine, Markey, and Merkley.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. RISCH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO
The Chairman. The committee will come to order.
Thank you all for attending today.
Today we are going to hold the nomination hearing on a very
important position. Our nominee today is the Honorable John J.
Sullivan, to be the U.S. Ambassador to the Russian Federation.
First, we have two distinguished, very distinguished I
might add, colleagues of ours who wish to introduce our
nominee. So we are going to allow them to proceed with
introductions. Therefore, I am going to postpone my opening
statement. I asked the ranking member do likewise until the
nominees have been introduced. And with that, we are glad to be
joined today by Senators Dan Sullivan of Alaska and Ben Cardin
of Maryland. And I understand that Senator Sullivan has drawn
the straw to go first.
STATEMENT OF HON. DAN SULLIVAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very
much, and Ranking Member Menendez and all the members of the
committee. It is an honor to be before the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee again on behalf of my friend, John
Sullivan, to support his nomination to be the United States
Ambassador to the Russian Federation.
Despite what his last name would suggest, we are not
related, although I occasionally joke with Senator Markey, who
is also a proud Sullivan member in his heritage, that somewhere
back in history we are probably all related.
I have publicly supported Secretary Sullivan's nomination
once before and can speak to his long distinguished career, all
of which you are familiar. And I would begin by stating that
John's experience and qualifications have already been endorsed
by this committee
and by the United States Senate previously, confirmed as
Deputy Secretary in May 2017 by a vote of 94 to 6 and confirmed
in the Bush administration in March 2008 unanimously to be
Deputy Secretary of Commerce and in July 2005 unanimously by
the Senate to be General Counsel of the Department of Commerce
by a voice vote.
I first met John when we were serving together in the
George W. Bush administration. I was working as an Assistant
Secretary of State under Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice,
and John was the Deputy Secretary of Commerce.
And most notably since 2017, John has successfully served
as the United States Deputy Secretary of State with integrity.
He has done an extremely impressive job in this critical role,
widely respected not just across federal national security
agencies in our own government, but internationally and most
importantly by the employees of the Department of State, which
he has helped to lead. He has worked with them, led them, stood
by them, and for them as his tenure as Deputy Secretary.
Now, I do not often take to quoting the national media, but
you may have noticed that there is a wide cross section of
journalists and media in our country that have noted John's
qualifications and reaffirmed the positive impact he has
already had on the State Department.
An article from ``Politico'' recently stated, ``John
Sullivan, the Deputy Secretary, is winning over State
Department employees. So far, Sullivan has shown a fluency with
diplomacy that has delighted his colleagues in the State
Department.''
The Washington Examiner, ``Sullivan is smart, calm,
experienced, three crucial ingredients in leading the U.S.
mission to Russia.''
And in a Wall Street Journal op-ed by Ambassador Thomas
Pickering, one of our nation's most distinguished career
diplomats, he said of Secretary Sullivan, ``I have come to
respect John Sullivan's judgment, his balance, his good sense,
his open-minded approach to how to deal with the difficult
foreign relations problems our country has.''
Mr. Chairman, you may have also seen this very long letter
of distinguished national security executives and former
diplomats and military officials and Secretaries of Defense and
other positions who are all endorsing Secretary Sullivan's
ambassadorship to Russia.
As it relates to the responsibilities with regard to the
new position for which he has been nominated, Deputy Secretary
Sullivan currently leads the only two ongoing U.S.-Russia
dialogues on counterterrorism and strategic security. He has
also played a key role in numerous bilateral issues relating to
the U.S.-Russia relationship over the past 2 years.
At a time when U.S.-Russia relations are more complex and
strained and difficult than ever, it is important to have
someone like John as America's top diplomat.
Mr. Chairman, a few months ago, I had the honor of
introducing another outstanding American before this committee,
General John Abizaid to be Ambassador to Saudi Arabia. At the
time I said that while there were many disagreements in this
body about our policy towards Saudi Arabia, there should be
consensus that we need a well respected U.S. Ambassador there.
The same holds true with Russia today. John Sullivan is a
man of integrity and he understands what it means to honorably
serve our nation and has a career of doing so. I urge this
committee to support his nomination.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Sullivan.
Since you mentioned the letter that was addressed to myself
and Senator Menendez from a distinguished group of people from
various aspects of public service, I am going to admit that
into the record now.
[The information referred to is located in the ``Additional
Material Submitted for the Record'' section of this hearing
transcript.]
The Chairman. Senator Cardin?
STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L CARDIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MARYLAND
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Chairman Risch and Ranking
Member Menendez.
I am pleased to join Senator Sullivan in introducing
Secretary Sullivan to this committee.
Secretary Sullivan is a Marylander who has a Boston accent.
He has served our nation--he sounds more like Senator Markey
than he does me. But that is fine. He has served our nation
well in public service as Deputy Secretary of State since May
of 2017 and Acting Secretary of State in April 2018 and senior
positions in the Department of Justice, the Defense Department,
Commerce, 2 decades as a private attorney. He is well qualified
for this position.
John Sullivan to me is a straight shooter. He is an
experienced public servant. My experience with him is that he
has communicated with me effectively and honestly. He reached
out to inform me when I was the ranking Democrat on this
committee, and he has respected my role as a United States
Senator and as a member of this committee.
Most recently in our conversations, he told me he was
looking for a challenge when he agreed to take this position.
Well, you certainly will have a challenge, if confirmed as
Ambassador to Russia. This is a challenging position.
Russia has been our adversary. Make no mistake about it.
They interfered in the 2016 elections and that was not isolated
to the United States. A report that I authored on behalf of
this committee in 2018 pointed out Mr. Putin's asymmetric
arsenal in his attack against democratic institutions and
democratic countries in Europe and now in the United States. He
invaded and occupied and still occupies Ukraine in violation of
every principle of the Helsinki Final Accords. Mr. Putin also
is occupying Russia in Georgia and Moldova. He has interfered
in Syria. He has violated the human rights of his own citizens,
leading to the enactment of the Magnitsky law not only here in
the United States but in countries around the world. The list
goes on and on and on.
So, Mr. Chairman, we need a confirmed Ambassador who will
support our democratic principles and give hope to the voices
in Russia that stand up to the repressive regime of Mr. Putin.
Let me conclude by just quoting from Secretary Sullivan on
his nomination hearing that Senator Sullivan referred to on May
9th, 2017 when the nominee told us, ``Our greatest asset is our
commitment to the fundamental values expressed at the founding
of our nation, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness. These basic human rights are the bedrock of our
republic and at the heart of American leadership in the
world.'' I could not agree more with those statements.
I thank John Sullivan and his family for being willing to
step forward to take on this challenge.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cardin. Thanks to both of
you. And, Senator Sullivan, I know you have got a commitment.
Senator Cardin----
Senator Cardin. I have a commitment also.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. You do, you do. We are glad to have you.
Well, again, I want to thank all of you for coming. John,
welcome.
We are going to contemplate the nomination today of the
Honorable John Sullivan to be United States Ambassador to the
Russian Federation. We welcome you back to the committee and
thank you for your willingness to continue serving in what is a
challenging but very important role. Having been here before, I
have no doubt that this will be a brief hearing and my
colleagues will be kind and generous with you as we go through
this.
As Senators Cardin and Sullivan have already given Deputy
Secretary Sullivan an introduction, I will simply take a few
moments to talk about the importance of this position.
Most would agree that the U.S. relationship with Russia is
at a low point. Successive U.S. Presidents of both political
parties have attempted to reset the relationship only to find
that the other side is an unwilling partner. This is caused in
no little part by our very different value sets and our very
different views on helping mankind.
Bilaterally, the past few years have been marked by
Russia's interference in the American electoral process and, as
already been noted, by their interference in other electoral
processes around the globe, by the expulsion of each other's
diplomats and by a compete lack of trust due to Russia's
worldwide bad conduct.
Internationally, rather than acting like the global power
that it proclaims to be, Russia has chosen to wreak havoc. We
are all familiar with the long, long list of Russia's malign
global activity. It has shredded international agreements like
the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty and seized sovereign
territory from both Georgia and Ukraine that it continues to
occupy today in violation of all international norms and,
indeed, United Nations condemnation.
It has poisoned its enemies with chemical weapons on
foreign soil and violated the INF Treaty so blatantly that all
NATO allies reached a unanimous conclusion on those violations.
Russia's support has kept brutal dictators in power in
Syria and Venezuela long after they should have and would have
fallen, and the government continues to meddle in the elections
of other democratic states such as the Brexit referendum. It
has even gone so far as to attempt a coup in Montenegro in
2016.
Thankfully, other than those of the international community
who engage in similar conduct, most countries recognize
Russia's malign global influence and have taken action. The EU
and U.S. have sanctioned corrupt Russian oligarchs under the
Magnitsky Act, its defense industry under CAATSA, and its
energy industry via executive order, all of which strain
Russia's ability to raise government revenue and to act
maliciously.
I hope the House and Senate will soon act to pass the bill
sponsored by Senators Cruz and Shaheen that will sanction those
involved in laying the NordStream 2 pipeline. Most of us have
worked and continue to work to get that done.
Despite our many issues with the Kremlin, there are also
times of cooperation with the Russians like in the area of
counterterrorism. And it is important we make clear to the
Russian people that we do value our relationship with them. We
should make sure that educational and cultural exchanges still
take place and that we support civil society in their country
in any way we can, notwithstanding the malign acts of their
leaders. Russia is a proud and important country on the
international stage, and the U.S.- Russia relationship will
exist long after Putin is gone.
All of this leads me to the reason we are here today: to
evaluate the nomination of Deputy Secretary Sullivan to be the
top U.S. representative to a country that we have such a
contentious relationship with. It is an incredibly important
role.
Deputy Secretary Sullivan is ready for this role. He has
served the U.S. government at the Department of Commerce,
Defense, Justice, and now at State. I am confident that the
past 2 years serving as our Deputy Secretary of State has given
him a clear view of the multitude of problems we have with
Russia, the U.S. government's efforts to resolve them, and the
experience to navigate both our system and Russia's system.
I am honored and pleased to hear the compliments that you
have received from both sides of the aisle, even from the
national media.
Thank you for being here today. Thank you to your family
for sharing the sacrifice it is going to take to do this.
And with that, I will turn it over to Ranking Member
Menendez.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY
Senator Menendez. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, congratulations on your nomination.
You understand the role of Congress as a co-equal branch of
government and you have differentiated yourself from those in
the administration who have sought to break every norm in the
conduct of foreign policy. And that is why we expect continued
candidness from you here today.
Unfortunately, one person, no matter how skilled and
dedicated, cannot counteract the disarray that is the Trump
administration's foreign policy.
I have served 27 years between the House and the Senate and
worked on foreign policy that entire time. Never before have I
seen such chaos and U.S. policy incoherence from Syria, to
Turkey, to Iran, to Ukraine, and to Russia.
Our State Department is on the front lines of our national
defense. They are patriots charged with achieving our goals
through diplomacy not conflict. Never in my 27 years have I
seen the Department so mismanaged and so many of our diplomats
maligned. You do not have to take my word for it. Just look to
the testimony of two patriots, Ambassador Yovanovitch and
Ambassador Taylor. The denigration of these two dedicated
public servants is a disgrace. The State Department is in
disarray, a casualty of President Trump's decision to use U.S.
national security as a political weapon.
And never in my 27 years have I seen a Department or an
administration so willing to stick its thumb directly in the
eye of Congress, a co-equal branch of government. I do not
think we have to cite the Constitution here today, but I am
certainly prepared to do so. Over the years, there has been
friction and disagreements between the legislative and
executive branches. Those are normal. But we have entered new
territory, dangerous territory for our republic. And I am not
just talking about the House's current inquiry. I am talking
about asking 20 times to get a basic piece of information, the
extreme lengths we have had to go through to get a single
document, the Department refusing to even discuss certain
matters.
This is not just playing hardball. It is undermining our
democratic system of government. And unfortunately, Mr.
Secretary, this has taken place under your watch and under the
direction of Secretary Pompeo. The Secretary has a lot to
answer for. But I believe so do you. We will talk about all of
those issues that have been so central to the administration of
the State Department over the past 2 and a half years.
We are also here to talk about your vision for the
bilateral relationship with the Russian Federation. I for one
do not believe that Russia should be playing the role it is in
Syria. I do not believe that those who do business with the
Russian military like Turkey should be given a free pass under
CAATSA. I do not believe that Russia belongs in the G7, at
least not until they change the course of events. And I do not
believe that it is acceptable to delay security assistance for
Ukraine, a move that directly benefits Russia.
President Trump, however, is on the record as believing all
of those things. He believes every single one. Now, I think the
President has lost any shred of legitimacy on Russia when he
delayed security assistance for Ukraine. Ukrainians died
because of this delay and died at the hands of Russian forces.
And America was made less safe.
So, Mr. Secretary, I want you to succeed in Moscow, if you
are confirmed. I really do. But I need to hear directly from
you as to what constitutes success. Is success fulfilling
President Trump's pro-Kremlin vision for the U.S.-Russia
bilateral relationship? Or will you actually advocate a policy
that protects U.S. national security? It is a fundamentally
important choice. If it is the former, I will have serious
reservations about supporting your nomination. If it is the
latter, then I am open to the conversation, and I look forward
to hearing your thoughts on this fundamental choice.
U.S. policy on Russia has been intrinsically wrapped up in
our Ukraine policy, given that Russian forces continue their
onslaught against Ukrainian troops and civilians in the Donbas,
an onslaught I will again note that was made easier by the
delay in providing security assistance. Your position at the
State Department would have afforded you the responsibility of
overseeing the conduct of policy. What did you know about the
role played by Rudy Giuliani? Did Kurt Volker's unique
volunteer status lead to conflicts of interests and a confusing
policymaking process? Where was the State Department
leadership, yourself included, when it came to defending
Ambassador Yovanovitch and others?
Now, I supported you for your present position, but before
I vote on your nomination, we are going to need answers to
these and other questions. So I cannot guarantee you the
Chairman's suggestion that this will be a quick and simple and
kind hearing. I do guarantee you it will be a fair and honest
one. And I look forward to your answers to the questions that
we will be posing.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Menendez, for your views,
as always.
We will now turn to our nominee, Deputy Secretary Sullivan.
As Senators Sullivan and Cardin mentioned, John Sullivan
currently serves as the Deputy Secretary of State, a position
he has held since 2017. Prior to serving as Deputy Secretary,
he served in several senior positions at the Departments of
Commerce, Justice, and Defense, as well as a partner in several
law firms.
Deputy Secretary Sullivan, thank you. Thank you to your
family. The letter from the 40 former officials from previous
administrations, Democrat and Republican, that have been
entered into the record certainly speak to the high regard in
which they hold you.
So with that, we will turn it over to you. Your full
statement will be included in the record. We would ask you to
spend about 5 minutes talking to us about your views on these
matters. Thank you, Secretary Sullivan.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN JOSEPH SULLIVAN, OF MARYLAND, TO BE
AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA TO THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Mr. Sullivan. Thank you, Chairman Risch, Ranking Member
Menendez, members of the committee. It is an honor to appear
before you today as the President's nominee to be the United
States Ambassador to the Russian Federation.
I want to thank the President for his confidence in me and
for the opportunity, with the Senate's consent, to represent
our nation in Moscow. I also want to thank Secretary Mike
Pompeo for his leadership of the Department of State and his
support of my nomination. Finally, I am indebted to our most
recent Ambassador to Russia, my friend, Jon Huntsman, for his
leadership of our mission there and his advice as I seek to
succeed him.
I come before the committee, as you noted, Mr. Chairman,
after serving for 2 and a half years as the Deputy Secretary of
State and for 6 weeks of that tenure as the Acting Secretary.
My service at the Department, working with the men and women of
the Foreign and Civil Service in Washington and around the
world, has been the most rewarding professional experience of
my life.
But my service would not have been possible without the
love and support of my family, who join me here today: my wife,
Grace Rodriguez; and our children, Jack, Katie, and Teddy; my
mother-in-law, Graciela Rodriguez; and my sister- in-law, Susan
Rodriguez; her husband Tony; and their children, Evan and
Cameron. I am eternally grateful to them for their support.
If confirmed as the U.S. Ambassador to Russia, I will bring
to my position not only my experience as the Deputy Secretary
of State, but also my prior experience, as you noted, Mr.
Chairman, in a variety of other government positions over the
last 35 years. I believe my background and experience earned in
four cabinet departments across three presidential
administrations has prepared me to assume the profound
responsibilities of serving as our Chief of Mission in Moscow.
And experience teaches that this diplomatic mission will
not be easy or simple. Our relationship with Russia has reached
a post-Cold War ebb. The litany of Russia's malign actions that
have severely strained our relationship is painfully familiar
to this committee: attempting to interfere in our and our
allies' elections, violating the territory integrity and
sovereignty of Ukraine and Georgia, employing a weapon of mass
destruction in an attempt to assassinate its citizens abroad,
violating the INF Treaty, and infringing on the basic human
rights of its people, among other things.
Yet, the need for principled engagement with Russia is as
important to our national interest as ever. Russia's status as
a nuclear super-power and permanent member of the U.N. Security
Council compels us to engage on a range of issues involving
global stability and security. This requires sustained
diplomacy with the Russian government in areas of shared
interest, for example, in arms control, nonproliferation,
counterterrorism, and resolute opposition to Russia where it
undermines the interests and values of the United States and
our allies and partners, for example, by threatening stability
in Europe and election security in the United States.
As the Deputy Secretary of State, I have been directly
involved in developing U.S. policy on Russia. I lead the U.S.
participation in an ongoing counterterrorism dialogue with the
Russians, and I led a senior U.S. delegation to Geneva in mid-
July to restart a U.S.-Russia strategic security dialogue. Last
month, I participated in the decision to impose sanctions on
Yevgeniy Prigozhin and others associated with the Internet
Research Agency for their attempts to interfere with the U.S.
2018 midterm elections.
In considering these complex issues, I want to acknowledge
this committee's leadership and insights on Russia. As I have
mentioned in recent meetings with many of you, if confirmed, I
would welcome the opportunity to consult and collaborate with
members of this committee individually and collectively on our
Russia policy.
If confirmed, I will continue to support dialogues with the
Russian government on counterterrorism and arms control, as
well as on denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula, on finding a
peaceful solution to the conflict in Afghanistan, on Syria, and
many other issues. But I will be relentless in opposing Russian
efforts to interfere in U.S. elections, to violate the
sovereignty of Ukraine and Georgia, and to engage in the malign
behavior that has reduced our relationship to such a low level
of trust.
I assure the committee that I will also be indefatigable in
protecting the American citizens who live in and travel to
Russia, including the U.S. business community, scholars,
athletes, tourists, and all Americans who visit the Russian
Federation. If confirmed, I intend to continue to press the
Russian government for the release of Paul Whelan, who has been
imprisoned without charges for almost a year now, and to demand
that Michael Calvey's case be disposed of in a civil
proceeding, not in a criminal court.
If confirmed, I look forward to engaging with the Russian
people to celebrate Russian culture, commemorate Russian
history, listen to their perspectives on the issues that unite
and divide us, and convey to them directly my American
perspective on those issues as well. I will also continue to
promote, in accordance with U.S. law, people-to- people
exchanges to foster a better understanding among the Russian
people of the United States. And as I have done during my
travels as Deputy Secretary of State, I will meet with civil
society, including religious leaders and human rights
activists.
Finally, there would be no greater honor for me, if
confirmed as the U.S. Ambassador to Russia, than to serve with
the dedicated women and men and their families who constitute
our mission in Russia. I know from firsthand experience that it
is not easy to be a U.S. diplomat in Moscow, Yekaterinburg, or
Vladivostok. Yet, dedicated career officers from across the
U.S. government are serving with distinction in the wake of
massive staff cuts, uncertainty, and intense pressure from the
host government. Their tenacity in the face of these challenges
is inspiring. Indeed, it was the example of my colleagues in
Mission Russia that inspired me to seek to leave Washington and
join them on the front lines of American diplomacy. I humbly
ask this committee for that opportunity.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Menendez, and members of the
committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today. I welcome your comments and questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sullivan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John Joseph Sullivan
Chairman Risch, Ranking Member Menendez, and members of the
committee, it is an honor to appear before you as the President's
nominee to be the United States Ambassador to the Russian Federation. I
want to thank the President for his confidence in me and for the
opportunity--with the Senate's consent--to represent our nation in
Moscow. I also want to thank Secretary Mike Pompeo for his leadership
of the Department of State and his support of my nomination. Finally, I
am indebted to our most recent Ambassador to Russia, my friend Jon
Huntsman, for his leadership of our mission there and his advice as I
seek to succeed him.
I come before the committee after serving for two and a half years
as the Deputy Secretary of State, and for six weeks of that tenure as
the Acting Secretary. My service at the Department--working with the
men and women of the Foreign Service and Civil Service in Washington
and around the world--has been the most rewarding professional
experience of my life. But my service would not have been possible
without the love and support of my family, who join me today: my wife
Grace Rodriguez and our children Jack, Katie, and Teddy; my mother-in-
law Graciela Rodriguez; and my sister-in-law Susan Rodriguez, her
husband Tony, and their children Evan and Cameron. I am eternally
grateful to them.
If confirmed as the U.S. Ambassador to Russia, I will bring to the
position not only my experience as the Deputy Secretary of State, but
also my prior experience in a variety of government positions over the
last thirty-five years: from my early service as a law clerk for Judge
John Minor Wisdom and Justice David Souter, to my service at the senior
levels of the Justice and Defense Departments, and, finally, to my most
recent prior position as the Deputy Secretary of Commerce. I believe my
background and experience--earned in four cabinet departments across
three presidential administrations--has prepared me to assume the
profound responsibilities of serving as our Chief of Mission in Moscow.
And experience teaches that this sensitive diplomatic mission will
not be easy or simple. Our relationship with Russia has reached a post-
Cold War ebb. The litany of Russia's malign actions that have severely
strained our relationship is painfully familiar to this committee:
attempting to interfere in our and our allies' elections, violating the
territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine and Georgia, employing
a weapon of mass destruction in an attempt to assassinate its citizens
abroad, violating the INF Treaty, and infringing on the basic human
rights of its people, among other things.
Yet the need for principled engagement with Russia is as important
to our national interest as ever. Russia's status as a nuclear
superpower and permanent member of the U.N. Security Council compels us
to engage on a range of issues involving global stability and security.
This requires sustained diplomacy with the Russian government in areas
of shared interests, for example in arms control, nonproliferation, and
counterterrorism, and resolute opposition to Russia where it undermines
the interests and values of the United States and our allies and
partners, for example by threatening stability in Europe and election
security in the United States.
As the Deputy Secretary of State, I have been directly involved in
developing U.S. policy on Russia. I lead the U.S. participation in an
ongoing counterterrorism dialogue with Russia, and I led a senior U.S.
delegation to Geneva in mid-July to restart a U.S.-Russia Strategic
Security Dialogue. Last month, I participated in the decision to impose
sanctions on Yevgeniy Prigozhin and others associated with the Internet
Research Agency for their attempts to interfere with the U.S. 2018
midterm elections.
In considering these complex issues, I want to acknowledge this
committee's leadership and insights on Russia. As I mentioned in recent
meetings with many of you, if confirmed as the next U.S. Ambassador to
Russia, I would welcome the opportunity to consult and collaborate with
the members of this committee, individually and collectively, on our
Russia policy.
If confirmed, I will continue to support dialogues with the Russian
government on counterterrorism and arms control, as well as on
denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula, on finding a peaceful solution to
the conflict in Afghanistan, on Syria, and many other issues. But I
will be relentless in opposing Russian efforts to interfere in U.S.
elections, to violate the sovereignty of Ukraine and Georgia, and to
engage in the malign behavior that has reduced our relationship to such
a low level of trust.
I assure the committee that I also will be indefatigable in
protecting the American citizens who live in and travel to Russia,
including the U.S. business community, scholars, athletes, tourists,
and all American visitors. If confirmed, I intend to continue to press
the Russian government for the release of Paul Whelan, who has been
imprisoned without charges for nearly a year, and to demand that
Michael Calvey's case be disposed of in a civil proceeding, not in a
criminal court.
If confirmed, I look forward to engaging with the Russian people to
celebrate Russian culture, commemorate Russian history, and listen to
their perspectives on the issues that unite and divide us and convey
directly to them my American perspective as well. I also will continue
to promote--in accordance with U.S. law--people-to-people exchanges to
foster a better understanding among the Russian people of the United
States. And, as I have during my travels as Deputy Secretary of State,
I will meet with civil society, including religious leaders and human
rights activists.
Finally, there would be no greater honor for me, if confirmed as
the U.S. Ambassador to Russia, than to serve with the dedicated women
and men--and their families--who constitute our mission in Russia. I
know from firsthand experience that it is not easy to be a U.S.
diplomat in Moscow, Yekaterinburg, or Vladivostok. Yet dedicated career
officers from across the U.S. government are serving with distinction
in the wake of massive staff cuts, uncertainty, and intense pressure
from the host government. Their tenacity in the face of these
challenges is inspiring. Indeed, it was the example of my colleagues in
Mission Russia that inspired me to seek to leave Washington and join
them on the front-lines of American diplomacy. I humbly ask this
committee for that opportunity.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Menendez, and members of the
committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I
welcome your comments and questions.
The Chairman. Thank you so much.
We are now going to do a 5-minute round of questioning. I
am going to reserve my time and will yield to Senator Menendez.
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Secretary, for your statement.
Do you think it is ever appropriate for the President to
use his office to solicit investigations into a domestic
political opponent?
Mr. Sullivan. Soliciting investigations into a domestic
political opponent--I do not think that would be in accord with
our values.
Senator Menendez. As the Deputy Secretary of State, are you
aware of any other efforts by the President or anyone else to
encourage, suggest, or request that a foreign government
investigate one of the President's political rivals?
Mr. Sullivan. I am not aware of any such, Senator.
Senator Menendez. Not to President Xi?
Mr. Sullivan. No.
Senator Menendez. Prime Minister May?
Mr. Sullivan. I am not aware of that, Senator.
Senator Menendez. Let me ask you. You relayed to me--and I
appreciate you came by to meet with me and we had an in-depth
discussion. You relayed to me in our meeting yesterday that you
personally have met Ambassador Yovanovitch in Kiev earlier this
year. Is that correct?
Mr. Sullivan. Last year actually.
Senator Menendez. Last year, okay.
So you would agree that she served the Department of State
and represented the United States capably and admirably?
Mr. Sullivan. I told her so.
Senator Menendez. Yet, you were the one who told Ambassador
Yovanovitch that she was being recalled early. Correct?
Mr. Sullivan. I did.
Senator Menendez. In your view, was there any basis to
recall Ambassador Yovanovitch early?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes, there was. The President had lost
confidence in her.
Senator Menendez. The President had lost confidence in her.
Mr. Sullivan. Yes.
Senator Menendez. And you were told that by the Secretary
of State.
Mr. Sullivan. I was.
Senator Menendez. Did you ask why he lost confidence in
her?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes.
Senator Menendez. And what was the answer?
Mr. Sullivan. I was told that he had lost confidence in
her. Period.
Senator Menendez. Well, that is not a ``why.'' He just lost
confidence in her. He did not explained why.
Mr. Sullivan. You asked if I asked. I asked.
Senator Menendez. And the answer you got was that he just--
--
Mr. Sullivan. He had lost confidence.
Senator Menendez. He did not explain why he lost confidence
in her.
Now, you said to me yesterday, once you were given this
assignment, you wanted to treat Ambassador Yovanovitch with
respect. Is that correct?
Mr. Sullivan. That is correct.
Senator Menendez. The best way to show respect would have
been to push back on the Secretary and say why are we recalling
someone, by the way, whose term had been extended and then we
are recalling her back even though there was only a few months
left in her nomination. A career ambassador. Why did you not
push back?
Mr. Sullivan. Well, as we also discussed yesterday,
Senator, this had been a discussion that I had had with the
Secretary over a period of time, and the Secretary, in turn,
had pushed back and sought justification from those who were
criticizing Ambassador Yovanovitch. After several months had
elapsed, the Secretary finally told me that there had come a
point at which the President had lost confidence in the
Ambassador and that we needed to make a change in our mission
to Ukraine.
Senator Menendez. You were aware that there were
individuals and forces outside of the State Department seeking
to smear Ambassador Yovanovitch. Is that correct?
Mr. Sullivan. I was.
Senator Menendez. And seeking to remove her. Is that right?
Mr. Sullivan. I was.
Senator Menendez. And did you know Mr. Giuliani was one of
those people?
Mr. Sullivan. I believed he was, yes.
Senator Menendez. When in fact this came about, did you
ever personally advocate for a statement of support on behalf
of Ambassador Yovanovitch?
Mr. Sullivan. At the time of her removal, I did not.
Senator Menendez. So let me turn then to some of these
other questions.
What did you know about a shadow Ukraine policy being
carried out by Rudy Giuliani?
Mr. Sullivan. My knowledge in the spring and summer of this
year about any involvement of Mr. Giuliani was in connection
with a campaign against our Ambassador to Ukraine.
Senator Menendez. And you were given a packet of
disinformation attempting to smear Ambassador Yovanovitch,
given to you, if I recall correctly our conversation, by the
State Department counsel?
Mr. Sullivan. Counselor. Yes, it was in response to
inquiries by the Secretary and others about what our Ambassador
had done. We got, as I understood, that packet of materials.
Senator Menendez. Now, did the counselor tell you how the
package came to him?
Mr. Sullivan. He had been given it--either he or the
Secretary--I believe it was he. He had received that packet
from someone at the White House.
Senator Menendez. And did he tell you that he and the
Secretary read the package?
Mr. Sullivan. He had read the packet. I do not believe the
Secretary had.
Senator Menendez. Did you read the package?
Mr. Sullivan. I did.
Senator Menendez. And what did you think of it?
Mr. Sullivan. It did not provide to me a basis for taking
action against our Ambassador. But I was not aware of all that
might be going on in the background, and to be cautious, I
asked that the packet of materials, both for purposes of
assessing the truth of the matters that were being asserted and
their relevance, and the provenance of the package, who was
giving it to us to influence us, be looked at by the Inspector
General and by the Justice Department.
Senator Menendez. Did you know it was Mr. Giuliani who
created that package?
Mr. Sullivan. I do not know that. To this day, I do not
know that.
Senator Menendez. You did not ask where did this come from?
Mr. Sullivan. I did. Yes, I did ask, but I do not know.
Senator Menendez. And no one told you where it came from.
Mr. Sullivan. No.
Senator Menendez. So it happened by immaculate conception.
Mr. Sullivan. Hence, my referral of the package.
Senator Menendez. Well, the reason I asked you this line of
questions is because you are going to an embassy, one of the
most critical positions in the national interest and security
of the United States, in which I think the President's views
differ clearly from many on both sides of the aisle as it
relates vis-a-vis Russia. And there may be moments in time in
which what happened in Ukraine is going to be happening as it
relates to Russia. And the question is, what will you do? What
will you do?
Mr. Sullivan. I will follow the law and my conscience. In
this instance with respect to the removal of the Ambassador, my
experience had been that when the President loses confidence in
an Ambassador, no matter what the reason, that the President's
confidence in his Ambassador in a capital is the coin of the
realm, the most important thing for that Ambassador. If he has
lost that confidence--and this happened, as I think I may have
mentioned to some of the members of this committee, to my uncle
when he was the last U.S. ambassador to Iran. President Carter
thought that my uncle was disloyal to the administration and to
the President and his policies and, in January of 1979, asked
Secretary Vance to have my uncle removed as our ambassador.
Secretary Vance objected, said that my uncle was implementing
the administration's policies. He pushed back.
Several months later, the White House, the President said,
``Sullivan has got to come out.'' He was removed as our
ambassador. He was undermined by the White House. There were
leaks about his character, his loyalty to the United States and
to the administration. And as a result, after 32 years of
service in the Foreign Service, three-time ambassador, he
resigned from the Foreign Service.
So when the President loses confidence in the ambassador,
right or wrong, the ambassador needs to come home.
Senator Menendez. Well, I will just close by saying I
appreciate--you told me that story, and I appreciate hearing it
again.
When the President loses faith in an ambassador because of
political reasons, not because of policy reasons, not because
the ambassador has been disloyal to the United States, not
because the ambassador is not doing their job, when it is
because surrogates like Mr. Giuliani and others who have
political and economic interests are pushing against our
ambassador, I would have hoped that you would have spoken up a
lot more loudly.
And if you get this position, I would expect, if that
happens to our people in the U.S. embassy in Russia, that you
will speak up much more forcefully because that is the essence
of being an ambassador. Yes, to represent the nation, but also
to defend the men and women who work every day and should be
insulated from that type of political consequence. With the
experience you just told me about, I would have thought that
you would have been more forceful.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Romney?
Senator Romney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Secretary Sullivan, for your willingness to
serve in the Foreign Service and particularly to go on a
foreign assignment in a far off and cold place. I acknowledge
that you will be filling big shoes. Ambassador Jon Huntsman has
served with distinction and honor in that post, and I
anticipate that you will do the same.
On October 21st, it was announced by Facebook that Russia
continues to try and interfere in our election process by
spreading false information and such, and Facebook took down a
number of posts. So it is very clear that there has been no
change on the part of Russia in terms of their intent to
interfere with our election process.
What can we do to change their behavior in this regard?
What options do we have? So far, the actions we have taken have
been incapable of dissuading them from their malign activity.
Do you have thoughts about what actions either you can take as
an ambassador or we should consider as the Foreign Relations
Committee or as a nation to dissuade Russia or any other
nation, Iran, North Korea, and so forth from trying to distort
our electoral process, which is, if you will, at the heart of
how a democracy works? Our elections are essential to a
democracy. It requires the confidence of our people for
democracy to work, that their votes are what made the decisions
that will elect our officials. What might we be able to do?
Mr. Sullivan. What we have done, Senator--and by the way, I
have said in my discussions with members of the committee about
this, this is an ongoing campaign by the Russian government. We
think of it in terms of election milestones, but they are
really seeking to undermine the United States, our democracy,
and who we are, to divide us. We view it in terms of election
milestones. They view it as an ongoing hybrid campaign against
the United States whom they view as an implacable adversary of
theirs. And they have, unfortunately, become an adversary of
ours. We have pursued sanctions. We have pursued visa
sanctions, economic sanctions, criminal prosecutions.
Senator Romney. But those have not dissuaded them.
Mr. Sullivan. So what we have done most recently, which I
cannot go into great detail about in an open setting like this,
involves our own tools not only in defense of our election
infrastructure and our basic Internet infrastructure, but more
forward-leaning cyber methods both in defending ourselves and
our allies and partners and taking actions against those who
threaten us, combining all of that with more direct messaging
to the Russian Federation, to the Russian government from
President Putin on down, that if they want to have a more
stable relationship with the United States, which they profess
to do--and I was with Vice President Pence when he had this
discussion with President Putin last year in November at the
East Asia Leaders Summit--that if they desire that, if they are
true to their word, they have to stop this, that this is a
redline for us.
And our sanctions and our actions in response have to be
directly coordinated to that message that is delivered to the
Russians that it is not just amorphous, malign activities, but
it is this particular activity directed by, authorized by the
senior leadership of the Russian government, carried out by
non-state actors who are controlled by the Russian government
that are directed at our country, our society, and our election
infrastructure.
Senator Romney. Let me turn to Russia's plans with regard
to nuclearization. My understanding is that they have invested
as a nation dramatically in their nuclear arsenal, modernizing
it. They have also aggressively invested in intermediate-range
nuclear weapons in a way that has contravened our prior
agreements. What is your sense of their ambition relating to
their nuclear weapons program? At a time when I think the rest
of the world was hoping that we would reduce nuclear weapons,
that we might have a new New START Treaty that might actually
reduce from the current levels, they seem to be investing more
in nuclearization. Where are they headed and why?
Mr. Sullivan. You have hit the nail on the head, Senator.
They are investing in weapon systems, strategic systems that
they would view as not covered by New START. I believe that
they need to be included in a discussion, and I welcome a
discussion with members of this committee. In our discussions
going forward with the Russians in advance of what would be
otherwise the lapsing of the New START Treaty on February 5th,
2021, those at least five other weapon systems that we are
aware of that President Putin publicized with that video that
we are all familiar with, along with relatedly not just the
weapon systems, the delivery systems, but a large number in a
development of, manufacture of a large number of lower-yield
nuclear devices that could be included on those systems that
would not necessarily be deemed of a strategic level.
When I discussed this with my Russian interlocutors in
Geneva this past summer, I made it clear to them that the
people of the United States--it is not going to matter to the
President or the people of the United States if we are hit by
an ICBM that is covered by the New START Treaty or some hybrid
weapon with a low-yield nuclear weapon that destroys Denver or
Salt Lake City. All those systems need to be addressed.
But that is their strategy, to comply with New START--and
we have determined that they have--but to build these other
systems and a large number of devices that we do not really
have a lot of transparency on. We do not even know the number.
We asked for the number of nuclear weapons that they had,
nuclear devices, and they would not even address the question.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Romney.
Senator Cardin?
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Again, Secretary Sullivan, thank you very much.
I appreciate your response in regards to Russia's
interference in our elections, using your words, a redline,
which I think it has to be absolutely clear that that is an
attack on our country, on the very foundation of America. And
of course, as I pointed out in your introduction, it is not
unique to the United States by Russia's actions. They are doing
it in many democratic countries around the world. And we must
make it clear that that is a redline, that that cannot be
tolerated.
I also appreciate in your statement your willingness to
meet with civil society and for our embassy to be a beacon of
hope for those that are oppressed.
Earlier this month, Senator Rubio and I authored a letter,
joined by many of our colleagues, to Secretary Mnuchin and
Pompeo in regards to Russia's actions against human rights
advocates and the imprisonment of opposition leaders, urging
the administration to be more aggressive in protecting those
individuals, including the use of the Magnitsky sanctions.
So I want to start, as I do with most ambassadors that are
going through a nomination hearing in a country that has
challenges on protecting human rights, as to how high of a
priority will it be to promote American values as it relates to
human rights, giving hope to the people of Russia that they do
enjoy universal human rights that will be recognized by the
United States and defended by the United States.
Mr. Sullivan. It is a fundamental part. I would consider it
a fundamental part of an American ambassador's mission to
promote those values and to also point out the incongruity of
the fact that the Russian constitution guarantees many rights,
but the Russian government--their government--is infringing
those rights.
And there are many ways that we can encourage civil society
in Russia. I want to do--as I have mentioned to some members of
the committee, I want to make sure that I at first, as is said
in the Hippocratic Oath, do no harm in embracing particular
individuals and subjecting them to retaliation by the Russian
state for their association with us. But I absolutely affirm
the importance of promoting American values, basic human values
that we all share, not just Americans, freedom of religion, and
the fact that the consent of the governed, a democratic
republic is the highest form of government they are entitled
to.
Senator Cardin. So let me tell you the challenges that we
have seen over many administrations. When there are high
visible opportunities, summit meetings, rarely do we see human
rights as a front and center issue. Yes, we get into arms
control. Yes, we get into counterterrorism. Yes, we get into
the hotspots of the world trying to resolve the problems. But
we see that human rights is rarely promoted to a top priority
issue. I believe our mission in Russia can help make that more
of a reality that these issues are showcased when we have those
opportunities.
Most recently, we have had horrible humanitarian disasters
in different parts of the world, and as we look for resolutions
of those issues, rarely do we hold those accountable for
atrocities--accountable for their actions. If you are confirmed
as Ambassador, will you be a champion for American values not
being ignored as we deal with other very important issues--arms
control is an important issue. Counterterrorism is critically
important--but that we recognize that if we do not build those
answers within American values, we are not doing a service to
our country's national security?
Mr. Sullivan. I have and will continue to do so. Senator,
if I may offer a couple of examples to not just talk the talk
but walk the walk. I gave a speech on religious freedom in
Khartoum a year and a half ago in the face of threats against
me. It was at a mosque in Khartoum. But the value of religious
freedom and how important it was for the Sudanese government,
which has now changed--it was then under the presidency of
President Bashir. But the importance of that government
respecting its citizens' rights, including religious freedom.
I did the same thing in Nigeria when I was in Abuja to
speak with the Nigerian president, roughly the same time last
year and continue to do so.
Senator Cardin. I appreciate that. And I also appreciate
the fact that you responded to Senator Menendez's questions
that you would follow the law and your conscience in regards to
areas of potential conflict between what many of us believe is
the policies of this country and where there is conflict
particularly with this administration. And I think that becomes
important.
We had an appropriation in the fiscal year 2017 budget to
counter Russia's misinformation, and the administration was
very slow in releasing those funds. Very, very slow. We need to
get the direct information from our missions as to the
importance of those types of programs to counter Russia's
propaganda and misinformation. We ultimately got the monies
released, but it took a long time.
So we want to make sure that our head of mission, our
Ambassador in Russia, will be giving direct information to us
as to the needs and our values. And if it is a conflict within
the administration, we recognize the sensitivity of that and
the importance of the Ambassador to have the confidence of the
President, but we need to be able to get that direct
information, consistent with law and your conscience.
Mr. Sullivan. Yes, indeed, Senator. I agree. As I said in
my opening statement, I will look forward to working
individually and collectively with this committee, if I am
confirmed as our Ambassador to Russia, on that issue and any
others that are of interest to a member or collectively the
committee.
Senator Cardin. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Portman?
Senator Portman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Secretary Sullivan, as I told you in our meeting, I
appreciate your willingness to serve in a new and very
important job that is going to be extremely difficult because
you are going to be dealing with a relationship that is fraught
with problems. You talked about some of those earlier today.
You talked about their interference in our elections and how
strongly we feel about their malign activities--Russia's malign
activities around the world, the cyber attacks, certainly what
is going on in terms of disinformation, which I want to talk to
you about in a second.
As you know, I spent a lot of time on the Ukraine issue.
You mentioned Georgia and Ukraine. We did not talk much about
Syria, but even today as we sit here, there is the potential
for U.S. forces and Russian forces to be in conflict for the
first time in many years. So there is lots going on.
Having served in three administrations now, you have got
the background and experience to be able to handle it I
believe. So I am glad you are willing to do it.
I am going to assume for the purposes of my questions that
you went through this process, as you have in the past, and
that, as I have seen this morning, you will be able to answer
the questions that are raised by my colleagues in a way that
will ensure that you are confirmed.
I think there are three areas where you can play a
particularly significant role. One is with regard to
disinformation. The Global Engagement Center: you have been a
champion of. I appreciate that. Senator Murphy and I passed
legislation a few years ago that we have been trying to ensure
ends up being implemented properly, including the funding.
Senator Cardin just talked about that, you know, the DOD
funding which we finally got over to the State Department. This
is not just focused on Russia. It is focused on disinformation
more broadly. But, frankly, Russia is the number one actor in
this space.
So let me ask you, from your perch in Moscow, will you
continue to be an advocate for the Global Engagement Center,
and can you help us to ensure that we do not have these
glitches, that we have the funding at a stable level so that we
can bring the expertise in to be able to push back on
disinformation globally?
Mr. Sullivan. Absolutely, Senator. In fact, we spoke at my
confirmation hearing 2 and a half years ago; you may not
remember this, but we spoke about the Global Engagement Center.
Senator Portman. I remember it. At that time, you made
commitments that you kept, which I appreciate.
Mr. Sullivan. But the challenge we have had with the GEC
has been that when it was originally created, it was focused on
countering non-state actors, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula,
for example. Continuing that mission but adding state actors,
specifically one as sophisticated as Russia, has made the job
even more difficult, but just as, if not more so, necessary.
And I appreciate this committee's help in seeking to get that
funding, which has taken us far too long to get.
Senator Portman. Second. So thank you and I think you will
have a unique opportunity given your position I believe you are
going to be confirmed for to be able to speak to that.
Second is Ukraine. And as you and I have talked about, I
have been there several times. I went there right after the
Revolution of Dignity in the Maidan. And since then, members of
this committee have supported over $3 billion in additional aid
to Ukraine, including now lethal defensive aid, which is
necessary. And now a lot of Americans know about that as well,
given what has happened in the last couple months.
The point is it is an extremely sensitive time in Ukraine.
President Zelenskyy has told me--and he has taken some rather
courageous political actions to fulfill this--that he would
like to see the conflict in the Donbas resolved. He
specifically has talked about the Steinmeier formula withdrawal
of the Russian forces from the border areas, withdrawal of the
Russian-backed surrogate forces there in exchange for elections
in the east and in exchange for some level of autonomy. He has
gotten a lot of pushback from that, as you know.
But the point I am making is I think you, having had your
experiences at the State Department understanding this issue
more broadly, have an interesting role to play, which is to get
Russia to the table in a good faith effort, which I have not
seen yet, both with regard to Crimea, which we must never
forget, and with regard to the eastern border. I think there is
an opportunity here with the new administration with his
majority in his parliament, the Rada, and with his
determination to try to figure out a way forward.
Are you willing to take on that role, which would not be
the typical role of an Ambassador, but I think in your case it
would be one that could be crucial again to getting Russia to
the table in a way that this issue could be resolved?
Mr. Sullivan. Well, thank you, Senator. Russia is the key
actor in this whole drama. We have the situation we have in the
Donbas and in Crimea solely because of Russia's actions.
I thought we saw a little shift in the Russian position a
few months ago when they agreed to the prisoner exchange to
release the Kerch Strait sailors, the Ukrainian sailors that
they had illegally attacked and seized. But I think there has
not been the follow-through that we were hoping for.
I would expect that the U.S. Ambassador to Russia would be
involved in particular in engaging with the Russian government
in coordination with colleagues at the Department of State and
at the NSC on this extremely important issue.
Senator Portman. Yes. Again, my time has expired, but we
will continue this dialogue. But you will have the opportunity
to play a central role of this because of your experience at
the NSC and at the State Department and at the White House and
the network you have developed and the respect you have here on
the Hill. So I hope you will use that aggressively to be able
to resolve some of these issues particularly with regard to the
eastern border of Ukraine.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Shaheen?
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Secretary Sullivan, for your willingness to
take on this challenging position at this difficult time.
In your opening statement, you talked about the need for
principled engagement with Russia that requires sustained
diplomacy and resolute opposition to Russia where it undermines
the interest and values of the United States and our allies and
partners. Do you believe that this is the philosophy with which
the President approaches our policy towards Russia?
Mr. Sullivan. He has nominated me to be his Ambassador,
Senator. I believe I would be fulfilling the President's
desires with respect to Russia if I pursued that policy that I
have laid out.
Senator Shaheen. As you prepare to take on this engagement,
can you explain whether or not you were briefed on President
Trump's 2-hour private meeting with President Putin in July of
2018?
Mr. Sullivan. Whether I was briefed after the meeting?
Senator Shaheen. Yes or anytime between then and now as you
prepare to take on----
Mr. Sullivan. Oh, I just meant not before the meeting, but
after the meeting about results of the meeting.
Senator Shaheen. Correct.
Mr. Sullivan. Yes. I have been briefed by the Secretary of
State and the National Security Advisor to the President. And
the two principal items that I was charged with coming out of
that meeting were the two dialogues that I now lead on
counterterrorism and our strategic security talks with the
Russians. There was a third request from President Putin
concerning a business-to-business dialogue, which has yet to be
implemented. It really would not involve substantial
involvement by the United States government. But those were the
three issues that I was briefed on coming out of the
President's meeting with President Putin last year.
Senator Shaheen. And did you ever see the actual notes from
that meeting, or that was a verbal briefing from Secretary
Pompeo?
Mr. Sullivan. Well, and Ambassador Bolton. I did not see a
verbatim memorandum reciting what exactly was the back and
forth between the two presidents in the meeting. But I hesitate
to say it was only orally. There may also be memos that
discussed these priorities for the dialogues that I described.
But I did not see a memo that summarized the results of the
conversations between the two presidents. I was briefed on the
outcomes that I should be looking to implement. And that
briefing may have been in writing as well as orally. I cannot
recall at this point.
Senator Shaheen. A large number of Russian ISIS fighters
are being held in prisons guarded by the SDF in northeast
Syria. Of course, many more remain at large. And Russian
terrorism analysts say that Russia in many ways has exported
its own domestic terrorism problem to Syria.
Do you agree with that assessment? And given Russia's
increasingly prominent role in northeast Syria following our
withdrawal, are you aware of any United States' efforts to push
Russia to address the global ISIS problem and to take back its
own ISIS fighters who have emigrated to Syria?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes. In fact, that is a major topic of our
discussion in the counterterrorism dialogue. We have had two
meetings at the deputy minister/deputy secretary level and then
a number of other meetings at lower levels involving FBI, CIA,
et cetera.
The Russian government, with respect to the foreign
terrorist fighters in northeast Syria, has agreed with us that
countries that have their citizens who are detained who left
their homeland, went to northeast Syria or elsewhere but are
now detained in northeast Syria, that they should be taking
those citizens back to their home countries to be prosecuted
and dealt with, including Russia.
Senator Shaheen. Has Russia actually done that?
Mr. Sullivan. They have in fact in fairly large numbers.
In fact, we have the opposite concern, frankly, Senator,
which is our concern about how people are going to be treated
when they get sent back to Russia. So from my perspective in my
discussions with the Russians, they are in fact in aggressive
agreement with us on wanting their people back and putting
pressure on other countries, particularly European countries,
to take theirs. My concern is what happens to those people and
particularly family members of those fighters who get sent back
to Russia, which is one of the limitations on our
counterterrorism dialogue. There are limits on how we can work
with them because of their behavior.
Senator Shaheen. And were you aware that Rudy Giuliani had
opened a second channel of diplomacy, if you want to call it
that, a second channel of effort in Ukraine?
Mr. Sullivan. As I said in response to questions from
Senator Menendez, I was aware that Mr. Giuliani was involved in
Ukraine issues. My knowledge, particularly in the April, May,
June timeframe, even into July, was focused on his campaign
basically against our Ambassador to Ukraine.Senator Shaheen.
And is that the normal way the State Department does business,
to open a second channel?
Mr. Sullivan. I will say that there are examples going back
through history of Presidents using people outside of--U.S.
citizens outside of the government in whom they repose trust to
convey messages and represent them abroad. So it is not, in my
experience, unprecedented. So I do not know whether I can say
more than that.
And it is also the President's prerogative even within the
U.S. government if they are, for example, sending Secretary
Perry to Ukraine to discuss energy issues, for example. Even
though he is going on a foreign mission to a foreign country,
he is not the Secretary of State, that is something that
Presidents typically do.
Senator Shaheen. My time is up, so I will stop. But I think
we normally assume that everybody is pursuing the same policies
when we have different channels of communication to a country.
Thank you.
Mr. Sullivan. May I respond?
The Chairman. You may.
Mr. Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
That is a problem when there are multiple parties involved,
and it is a challenge I think for any Secretary of State to
maintain control over U.S. foreign policy in any government
when there are--even within the U.S. government, if there are
other cabinet secretaries involved. I note from my experience
in the Bush 43 administration, great disagreements between the
Department of Defense and the Department of State on what were
essentially foreign policy issues. So it is a challenge for the
Secretary of State to maintain control over that policy in any
administration.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Young?
Senator Young. Secretary Sullivan, hello and welcome to the
committee and congratulations on your nomination.
I have found you to be accessible and highly competent, and
you have comported yourself with great integrity thus far in
public life. So I am disposed to support your confirmation.
I have a question about--a series of questions related to
arms control, which you have identified in your testimony as an
area of sort of shared concern, shared interest between the
United States and Russia. I do think it is important. As many
challenges, as many disagreements as we have, if we can find
some areas of commonality, I do not think that is a bad thing.
So earlier you affirmed that you believe it is in the best
interest of the United States to pursue an extension of New
START. You further indicated I think the Russian strategy is
indeed to comply with New START but all the while to build
other weapon systems and also develop lower- yield nuclear
weapons.
In conjunction with pursuing a New START extension, are
there particular updates or conditions that you believe are
necessary to ensure New START is as potent and enforceable as
possible?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes. And what I would say is what I think our
position, the United States' position, would not be to announce
the extension of New START today--it expires on February 5th,
2021--but to engage immediately with the Russians on not just
the terms of an extension but these other weapon systems that I
discussed with Senator Romney, the five that I think you and I
talked about when we met earlier.
Senator Young. So what role would you play as Ambassador in
those conversations and ensuring we land in the right spot?
Mr. Sullivan. Well, my expectation is if I am the chief of
mission in Moscow, that I would be consulted and be a conduit
to the Russian government in both directions. But my
expectation is if we were to proceed with substantial arms
control negotiations, that that would be a major undertaking
requiring a large bandwidth of resources from the U.S.
government across the interagency from the joint staff, DOD,
NSC, the intelligence community. My expectation is that as
Ambassador I would not be as directly involved as those
negotiations proceeded.
Senator Young. That is fair.
Let me move to the plumbing. One of the most important
roles of an ambassador is to make sure that the trains run on
time, that personnel have what they need, our very competent
diplomatic personnel, and so forth. And so you are going to
need full embassy staffing and a functioning network of
consulates throughout the country in order to be able to most
effectively carry out your mission.
In April of 2018, as you and I discussed in my office,
Russia expelled 60 of our diplomats and closed our consulate in
St. Petersburg.
So what actions will you take, Mr. Secretary, to get our
embassy staffing numbers back to where they need and to reopen
that St. Petersburg consulate so that it can serve American
citizens who are visiting from abroad?
Mr. Sullivan. We have an ongoing discussion with the
Russian foreign ministry on these issues. And it has gotten to
the point where our staffing level was cut to 455 U.S. direct
hires. In fact, because the dispute we have with Russia extends
beyond just the initial expulsion of 60, but their refusal to
give visas for us to be able to backfill, we are substantially
below 400 people at this point in our mission. So I think the
problem is even greater than you described. It is very acute.
And that has become clear to me over my 2 and a half years as
our mission has shrunk. We lost the consulate in St.
Petersburg. The price for the consulate in St. Petersburg--we
closed the Russian consulate in San Francisco, and we do not
have plans to allow them to reopen that consulate, which was
used for other than diplomatic purposes. But not having a
consulate in St. Petersburg for purposes of providing American
citizen services out of our embassy--we have so many Americans
who visit, cruise ships that make port calls. It is essential
that we have a consulate there and we are handicapped by having
to work out of Moscow to service people there.
Senator Young. So I think it is important. To the extent
that I and other members of the committee can be helpful on
that front, we of course want to.
I am going to submit for the record a series of questions.
I am going to very quickly publicly say them, and I would
appreciate it if you could respond to them later, simple yes or
no answers. I think it is really important that we sort of
protect the prerogatives of this committee and of this Article
I branch. So here they are.
Have you adhered to applicable laws governing conflicts of
interest?
Have you assumed any duties or any actions that would
appear to presume the outcome of this confirmation process?
Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear and to testify before
this committee when requested by the chairman and ranking
member?
Do you agree to provide documents and electronic
communication in a timely manner when requested by this
committee, its subcommittees, or other appropriate committees
of Congress and to the requester?
Will you ensure that you and your staff comply with
deadlines established by this committee for the production of
reports, records, and other documents, including responding
timely to hearing questions for the record?
Will you cooperate in providing witnesses and briefers in
response to congressional requests?
And finally, will those briefers be protected from reprisal
for their briefings?
I do not anticipate any challenges whatsoever, but I will
submit this for the record.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator. Those questions will be
submitted. Thank you.
Senator Kaine?
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Deputy Sullivan. Thank you so
much for your strong public service.
Have you reviewed the memorandum of telephone conversation
of the July 25 phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian
President Zelenskyy that the White House made public last
month?
Mr. Sullivan. I have.
Senator Kaine. I would like to introduce it into the
record, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman. It will be introduced.
[The information referred to is located in the ``Additional
Material Submitted for the Record'' section of this hearing
transcript.]
Senator Kaine. The memorandum states that it is not a
verbatim transcript, and the presence of several ellipses in
the memorandum suggest that some material was deleted.
Have you read a full transcript of that conversation?
Mr. Sullivan. The only version of that memorandum that I
saw, Senator, was one that I got via public media.
Senator Kaine. Have you asked to read any fuller version
other than the one that you have read?
Mr. Sullivan. I have not.
Senator Kaine. Do you know whether any member of the State
Department was invited to participate in that call?
Mr. Sullivan. I believe the Secretary has said that he did.
I do not know if others--my expectation is not, but I do not
know that.
Senator Kaine. Okay.
President Trump initiated a discussion about former
Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch on the call, saying the former
Ambassador from the United States, the woman, was ``bad news.''
Do you believe that this dedicated career Foreign Service
Officer was ``bad news''?
Mr. Sullivan. As I said earlier, Senator, as Ambassador
Yovanovitch in her written statement to the House impeachment
inquiry, I told her that I had no reason to believe at the time
that she had anything to be----
Senator Kaine. I think you have testified to this already,
but do you know what the President meant by the statement that
she is ``bad news''?
Mr. Sullivan. I do not know.
Senator Kaine. He later said in the call, ``Well, she is
going to go through some things.'' Do you have any idea what
the President meant by that comment?
Mr. Sullivan. I do not.
Senator Kaine. She testified before the House that you told
her that she was relieved of her post because she lost the
President's confidence, but that she had done nothing wrong and
that she had been the subject of a concerted campaign against
her. Is that accurate? Is that accurate in terms of what you
told her?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes, it is.
Senator Kaine. I was intrigued by who was mentioned on
diplomatic call and who was not. The memorandum mentions Rudy
Giuliani six times, Attorney General Barr five times,
Ambassador Yovanovitch three times, Vice President Biden two
times, Vice President Biden's son one time, and Robert Mueller
one time. The transcript does not mention Secretary Pompeo,
Ambassador Taylor, or anyone at the State Department other than
the disparaging comments about Marie Yovanovitch. And the
President repeatedly urges President Zelenskyy to work with
Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General Barr.
Does it surprise you that on a diplomatic call, the
President would encourage Ukraine to communicate with Rudy
Giuliani and AG Barr but not Secretary Pompeo or Ambassador
Taylor or the State Department?
Mr. Sullivan. Well, I think in the context of those
references, Senator, it was to our anti-corruption efforts,
which have been longstanding, going back to the prior
administration. So it does not----
Senator Kaine. Does the State Department not work on some
of those things?
Mr. Sullivan. Absolutely, as do other cabinet----
Senator Kaine. But were not mentioned.
President Zelenskyy raises the issue of defense cooperation
and expresses interest in purchasing Javelin missiles. We now
know that the White House was thwarting the command of Congress
by withholding military support for Ukraine. When did you
become aware of that?
Mr. Sullivan. Of that----
Senator Kaine. Of the thwarting of the military aid to
Ukraine.
Mr. Sullivan. I was aware that there was a hold on security
assistance to Ukraine. I was not aware of the reason.
Senator Kaine. In response to the request for military
support during the phone call, President Trump does not
encourage President Zelenskyy to reach out to the Secretary of
Defense, the EUCOM commander, or Ambassador Taylor. He just
encourages Ukraine to communicate with Rudy Giuliani and
Attorney General Barr. Does it surprise you that on matters of
defense cooperation, the President would encourage Ukraine to
communicate with Rudy Giuliani and AG Barr but not the
Department of Defense or our Ambassador?
Mr. Sullivan. Well, as I said in response to your question
regarding the Secretary of State, my understanding was in
reading that transcript, the President's focus was on anti-
corruption efforts, which is why he would have referred to the
Attorney General.
Senator Kaine. But President Zelenskyy was asking about
defense aid, and President Trump was engaging in that
conversation but not encouraging communication with the
Department of Defense.
President Zelenskyy also raised the issue of trade with the
United States and talked specifically about cooperation on
energy-related issues. We now know that the White House
directed Trade Representative Lighthizer in August to shelve
all trade discussions with Ukraine.
In response to the discussion about trade and energy,
President Trump does not encourage President Zelenskyy to reach
out to Secretary Ross, Secretary Perry, Trade Representative
Lighthizer, or Ambassador Taylor. He just encourages the
president to communicate with Attorney General Barr and Rudy
Giuliani. Does that surprise you on a matter of trade and
energy?
Mr. Sullivan. Again, I would have the same answer that I
believe the President's overriding focus was on anti-
corruption.
Senator Kaine. Well, for the record, we all know that Rudy
Giuliani and Attorney General Barr are not responsible for U.S.
policies on commerce, trade, energy, defense, or diplomacy.
As far as you know, are there other countries where the
President is directly encouraging the head of state to work
with Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General Barr rather than the
State Department, the Defense Department, the Commerce
Department, the Energy Department, the Trade Representative, or
our own U.S. Ambassador?
Mr. Sullivan. I am not aware of any other country with
respect to Mr. Giuliani----
Senator Kaine. Let me ask you one other question.
The Chairman. He wanted to finish.
Mr. Sullivan. I just want to say with respect to Attorney
General Barr, I do not know, but it would not surprise me if,
given the role of the Justice Department, it may be. But I am
not aware of any other instance with respect to Mr. Giuliani.
Senator Kaine. Lastly, the President's calendar reveals
that he held a phone conversation with Vladimir Putin 6 days
after the call with President Zelenskyy. Do you know whether
the President told President Putin that the U.S. was
withholding military aid from Ukraine, stopping trade
discussions with Ukraine, or that the U.S. was about to cut
$800 million in NATO-related military construction projects in
Europe during that call?
Mr. Sullivan. I do not believe that that was mentioned in
the call with President Putin.
Senator Kaine. So you have seen a transcript of it.
Mr. Sullivan. No, I have not, but I have not been told that
that was the subject of the conversation.
Senator Kaine. So you are unaware but not have been told.
Mr. Sullivan. My recollection is that that call--that there
was a massive wildfire.
Senator Kaine. The summary of the call says it was about
wildfires and trade.
Mr. Sullivan. Yes.
Senator Kaine. It does not give any additional details.
Mr. Sullivan. That is what I am aware of.
Senator Kaine. And you have not seen a transcript of the
call.
Mr. Sullivan. That is what I am aware of.
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Kaine.
Senator Rubio?
Senator Rubio. Thank you for being here today, and thank
you for your service to our country, which I think is across
four cabinet departments, three administrations, the last 2
years as the Deputy and all of 6 weeks as the Acting Secretary
of State. And now you are going to Russia. As I told you
yesterday, I do not know what you are going to do to top that.
But that is a great record of service to our country.
Because you are the nominee to such an important post, I
think we are just going to cut to the chase. We all understand
the theory and the argument made that the President of United
States was engaged in an effort to leverage U.S. foreign aid to
a country in exchange for the country helping him go after a
political opponent. That is the allegation. That is what the
House is looking into.
Bottom line, were you aware at any time until, of course,
this stuff was broken in press, but before that time, did
anyone ever come to you? Were you ever aware of that sort of
connection, that quid pro quo that is being alleged? Was that
something that you were a part of? Just for the record, I think
that is important.
Mr. Sullivan. I was not, Senator.
Senator Rubio. You were not aware?
Mr. Sullivan. I was not aware.
Senator Rubio. You never heard anyone tell you they will
get the money if they investigate a political opponent?
Mr. Sullivan. Not until the recent developments and
disclosures from the whistleblower's complaint.
Senator Rubio. That is the first time you were aware of it.
Just as another matter because of your record, listen, you
can be, as I am, deeply concerned that we would remove an
ambassador from a post as a result of what now appears to be at
least a somewhat foreign-directed effort, a concerted effort to
spread misinformation about that U.S. ambassador. I would
imagine it is wrong. It is bad for morale. It would encourage
adversaries to do the same. Just to be clear, I am not
justifying it. I am not saying it is right. I have concerns
about it.
But there is nothing illegal about an ambassador being
removed from their post. In essence, neither you, if you are
confirmed, or any other ambassador serving this country is
entitled to serve in that role until there is cause.
Ambassadors are re-assigned and can be re-assigned all the
time. We may not agree with it. We may think it is unfair. We
may think it is unwise. But you and anybody else serving in a
post overseas could be re-assigned or asked to be re- assigned
at any moment.
Mr. Sullivan. For any or no reason, the President's
authority, as I understand it--he may decide that he does not
like my testimony today and does not want me to go to Russia.
The President can decide, when he loses confidence in his
ambassador or his nominee, that that person is not going to
continue as ambassador. What he cannot do is he cannot decide
that if it is a career employee, that that person is removed
from the Foreign Service. And that is not what happened with
respect to----
Senator Rubio. Well, that was my last question. Ambassador
Yovanovitch was not removed. There was no effort to remove her
from the Foreign Service.
Mr. Sullivan. In fact, the opposite. One part of my
conversation with the Ambassador was my hope and her desire to
continue to serve in the Foreign Service and what her
assignment would be.
Senator Rubio. The last topic here in the 2 minutes that
are left. It is an interesting thing that is developing here
between Russia and China. If we go back 40- 50 years, you know,
Russia was the senior partner in that relationship when they
were not in conflict. China was still a developing country. Now
the roles have been reversed. We see China growing in
geopolitical influence. Their economy continues to grow.
Russia, on the other hand, is in decline demographically,
economically, in some respects militarily in comparison to the
Chinese. I think it is now fair to say that Russia is the
junior partner in that relationship between China and Russia.
And I am curious about your views about what is our role in
managing how that plays out, for example, in Central Asia where
the Eurasian Economic Union frankly is no match for China's
offers with its Belt and Road Initiative. So you have got a
country that is in decline relative to China. They may feel
threatened by this, if they do not already, at some point. What
is our role in that? How do we manage that? And what is our
role in Central Asia as these two countries potentially have
that tug of war?
Mr. Sullivan. Well, as we discussed yesterday, Senator,
those five countries are extremely important geopolitically--
their location--for any number of reasons, our counterterrorism
mission, for example, resolving the conflict in Afghanistan on
terms favorable to the United States.
I believe there is competition between Russia and China in
that area. We want to be involved. I met with the five foreign
ministers from those countries. This would have been last year
before a U.N. Security Council session on Afghanistan where
they participated. I met with them to discuss our interests--
their interests in some of those countries, at least--being
closer to the United States is they feel squeezed between
Russia and China. So it is geostrategically important, as you
noted, and we do have a role to play.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Markey?
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, Gordon Sondland came before this committee,
as you are today, so that we could consider his nomination to
be the U.S. Ambassador to the European Union, which no longer
includes the Ukraine.
According to statements by multiple government officials,
including Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, a Purple Heart
recipient and Ukraine expert assigned to the National Security
Council, as well as other diplomats, Sondland was involved in
efforts to get Ukrainian President Zelenskyy to investigate
President Trump's political rival rather than to pursue the
national security interests of the United States. In fact,
Ambassador Sondland is reported to have determined that, quote,
Ukrainian leaders delivered, quote, specific investigations to
secure a meeting between President Zelenskyy and President
Trump.
In response to Senator Menendez, you stated that it would
not be in accord with our values for a President to solicit a
foreign investigation into a political rival.
Have you ever heard of any other President ever asking a
foreign government to investigate an American citizen?
Mr. Sullivan. I cannot think of one off of the top of my
head, Senator. But as I said in response to Senator Kaine's
questions, the President and the United States government has
been focused on anti-corruption efforts extensively in Ukraine.
Senator Markey. So in your opinion--I would like to hear
it--having President Trump ask Ukraine to investigate a U.S.
citizen, his political rival, would be unprecedented in
American history and certainly the American presidency?
Mr. Sullivan. I am not--I do not consider myself competent
to answer the historical----
Senator Markey. To your knowledge?
Mr. Sullivan. To my knowledge, I am not aware of that,
which is not to say it has not happened.
Senator Markey. As Ambassador to Russia, would you ever put
any individual's political interests ahead of the foreign
policy and national security interests of this country, even
the political interests of the President of the United States,
even if requested by the President of the United States?
Mr. Sullivan. I would only implement the President's
foreign policy in the national security interests of the United
States.
Senator Markey. So you would never compromise America if
the political interests of the President ran contrary to our--
--
Mr. Sullivan. My oath would be, as my current oath is in my
present position, to the United States and our Constitution.
Senator Markey. I have received information that before
John Bolton resigned, President Trump may have made a decision
to exit the Open Skies Treaty, which permits signatories to
conduct short notice, unarmed reconnaissance flights over the
entire territories to collect data on military forces and
nuclear weapons activities. We then share this information with
our allies and all signatories to the Treaty.
Do you believe that withdrawing from the Open Skies Treaty
is in the interest of the United States?
Mr. Sullivan. To my knowledge, the United States has not
withdrawn from the Open Skies Treaty. In fact, the United
States this month is chairing the Open Skies Consultative
Commission. There was the 1,500th Open Skies Treaty flight
recently.
Senator Markey. Do you believe that withdrawing from the
Open Skies Treaty is in the best interest of the United States?
Mr. Sullivan. There would need to be substantial evidence
to support the national security interests for withdrawal from
that Treaty, and there would need to be consultations with this
committee, with Congress, and in particular with our NATO
allies and the other countries that are members of the Treaty,
as we did when we withdrew from the INF Treaty.
Senator Markey. Have you made a decision to withdraw, to
exit from the Open Skies Treaty yourself?
Mr. Sullivan. I have not.
Senator Markey. You have not. Just for the record,
Secretary of State George Shultz, Secretary of Defense Bill
Perry, Sam Nunn all strongly support continued U.S.
participation.
Has the White House consulted the State Department about
potential withdrawal from the Open Skies agreement?
Mr. Sullivan. I have been consulted because I heard those
same rumors.
Senator Markey. You have been consulted?
Mr. Sullivan. Well, I inquired as to whether we had
withdrawn from the Treaty and was assured we had not.
Senator Markey. You have been involved in discussions given
your leading role----
Mr. Sullivan. I have and I have consulted with our
ambassadors to NATO and the OSCE and heard their views and
conveyed those views about their view that we should continue
to be members of the Treaty. And our Ambassador to the OSCE,
Ambassador Gilmore, is the chair, as I said, this month of the
Consultative Commission on Open Skies.
Senator Markey. You have consulted with allies who benefit
tremendously from this agreement, and what is their view--our
allies?
Mr. Sullivan. We have not to my knowledge.
Senator Markey. You have not.
Mr. Sullivan. No.
Senator Markey. Have you consulted with Congress on the
withdrawal?
Mr. Sullivan. Other than conversations in connection with
my nomination, no.
Senator Markey. Is the United States and Russia still in
compliance with the Treaty?
Mr. Sullivan. The United States is in compliance. The
United States' view is that the Russians have not been in
compliance in certain respects, including overflights over
Kaliningrad. But we and the Russians and all the signatories of
the Treaty continue to be members. And as I have said twice
before, we are chairing the commission that oversees the
Treaty. This month Ambassador Gilmore is.
Senator Markey. Do you think the transparency which the
Treaty creates is in our national interests and that we should
resolve the ambiguities rather than withdrawing completely from
it?
Mr. Sullivan. It has been in our interests, and to the
extent that it is not, we need to be transparent about why, as
we were when we withdrew from the INF Treaty.
Senator Markey. I think it is in our best national security
interest that we remain in the Open Skies Treaty. It has helped
us a lot and our allies have been tremendously benefited from
it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Markey.
Senator Barrasso?
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Congratulations. Good to visit with you again.
I know you have had a lengthy discussion about Russia's new
strategic nuclear weapons. I wanted to just go back a bit to
the New START Treaty, which I always believed was a one-sided
agreement. I voted against it, have major concerns about it. To
me it was more about reducing the United States' strategic
nuclear forces but not Russia's forces because that Treaty
required the United States and Russia to reduce our deployed
nuclear warheads to numbers that Russia was already below those
numbers. So I thought it was one-sided, unfair, and we made
significant reductions to get below the limit.
So in future arms control negotiations with Russia, are you
committed to ensuring that the United States is not entering
into a one-sided arms control agreement where we are a party
required to make more reductions when Russia is not?
Mr. Sullivan. Absolutely, Senator. The United States should
only enter into any Treaty, particularly an arms control
Treaty, that is in the national interests and security
interests of the United States.
Senator Barrasso. Russia, to me, continues to use economic
instruments and propaganda to achieve its objectives and exert
influence in Europe. And we see this as we travel in Europe,
visit with our NATO allies that they try to influence and exert
control over countries through a variety of means, military
intimidation, energy dependence, cyber attacks, trade.
Would you speak to what you see as Putin's ultimate
objective?
Mr. Sullivan. Well, particularly with respect to Europe,
fracturing Europe, particularly Eastern Europe from Western
Europe. I have spent a lot of time traveling in Eastern Europe
and the Balkans, which is really a laboratory for Russian
hybrid warfare, whether it is cyber, disinformation,
intimidation, et cetera. It is more significant in Ukraine
where there is actually violence being done on a daily basis
not only in Donbas, but it is not really well known, but there
are assassinations in Ukraine that are carried out. It is a hot
war. There have been 13,000 people that have been killed in
Ukraine in the Donbas over the last 5 years. So that is not
just hybrid warfare. That is real warfare.
Senator Barrasso. So what are the most effective tools and
leverage points that we could use in trying to change Russian
behavior?
Mr. Sullivan. Well, we have talked about some of those
today, Senator, sanctions, visa and economic sanctions. And
also we have worked hard with our allies and partners
particularly in Eastern Europe to harden them and their
infrastructure, particularly cyber infrastructure against
intrusions, forward deployment of U.S. assets, and by that I
mean cyber as well. I think that is very important for us to
support because they are under stress every day, particularly
under cyber threats from Russia.
Senator Barrasso. One of the things that we discussed when
you came to my office was the issue of Europe's reliance on
Russian energy and Russia's effort to addict Europe to their
energy sources. Europe is trying to work on a number of
initiatives to counter this influence. The European Union
members at least have identified the risks associated with it,
although Germany is moving ahead with the pipeline to
NordStream 2.
We look at some things that people are trying to do to
avoid this dependence. Lithuania, as we discussed, created that
floating LNG terminal called the Independence. There were
efforts to increase interconnections, reverse flow capacities
of European pipelines. You can see what they are trying to do
running up and down in Montenegro and Croatia and that area.
So despite these efforts, it does seem clear that more
needs to be done especially in light of Russia's efforts to
build NordStream 2.
So as we look at the steps that our allies and partners in
Europe can take to promote energy security, what efforts do you
think need to be the top priorities here?
Mr. Sullivan. Well, the top priority that we have had has
been opposition to NordStream 2.
But to address your particular question, Senator, it
reminds me of my conversation with Senator Markey about
Ukrainian dependence on Russian gas. And you refer to it as an
addiction, and Senator Markey used the same term. It is. It is
creation of dependency to control. And now, having made Ukraine
dependent, completing that second pipeline is going to provide
a huge lever. And among the issues that we can use with the
Ukrainians is increasing energy efficiency, other sources of
energy, whether it is LNG, or stopping NordStream 2 so that gas
will continue to flow through Ukraine.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Murphy?
Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Good to see you again, Ambassador Sullivan. Thank you very
much for your service to the country.
You have been asked I think a version of this question in a
couple different ways, but let me ask it specific to the events
that we now know took place over the course of the summer and
fall.
We have learned now with some certainty, as you have
testified, that employees of the State Department, people under
your supervision, specifically Kurt Volker, Gordon Sondland,
and Bill Taylor, were pressing the Ukrainian government to open
specific investigations into topics connected to the Biden
family and alternative theories about who interfered in the
2016 elections.
Knowing what you know now about what was happening and
those specific requests that were being made, do you think the
actions of those individuals were proper?
Mr. Sullivan. What they were doing back then, was it
proper? I would have to think about that. As I have testified
previously, the concept of investigating a political rival as
opposed to encouraging anti-corruption reform, which is
legitimate I think and consistent with our values, that would
be inconsistent with our values.
Senator Murphy. And so in this case, they were specifically
requesting investigations connected to a political rival of the
President of the United States. And so your testimony is that
those requests were improper.
Mr. Sullivan. To the extent that they were made. I am going
to have to assume that what I read in the--I mean, I am not
present at the depositions, but what has been reported in the
press, I have said as a general matter in response to one of
the first questions from Senator Menendez, that investigation
of a--asking a foreign government to investigate a domestic
political rival as opposed to as part of a larger anti-
corruption campaign, which we have been engaged in encouraging
the Ukrainians for years--those are two different things.
Senator Murphy. And do you have any reason to believe that
the reports in the press and the testimony of Ambassador Taylor
are wrong?
Mr. Sullivan. I do not. I also do not know that they are
accurate. I will accept for purposes that hypothetically if
they are, I will answer the question. I just do not know
personally.
Senator Murphy. These, as I mentioned, were individuals
acting under the auspices of the State Department. And so I
think it is important for the committee to understand where
their authority came from, and we talked a little bit about
this in our private meeting. Did you order Volker, Sondland,
and Taylor to coordinate with Rudy Giuliani in pressing the
Ukrainians for these investigations into Burisma or the origins
of the 2016 interference?
Mr. Sullivan. I did not.
Senator Murphy. Did Secretary Pompeo order these
individuals to request these investigations?
Mr. Sullivan. Not to my knowledge.
Senator Murphy. Did John Bolton order these individuals to
coordinate with Rudy Giuliani in pressing for these
investigations?
Mr. Sullivan. I do not have a basis to answer. I do not
believe so, but I do not know that he did. I have no reason to
think that he did. I do not have a factual basis to provide a
definitive answer.
Senator Murphy. But clearly if these are people under your
supervision, you did not ask them to undertake these
activities, I would imagine you would want to get to the bottom
of that. And so what is your understanding as to where their
instructions were coming from if they were not coming from you
or the Secretary of State?
Mr. Sullivan. Well, they are getting their instructions--a
charge, Ambassador Taylor, in Kiev is getting instructions from
the Secretary, from me and for our Under Secretary for----
Senator Murphy. Right, but on this case, you testified that
neither you nor the Secretary asked them to request these
specific investigations. And so where did those instructions
come from?
Mr. Sullivan. I do not know.
Senator Murphy. And have you made any attempt to find out?
Mr. Sullivan. Since I learned of it in September, I have
not.
Senator Murphy. I think that is curious if people operating
outside of your specific instructions--I think it is curious
that you would not try to find out.
Let me just ask a few more quick questions.
Is it currently the policy of the United States that
Ukraine must conduct investigations into Burisma and
Crowdstrike?
Mr. Sullivan. No.
Senator Murphy. Why not? If this was the policy over the
summer, so why is it not the policy now?
Mr. Sullivan. I had accepted as a hypothetical that that
was our policy. I do not know that. It is not our policy. Our
policy has been to encourage anti-corruption reform generally
in Ukraine. That is something that I have worked on for over 2
years, but never with respect to a particular investigation or
company or individual.
Senator Murphy. Is Rudy Giuliani currently carrying out any
diplomatic business on behalf of the United States?
Mr. Sullivan. Not to my knowledge.
Senator Murphy. So, Mr. Sullivan, I have a great deal of
respect for the work that you have done. You have toiled under
difficult circumstances, and I am frankly pleased that you are
willing to take on this difficult assignment. But your
testimony as to your lack of interest in asking questions about
why people under your control were being given direction that
did not come from you or the Secretary and your lack of
attempts to delve into what the policy actually was during this
period of time--you are accepting hypotheticals, but you do not
seem to have an opinion as to whether it actually was the
policy of the United States, which by the testimony that the
House has received, it clearly was to encourage these
investigations, I do think it is concerning.
But, again, I appreciate the service you have given the
country and I appreciate your testimony today.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Sullivan, I think my friends on the other side and your
discussion have kind of sharpened the question that the jury in
the Senate is going to have to answer, and that is having to do
with the corruption in the Ukraine.
You would agree with me that this corruption in Ukraine has
been going on since they left the Soviet Union. It has been of
great concern to virtually every administration, Republican,
Democrat, over that period of time. Would you agree with that?
Mr. Sullivan. Absolutely. The fact that it has been so
longstanding in Ukraine is what makes it so difficult to change
and eradicate now.
The Chairman. And would you also agree with me that every
time we discuss this--when I say ``we,'' I mean all of us that
talk about Ukraine--it is almost impossible to talk about
conditions there without talking about the corruption in the
country over the many administrations they have had in the
Ukraine since they got out from under the Soviet Union. Is that
a fair statement?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes. It affects the entire society.
The Chairman. And having said that, the gas company has
been right at the heart of that corruption in the Ukraine. Has
it not?
Mr. Sullivan. Well, gas is so central to the Ukrainian
economy, that of course.
The Chairman. So now we get a situation where people have
taken this transcript and argued that the President was having
them investigate a political rival regarding corruption that
took place in Ukraine. And I think you said and I think
everyone has said and agrees that if it was strictly a
political rival to be investigated, that that would be wrong.
What happens if the political rival is somehow involved in
corruption in the Ukraine? That becomes a lot dicier question,
does it not, whether a President has to look the other way if
indeed a political rival is involved in----
Mr. Sullivan. I would say so.
The Chairman. It is going to be a question we are all going
to deal with at some time in the not too distant future I
think.
In any event, thank you for that.
Senator Coons?
Senator Coons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Menendez, for holding today's hearing and, Mr. Deputy
Secretary, for your distinguished service over many different
positions across several administrations.
I greatly appreciate your recognition, both in your public
testimony and in our private meeting, of the critical work that
Foreign Service and Civil Service officers do every day and
their determination, their dedication to forwarding foreign
policy goals and the national interests of our country aside
from our partisan politics.
Nowhere are those goals and interests more important than
in our work in Russia. Russia, as you agree, attacked and
undermined our elections in 2016 and continues its influence
campaign efforts to meddle in democratic processes not just in
the United States, not just in the United States and Europe.
There is actually an article in the New York Times today about
how Russia has launched influence campaigns across Africa in a
new playbook that features outsourcing and franchising their
influence campaign. So we all need a comprehensive and
sustained strategy to blunt that, and it is my hope you will
get the chance to carry out your commitments to push back
forcefully on this malign activity by Russia.
Let me just follow up on a question that you got asked
before. Senator Kaine asked you--this is in the context of
Ukrainian corruption that has been at the center of so many
questions today--Senator Kaine asked you why President Trump
kept referring Ukrainian President Zelenskyy to discuss all
issues with Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General Barr. And you
said President Trump was focused on anti-corruption. If anti-
corruption in Ukraine is such a priority for the President and
this administration, I am struck--as an appropriator on the
subcommittee that funds the International Narcotics Control and
Law Enforcement budget--that in 2019 the administration
requested a cut in funding to $13 million. Congress rejected
that and restored funding to $30 million. In 2020, the
administration again sought to cut that funding to $13 million.
Congress I think is likely to once again restore it to $30
million. If this is a great priority, combating corruption in
Ukraine, for the administration, why does the President's
budget not reflect that in any of the three budgets he has
submitted?
Mr. Sullivan. I think, Senator, the prime obstacle to anti-
corruption reform in Ukraine is not technical or monetary
support by the United States but the will of the Ukrainian
government to rein in Ukrainian oligarchs and reform their
system. We saw this over 2 years in urging President Poroshenko
to engage in anti-corruption reform, and the will was simply
not there. And I think that is the biggest obstacle to anti-
corruption reform.
But can we use that extra money and do an even better job
on behalf of the United States? Absolutely. Will we be wasting
that money if there is not a will to engage in anti- corruption
reform by the Ukrainian leadership? I am afraid that is also
true.
Senator Coons. I will just politely disagree with you, if I
might, that I think that funding is critical for the National
Anti-Corruption Bureau and the Special Anti- Corruption
Prosecutor's Office and for restoring some semblance of rule of
law in a country where corruption is widespread.
Let me move to one other issue before my time runs out:
human rights. I am the co-chair of the Human Rights Caucus here
in the Senate.
There are hundreds of political prisoners in Russia. The
Memorial Human Rights Center, a prominent Russian human rights
organization, says the number of political prisoners has
increased five-fold in the last 4 years.
If confirmed, what will you do to draw attention to
Russia's political prisoners and push for their release?
Mr. Sullivan. I would point out, in fact, that I believe
the rate at which the Russian government is incarcerating
political prisoners is increasing, not decreasing. Shining a
light and being transparent about what actually is going on and
being public about it I think is the first step. And it is
urging the Russian government to abide by its own laws and
treat its people right.
Senator Coons. The Senate unanimously passed earlier this
year Senate Resolution 81, which I supported and helped draft.
It condemns President Putin for targeting political opponents
and working to cover up some of their actions, in particular
the assassination of opposition leader Boris Nemtsov. And that
resolution from the Senate urges our government officials to
raise the case of Nemtsov's assassination.
If confirmed, are you committed to raising this issue with
senior Russian officials, including President Putin?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes, I am.
Senator Coons. Thank you.
And Russian authorities continue to target the LGBTQ
community despite condemnation from governments around the
world. Will you commit to discussing, raising, and pressing
LGBTQ rights with your Russian counterparts?
Mr. Sullivan. Enthusiastically.
Senator Coons. Thank you. I appreciate your appearing
today. As a number of my colleagues have testified or have
mentioned in their comments, we need a forceful presence in
Moscow, and I appreciate that we have had this opportunity to
talk today and look forward to working with you. Thank you.
Mr. Sullivan. Thank you, Senator.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Menendez?
Senator Menendez. Thank you.
You know, Mr. Secretary, I get struck by you as an
honorable man. But I also get struck as someone who, in the
role that you have had, has played the role of see no evil,
hear no evil, speak no evil. So I am going to give you a chance
to prove me wrong.
Ambassador Sondland is Ambassador to the EU. Is that
correct?
Mr. Sullivan. That is correct.
Senator Menendez. Ukraine is not part of the European
Union. Is that correct?
Mr. Sullivan. That is correct.
Senator Menendez. Did you know what Ambassador Sondland was
up to as it relates to Ukraine?
Mr. Sullivan. I was aware that he had been tasked with the
President with working with our other colleagues who were
involved in Ukraine policy and assisting them.
Senator Menendez. Now, when you responded to Senator
Shaheen and to some extent Senator Kaine about Rudy Giuliani
and that sometimes private citizens have a role, you are not
suggesting that what Mr. Giuliani did in this case was kosher,
okay, or correct.
Mr. Sullivan. I cannot offer a judgment that what he did
was kosher or correct because I am not sure exactly what he was
up to in toto with respect to Ukraine.
Senator Menendez. So you are the number two person at the
State Department. You had no idea what he was doing as it
relates to Ukraine although you knew he was doing something as
it relates----
Mr. Sullivan. I would not say it would be accurate to say I
knew nothing. I was particularly aware of the campaign against
our Ambassador in Kiev.
Senator Menendez. But outside of that, you did not know
what else he was doing.
Mr. Sullivan. I was not aware of what he was doing or his
purpose.
Senator Menendez. Would you say that Putin and in Russia
there is corruption? Would you say that in Putin and Russia
there is corruption?
Mr. Sullivan. Absolutely.
Senator Menendez. Would you say the same thing about Mr.
Orban in Hungary?
Mr. Sullivan. I think corruption is endemic across----
Senator Menendez. Yet these two people are the two people
who were talking to the President about corruption in Ukraine.
You also seem to suggest--and you are a very able attorney.
You also seem to suggest a couch that the reason that these
conversations were taking place, the money was being held was
about corruption in Ukraine. Is that a fair statement?
Mr. Sullivan. I did not know it at the time. My
characterization of what the President was saying now was that
it was about anti-corruption reform. And if you had asked me--
--
Senator Menendez. You are characterizing his statements.
Mr. Sullivan. Yes.
Senator Menendez. But your own view--why was money being
held?
Mr. Sullivan. So as I think I have said to some members of
the committee, if you had asked me in July, I was aware that
money was being withheld. We had a number of requests----
Senator Menendez. Did you ask why?
Mr. Sullivan. Excuse me?
Senator Menendez. Did you ask why money was being held?
Mr. Sullivan. I did not.
Senator Menendez. You did not.
Mr. Sullivan. But I was aware that we had requests of the
Ukrainian government not just on anti-corruption reform, but
energy reform, and economic reform, all of which was important
to----
Senator Menendez. But none of that conversation has come
forth even under the President's conversation. It is all about
corruption. Right?
Mr. Sullivan. That was that July 25th call, yes.
Senator Menendez. But in fact, the Department of Defense,
in coordination with the Secretary of State certified in May of
this year, prior to this call that the President had, that
Ukraine had made sufficient reforms to decrease corruption and
increase accountability and could ensure accountability for
U.S. military equipment. As a matter of fact, that
certification by the Department of Defense, in cooperation with
the Secretary of State, the person immediately above you, not
only took place then, but it took place prior to that on July
13 of 2018 and then, of course, May 23rd of 2019.
So if DOD and State had already certified that Ukraine had
made progress on corruption, what was left to review?
Mr. Sullivan. For purposes of our assistance that was being
provided to Ukraine, that that assistance would not be diverted
for corrupt purposes. In fact, I recall a conversation with
Secretary Mattis back in 2018 about those issues in providing
that assistance.
Senator Menendez. So what did you do to dislodge the money?
Nothing? What did you do to dislodge the money?
Mr. Sullivan. To dislodge the money, I did not personally
take any actions.
Senator Menendez. Did you call OMB?
Mr. Sullivan. No. I had conversations about OMB. My
perspective was that there were a number of programs that
funding was being held for, including the Northern Triangle
countries. My focus at the time in August and into September
was on the funding for the Northern Triangle countries. I was
leaving it to our Ambassador, Ambassador Taylor, Volker and so
forth. I was informed. In fact, I went up to testify before the
House Appropriations subcommittee on Northern Triangle----
Senator Menendez. I appreciate that. I am focused on the
position for which you are nominated.
Mr. Sullivan. Yes, and that was the day I was told--I was
handed a note that informed me, among other things, that the
Ukrainian assistance--I believe it was September 11--the hold
had been lifted.
Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
introduce into the record the letter of the Under Secretary of
Defense directed to you as the chairman of the committee, May
23rd, 2019.
The Chairman. That will be entered.
[The information referred to is located in the ``Additional
Material Submitted for the Record'' section of this hearing
transcript.]
Senator Menendez. Mr. Secretary, just a couple of other
final questions here.
Is it not true that Russia illegally occupies Crimea,
continues to conduct attacks in eastern Ukraine?
Mr. Sullivan. Absolutely.
Senator Menendez. Is it not true that more than 13,000
Ukrainian troops and civilians have been killed in the conflict
since 2014?
Mr. Sullivan. I believe I testified to that earlier.
Senator Menendez. Is it not true that Russia conducted a
chemical weapons attack in the United Kingdom in 2018?
Mr. Sullivan. It did and we expelled----
Senator Menendez. Is it not true that Russia assaulted our
elections in 2016 using cyber attacks and disinformation?
Mr. Sullivan. Indeed.
Senator Menendez. Is it not true that Russia illegally
occupies part of Georgia's territory?
Mr. Sullivan. Part of?
Senator Menendez. Is it not true that Russia illegally
occupies part of Georgia's territory?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes, indeed.
Senator Menendez. Is it not true that Russia's bombing
campaign in Syria also involved bombing innocents?
Mr. Sullivan. I am sorry?
Senator Menendez. Did the Russian bombing in Syria--the
campaign--also bombing innocents?
Mr. Sullivan. I believe so.
Senator Menendez. Now, so we have established that the
Kremlin behavior continues to pose a national security threat
to the United States. Congress sought to address through the
Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act that
passed 98 to 2 and the President signed into law.
So does it help or hinder U.S. national security when
President Trump characterizes Russia's interference as a hoax?
Mr. Sullivan. The United States government has not accepted
that it is hoax. The United States government's position, led
by President Trump, is we are dedicated to stopping it. We
acknowledge that it occurs, is ongoing, and we are doing all we
can to stop it.
Senator Menendez. Does it help or hinder national security
when President Trump jokes about election interference from
President Putin?
Mr. Sullivan. As I said, we are--I am devoting a huge
amount of my time as Deputy Secretary to countering Russian
election interference, and that is at the direction of the
President.
Senator Menendez. Does it help or hinder when the President
redirects millions of dollars from the European Deterrence
Initiative that is to help us in deterrence to Russia to pay
for a border wall?
Mr. Sullivan. That was the President's judgment and a
national security priority.
Senator Menendez. Yes. So here is the problem. You are
going to go to Russia, and you are going to be saying one set
of things based upon your testimony here today and private
conversations you had with members. But we have the President
who, in his public statements, is totally aligned differently
than what you are going to be saying. Do you understand the
incredible difficult job that you are going to have as a result
of that?
Mr. Sullivan. Well, what I would say, Senator, is--and you
have cited the President's statements--I would cite the
President's actions. You mentioned the nerve agent that was
used in Salisbury. We expelled 60 undeclared--the President
expelled 60 undeclared Russian intelligence officers in
response. We have imposed sanctions on probably 350 Russian
individuals and organizations, including under CAATSA and for
election interference. So I think the President's actions speak
very loudly in this, and Secretary Pompeo has said that this
administration, this President, is firmly committing to
confronting Russia in all these areas that you have listed----
Senator Menendez. Overwhelmingly, those sanctions have been
forced by the hand of Congress particularly in the legislation
after having fashioned sanctions in Iran and other places,
including Russia, in a way that provided very little discretion
because, on a bipartisan basis, there was concern.
Finally, let me just ask you this because I am trying to
find a way forward on your nomination. The Department that you
help run has tried to block individuals from testifying before
Congress, something that I find appalling, because Article I of
the Constitution, not Article II, not Article III--Article I of
the Constitution ultimately provides as a check and balance on
any administration, this or anyone in the future--forcing them
to either choose between defying Congress or their superiors.
This Department has sent them letters that appear to aim at
scaring them out of appearing before Congress.
Is this the type of support and protection you think that
our public servants deserve?
Mr. Sullivan. Well, I would say that the actions that the
Department has undertaken, led by the Secretary, has been on
the advice of counsel, not only State Department counsel but
White House counsel as well, and direction from the White
House.
Senator Menendez. Why is the Department working to prevent
employees from testifying before Congress?
Mr. Sullivan. Well, as has been laid out in an extensive
letter from the counsel to the President, the rationale is laid
out there.
Senator Menendez. Now, I understand the House is directing
its request to you--is that correct--on these issues?
Mr. Sullivan. They have, yes.
Senator Menendez. Now, I would like to enter the letter
from the House to Mr. Sullivan into the record, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. It will be entered.
[The information referred to is located in the ``Additional
Material Submitted for the Record'' section of this hearing
transcript.]
Senator Menendez. Have you responded to them?
Mr. Sullivan. I do not believe so. The letter was addressed
to me, but--I personally have not. The letter has been
addressed to me in the misunderstanding that the Secretary has
recused himself.
Senator Menendez. So the Secretary has not recused himself.
Mr. Sullivan. The Secretary has not.
Senator Menendez. So even though these information requests
are coming to you, you are, in essence, turning them over to
the Secretary.
Mr. Sullivan. Correct. And I did not ask that they be sent
to me. They have decided to send them to me.
Senator Menendez. Finally, I ask a request to enter a
series of letters into the record by--correspondence between
the State Department and myself and letters from myself to the
State Department, all of which have gone unanswered.
The Chairman. Those will be entered.
[The information referred to is located in the ``Additional
Material Submitted for the Record'' section of this hearing
transcript.]
The Chairman. Senator Cruz?
Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me start by observing, as we sit in these august
chambers from the storied committee above which the ghost of
Henry Cabot Lodge, no doubt, looks down. I feel compelled to
observe that the distinguished Senator from Virginia is
choosing this moment to mock me for his Nationals beating my
Astros last night in game 6 back in Houston.
[Laughter.]
Senator Cruz. And I will only say that there is a virtue to
patience, and at this time tomorrow, one or the other of us
will be on the losing side of a wager and wearing the colors of
the winning team. So I look forward hopefully to 24 hours from
now, my good friend, Senator Kaine.
The Chairman. I cannot wait to see how that comes out
either way.
[Laughter.]
Senator Cruz. Mr. Sullivan, welcome. Congratulations on
your nomination. I am not sure what you did at State to merit
being sent to Siberia, but congratulations nonetheless. I have
every confidence that you will perform ably in this new role.
Let us talk about some different aspects of Russia. Russia,
as you know, has a long history of using energy as a weapon,
and one of the tools that I believe poses a real threat for
strengthening Russia, for weakening Europe, and for weakening
America is the NordStream 2 pipeline.
Can you give me your assessment of the regional and global
impact of Russia's NordStream 2 pipeline if the construction is
completed?
Mr. Sullivan. I think it is going to be extremely
detrimental to Ukraine. It is going to give the Russian
Federation an enormous lever over Ukraine and a hammer that
they can hit the Ukrainians with. If the Russians cut gas
transit through Ukraine, Ukraine will lose billions in hard
currency that is desperately needed for its economy.
So the President has been as vociferous as he has been on
almost any issue I have seen in opposing NordStream 2 and
urging our NATO allies and particularly Germany to not
cooperate in committing this pipeline because of the damage it
will do to Ukraine. And we have not succeeded to date in
convincing them to stop their cooperation.
Senator Cruz. As you know, this committee has passed by an
overwhelming bipartisan margin my legislation with Senator
Shaheen to stop that pipeline from being completed. But the
window for passing that legislation into law and stopping it--
that window is shrinking.
What would the benefits be if we can finish the job and
stop that pipeline from ever being completed?
Mr. Sullivan. Well, we had this conversation in your office
a few days ago about whether we have reached the point where
the Russians can complete that pipeline because we have been
saying for some time that it is over 80 percent complete, but
construction has continued. There has been a holdup because of
environmental reviews by Denmark, but those are not going to
last forever. Those will be lifted soon.
My concern is we may have already reached a point where the
Russians will have resources and the ability to complete the
pipeline no matter what we do, in which case imposing sanctions
now will not stop the pipeline. It will impose a cost on Russia
to be sure, maybe a substantial cost, but it would not stop the
pipeline. I do not know that we have reached that point yet,
though.
Senator Cruz. Although the Russians lack the technology to
lay the deep sea pipeline, so they have to rely on outsourcing.
Mr. Sullivan. That is where I--and we discussed this. I
think we need to discuss with some experts on that whether what
they have left to do, the little stub that is left, whether
they could complete that on their own. They would have to
reposition assets that they are using elsewhere, but given the
amount that has already been invested in the length of the
pipeline that is already completed, it may be that they are
already capable of doing that.
Senator Cruz. Let us shift to the New START Treaty, which
has been restricting our options and ability to defend
ourselves while doing very little to modify Russia's malign
behavior. The Trump administration rightly withdrew from the
INF Treaty earlier this year. New START is slated to expire in
February of 2021. Does the administration believe continued
adherence is in the U.S. national security interest, or will we
let the Treaty lapse?
Mr. Sullivan. Our position is that we should engage with
the Russians now in discussions about including those weapon
systems, which you and I have discussed previously, which are
not covered by the Treaty which President Putin has been
publicizing.
The problem that I foresee is if we were simply to extend
New START now without touching those other systems, which the
Russians have been investing in, we are tying our hands and not
limiting where the Russians see their growth in their defense
budget and their strategic assets.
Senator Cruz. So one final question, shifting to another
Treaty, the Open Skies Treaty with Russia. I have long been
skeptical about this Treaty and, a couple of years ago, offered
language in the National Defense Authorization Act conditioning
U.S. compliance with it, as I have offered language on the NDAA
concerning New START as well.
What is your assessment of the effectiveness of the Open
Skies Treaty? In my view, it exposes vulnerabilities in terms
of opening ourselves up to monitoring in a way that does not
gain us anything for Russia but gains Russia quite a bit. What
is your assessment?
Mr. Sullivan. I am not sure I can go into great detail in
an open session like this, but there are intelligence community
assessments on that very question.
What I have been most concerned about is if we were to
reach that decision, informed by intelligence community
analysis and so forth, that it no longer was in the United
States' interest to continue with the Treaty, that we would
need to engage in--we, the administration--a consultation
process with this committee, with Congress, and with our allies
as we did with the INF Treaty. The most important thing in my
opinion that we did with our withdrawal from the INF Treaty was
getting unanimity at the NAC among our NATO allies that Russia
has been and is in violation of the INF Treaty. And we need to
do that as well to make sure we did not do damage to our NATO
alliance and explain why we were withdrawing, if that decision
were to be made.
Senator Cruz. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you.
For those members of the committee who have not seen it,
there are briefings available in the secured facility, and I
would urge everybody to take a look at those regardless, as
this discussion goes forward. I think it is important that
everybody have the information at hand.
Senator Cruz, before you got here, we had a discussion
giving you and Senator Shaheen credit for the work on the
NordStream 2, and with all due respect, I think regardless of
whether we are past the point of no return or not, I think your
bill needs to be pursued. And as you know, you and I are trying
to find a path forward. Well, we found we path forward on that.
We are going to try to make that happen. And I think almost
everyone is in agreement with that.
Senator Murphy, I understand you want another bite of the
apple. Oh, Senator Kaine too? Okay.
Senator Murphy. Yes, thank you. Just a few more additional
questions.
You testified earlier that it is not without precedent for
the President to use individuals outside of the State
Department to conduct conversations with foreign governments,
and that is true. There is a long history of Presidents seeking
advice outside of the State Department and occasionally using
channels outside of the State Department. I would argue that
there is really no precedent for what Rudy Giuliani was doing,
which was using his access to the President as a means to try
to score political points on the President's behalf with
foreign nations.
But for the purposes of this hearing, Rudy Giuliani does
not actually say that he was acting simply at the direction of
the President. He says he was acting at the direction of the
State Department. In fact, he says, ``You know who I did it at
the request of''--speaking about his conversations with
Ukraine--``The State Department. I never talked to an Ukrainian
official until the State Department called me and asked me to
do it.''
So did the State Department call Rudy Giuliani and ask him
to have these conversations with Ukrainian officials?
Mr. Sullivan. My recollection is that that is a reference
to his communications with Kurt Volker, who was a special
representative for Ukraine, and perhaps even Gordon Sondland as
well. But I think in particular my recollection is that quote
is in reference to communications he has had with Kurt Volker.
Senator Murphy. You nor the Secretary asked Rudy Giuliani
to carry out any diplomatic efforts.
Mr. Sullivan. I did not, and I am not aware that the
Secretary did either.
Senator Murphy. And so to the extent that he is reporting
back individuals, you believe he is referring to the others we
have discussed.
Mr. Sullivan. Kurt Volker in particular.
Senator Murphy. The second question is--I want to support
your nomination. You know that I believe in you as a public
servant. I am having a little hard time understanding your
reluctance to make a conclusion as to what the policy of the
United States was over the course of the summer because you
have seen the July 25th transcript, you have read the
testimony, you have seen the texts. And I hope that you have
conducted your own investigation.
So let me just sort of ask the question I asked earlier
again. Is it your understanding that it was the policy of the
United States to press the Ukrainian government to conduct
investigations into Burisma and alternative theories about the
2016 election interference? I understand that you may not have
been part of these efforts, but is it now your opinion that
that was the policy of the United States, having read the
transcript of the call with the President and seeing all this
other evidence?
Mr. Sullivan. So the President has been clear in his
subsequent statements about there not being--the phrase that
has been used is a ``quid pro quo.'' We are talking about the
foreign----
Senator Murphy. That is not what I am asking.
Mr. Sullivan. I understand. You are talking about the
policy.
Senator Murphy. Was it our policy to request these specific
investigations related to Burisma and related to relitigating
or at least looking into alternative theories about the 2016
election interference.
Mr. Sullivan. Sure. So my understanding is that there was,
as part of our general anti-corruption policy, encouraging
anti-corruption reform in Ukraine, from reading the transcript
of or the summary of the July 25th call, that looking at, as
the Chairman mentioned, that gas company and board member and a
U.S. person involvement was certainly mentioned by the
President and therefore part of U.S. policy.
What the President has denied was that there was any quid
pro quo.
Senator Murphy. Do you have knowledge that the President
has ever raised any other specific corruption investigations
that he wishes Ukraine to undertake other than the
investigation related to Joe Biden and the investigation
related to the 2016 election interference?
Mr. Sullivan. Not specific investigations, but he has been
emphatic about the need for anti-corruption reform generally in
Ukraine.
Senator Murphy. Again, I think as we sort of move forward
on how to proceed as a Senate, I just do not buy this idea that
there was general interest in corruption given the fact that
the President has only raised two of these issues in the phone
call. But I have no doubt that you care about the issue of
corruption in Russia, Ukraine, and the region, and I hope you
pursue it vigorously, as you have testified to before this
committee.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Murphy. I have no doubt
you will get an opportunity to express yourself in a vote on
the floor on this issue at some point in time.
Senator Kaine?
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks for holding
this hearing.
And I just want to acknowledge my colleague from Texas.
Should the Astros win tonight in game 7, I will be wearing
Astros gear and serving his staff Chesapeake crab cakes and
Catoctin whiskey. Should the Nationals win, continuing the
already historic trend of the visiting team winning every game
thus far in the series, which has never happened past five
games, he will wear Nationals gear and serve my staff Texas
barbecue and Shiner beer. I would rather win than lose, but
either way, a group of hardworking and ill-fed staffers will be
having a cuisine far above their station in life.
[Laughter.]
Senator Kaine. So I am going to feel good about that.
Mr. Sullivan. Is it permissible for me, although I have
been a Marylander for almost 30 years, I am----
The Chairman. If you want to get confirmed, I think I would
stay out of this.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. It is up to you.
Mr. Sullivan. No. I just wanted to note that until tonight,
the pending World Series champions are the Boston Red Sox.
[Laughter.]
Senator Kaine. Fair enough.
Senator Cruz. I am afraid this nomination cannot proceed.
[Laughter.]
Senator Kaine. Deputy Sullivan, a couple more questions.
I went through a line of questions with you about when
President Zelenskyy brought up sanctions, President Trump did
not say talk to the State Department or the Ambassador. He said
talk to Attorney General Barr and Rudy Giuliani. When President
Zelenskyy brought up military aid, President Trump did not say
talk to the Secretary of Defense or the Ambassador. He said
talk to Attorney General Barr and Rudy Giuliani. When he
brought up energy and trade, he did not say talk to the
Secretary of Commerce Trade Rep. He said talk to Attorney
General Barr and Rudy Giuliani.
Your explanation for that--and you are not President
Trump--your understanding of it is the call was about
corruption.
Now, if the call was about corruption, I guess I could
understand the President saying talk to Attorney General Barr,
but why Rudy Giuliani?
Mr. Sullivan. I think Rudy Giuliani, as the President's
personal attorney and friend and outside advisor, had been
talking to him about Ukraine, including about, as we have
discussed previously, our mission to Ukraine.
Senator Kaine. But you stated, as far as you know, he was
not pursuing any policy for the State Department, as far as you
know.
Mr. Sullivan. To the extent that he was coordinating with
the State Department, he was coordinating with the individuals
that had been--Volker and----
Senator Kaine. To the extent that. But do you know whether
he had coordinated with them?
Mr. Sullivan. I do not.
Senator Kaine. I know that says that he did, but do you
have any knowledge that he was coordinating?
Mr. Sullivan. I have not spoken to Kurt about that.
Senator Kaine. Was the State Department paying Rudy
Giuliani for this?
Mr. Sullivan. No.
Senator Kaine. To your knowledge, was the U.S. government
paying Rudy Giuliani----
Mr. Sullivan. I have no idea. I would be surprised. I have
no idea.
Senator Kaine. Do you know whether he was getting paid at
all, whether by President Trump or the Trump campaign or third
parties, including foreign individuals or organizations?
Mr. Sullivan. I have not the faintest idea. I do not know.
Senator Kaine. Okay.
Were you involved in any discussions about Turkey sanctions
that were mandated by Congress due to the Turkish purchase of
Russian air defense systems?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes.
Senator Kaine. And tell us a little bit about that. We have
been frustrated here.
Mr. Sullivan. I know.
Senator Kaine. We do not think the sanctions have been put
in place after the S-400 purchase.
Mr. Sullivan. Right.
Senator Kaine. Explain your involvement.
Mr. Sullivan. Well, I have been involved for--it is a long
time now. I mean, this deal has been pending for quite some
time. Working with then-Secretary Mattis and Chairman Dunford
and now Secretary Esper and Chairman Milley, along with my
colleagues at the State Department, as this committee well
knows, the U.S. has withdrawn Turkey from the F-35 program
because of the S-400 acquisition.
The question that is on the table is CAATSA sanctions and
whether this is a significant transaction. I find it difficult
to characterize it as insignificant given that we have
sanctioned China for purchasing--along with aircraft--for
purchasing the S-400 system.
What we are still working to do and we have not reached
that point yet is to convince the Turks to undo--as a NATO
ally, to undo the damage they have done already by taking the
system on board before it becomes operational and starts
paying----
Senator Kaine. Is it your testimony today that there is
still a difference of opinion within the administration about
whether the purchase of the S-400 is a significant transaction?
Mr. Sullivan. I do not know that----
Senator Kaine. Well, when you say if it is a significant
transaction, then statutorily the CAATSA sanctions come into
play.
Mr. Sullivan. Correct.
Senator Kaine. It is only if it is not a significant
transaction.
Is there a difference of opinion that you are aware of
within the administration about whether this purchase was a
significant transaction?
Mr. Sullivan. I have not been involved in the legal
discussions about parsing the statutory language. I am giving
you my impression from my participation in the discussions----
Senator Kaine. Let me ask one more question.
Last week, in response to a question from Senator Menendez,
the State Department Syria Envoy Jeffrey testified that he was
not consulted prior to the President's decision to withdraw
U.S. troops from the Kurdish region of northern Syria. Do you
know if anyone at the State Department was consulted prior to
that decision?
Mr. Sullivan. I believe the Secretary at a minimum was
involved.
Senator Kaine. Do you know for certain based on
conversations with him that he was----
Mr. Sullivan. I have had conversations with him about it,
and it has certainly been the case for anybody involved in
Syria policy that it was well known the President's desire to
withdraw our troops from Syria. This has been a topic of
discussion going back----
Senator Kaine. Last December.
Mr. Sullivan.--years, including December of 2018 when
Secretary Mattis resigned.
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman. Thank you.
With that, our sincere thanks. I think this has been a
productive discussion. It focused our view on some of these
issues. And your help is greatly appreciated.
For the information of members, the record will remain open
until the close of business on Friday, including for members to
submit questions for the record.
Again, thank you for your service. Thank you for your
agreement to serve further. Thank you to your family for the
sacrifice it is going to take.
This committee will be adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted
to Hon. John Joseph Sullivan by Senator Robert Menendez
Department Employees Testifying and Subpoena Compliance
Question. You said in your nomination hearing, ``there would be no
greater honor for me, if confirmed as the U.S. Ambassador to Russia,
than to serve with the dedicated women and men and their families who
constitute our mission in Russia.Dedicated career officers from across
the U.S. government are serving with distinction in the wake of massive
staff cuts, uncertainty, and intense pressure from the host
government.''
Do you commit that none of the individuals who have testified
before the House related to the Ukraine/impeachment inquiry
will be subject to any retaliatory action, demotion,
reassignment, transfer, or curtailment of duties or assignment
for giving testimony to Congress? Please describe in details
the steps you are taking or will take to ensure that these
actions do not take place.
Answer. I am committed to ensuring all Department personnel are
protected from prohibited personnel practices. I am not aware of any
personnel action with regard to any individuals who have testified
before the House inquiry.
The Department has numerous safeguards in place for personnel to
report prohibited personnel practices. I have personally directed the
Department's publication of the rules that protect personnel who report
wrong-doing, and continue to encourage personnel to come forward if
they believe there are valid instances of waste, fraud, or abuse. If
confirmed to serve as Ambassador to Russia, I look forward to
continuing to uphold these longstanding Department policies and
practices.
Question. Do you commit that the Department will not seek to
interfere with, block, preclude, or dissuade any Department employee or
former Department employee from providing any testimony to Congress
related to Ukraine/impeachment?
Answer. While I have not been directly engaged in responding to the
impeachment inquiry, I understand that the Department has been
consistent in relying upon instructions and advice from the White House
Counsel's Office and the Department of Justice. I am enclosing an
October 8 letter from White House Counsel Pat Cipollone and a November
1 letter from Assistant Attorney General Steve Engel.
Question. Do you commit that the Department will cease sending any
form of written or oral communication to any Department employee or
former employee that has the direct or indirect purpose of seeking to
dissuade an individual from testifying before Congress on Ukraine/
impeachment?
Answer. While I have not been directly engaged in responding to the
impeachment inquiry, I understand that the Department has been
consistent in relying upon instructions and advice from the White House
Counsel's Office and the Department of Justice. I am enclosing an
October 8 letter from White House Counsel Pat Cipollone and a November
1 letter from Assistant Attorney General Steve Engel.
Question. On what legal basis has the State Department been
directing Department employees not to appear voluntarily before
Congress to provide testimony?
Answer. While I have not been directly engaged in responding to the
impeachment inquiry, I understand that the Department has been
consistent in relying upon instructions and advice from the White House
Counsel's Office and the Department of Justice. I am enclosing an
October 8 letter from White House Counsel Pat Cipollone and a November
1 letter from Assistant Attorney General Steve Engel.
Question. On what legal basis has the State Department been
directing former Department employees not to appear voluntarily before
Congress to provide testimony?
Answer. While I have not been directly engaged in responding to the
impeachment inquiry, I understand that the Department has been
consistent in relying upon instructions and advice from the White House
Counsel's Office and the Department of Justice. I am enclosing an
October 8 letter from White House Counsel Pat Cipollone and a November
1 letter from Assistant Attorney General Steve Engel.
Question. On what legal basis has the State Department been
directing Department employees not to appear before Congress in
response to duly authorized subpoenas?
Answer. While I have not been directly engaged in responding to the
impeachment inquiry, I understand that the Department has been
consistent in relying upon instructions and advice from the White House
Counsel's Office and the Department of Justice. I am enclosing an
October 8 letter from White House Counsel Pat Cipollone and a November
1 letter from Assistant Attorney General Steve Engel.
Question. On what legal basis has the State Department been
directing former Department employees not to appear before Congress in
response to duly authorized subpoenas?
Answer. While I have not been directly engaged in responding to the
impeachment inquiry, I understand that the Department has been
consistent in relying upon instructions and advice from the White House
Counsel's Office and the Department of Justice. I am enclosing an
October 8 letter from White House Counsel Pat Cipollone and a November
1 letter from Assistant Attorney General Steve Engel.
Question. Do you believe the executive branch should comply with
congressional subpoenas?
Answer. Yes, but subject to well established constitutional and
legal protections for Executive Branch interests in certain appropriate
cases. With respect to the House impeachment inquiry, I have not been
directly engaged in responding to this inquiry. I understand that the
Department has been consistent in relying upon instructions and advice
from the White House Counsel's Office and the Department of Justice. I
am enclosing an October 8 letter from White House Counsel Pat Cipollone
and a November 1 letter from Assistant Attorney General Steve Engel.
Question. What are you doing to ensure that the Department is
responsive and provides documents to Congress, including in response to
the House inquiry on Ukraine?
Answer. The Department complies with congressional requests for
documents, subject to well-established constitutional and legal
protections for Executive Branch interests in certain appropriate
cases. With respect to the House impeachment inquiry, I have not been
directly engaged in responding to this inquiry. I understand that the
Department has been consistent in relying upon instructions and advice
from the White House Counsel's Office and the Department of Justice. I
am enclosing an October 8 letter from White House Counsel Pat Cipollone
and a November 1 letter from Assistant Attorney General Steve Engel.
Question. Will the Department be providing documents in response to
the House inquiry on Ukraine?
Answer. The Department has been collecting and reviewing its
records in relation to the House subpoena. With respect to the House
impeachment inquiry, I have not been directly engaged in responding to
this inquiry. I understand that the Department has been consistent in
relying upon instructions and advice from the White House Counsel's
Office and the Department of Justice. I am enclosing an October 8
letter from White House Counsel Pat Cipollone and a November 1 letter
from Assistant Attorney General Steve Engel.
State Department Personnel, Retaliation, and Retention
Question. Does the Department have a formal retention program that
provides guidance and support to those contemplating resignation?
Answer. The Department has many programs that are designed to
retain employees, which are not necessarily packaged as a formal
retention program: telework, alternate work schedules, student loan
repayment, employee consultation services, Domestic Employee
Teleworking Overseas, and many others. Foreign Service officers and
specialists are each assigned a Career Development Officer who provides
career guidance. The Department conducts and provides data analytics
and quarterly retention trend analysis for the different services and
performs studies across all demographics.
Question. Do you or does anyone from the Department interview
personnel resigning from the Foreign Service?
Answer. When Foreign Service officers resign, they are asked to
fill out an exit survey. This tool is currently being enhanced to be
deployed electronically on a global platform in order to provide data
analytics and reveal underlying pattern and trends. In addition, I have
met with many officers retiring or resigning from the Foreign Service
or the Civil Service to solicit their views on the Department and our
work.
Question. What steps does the Department take to ascertain the
reasons why employees are retiring or leaving the Department?
Answer. Although the Department has conducted exit surveys in the
past, we are in the process of revamping that system to ensure
widespread and uniform participation. We expect to launch the new exit
survey before the end of the year, and plan to follow it up with a
`stay' survey, as an additional mechanism to enhance our understanding
of any issues around retention. In addition, I have met with many
officers retiring or resigning from the Foreign Service or the Civil
Service to solicit their views on the Department and our work.
Question. What is your assessment of the Department's ability to
retain experienced and talented employees?
Answer. The Department's retention rates have remained steady over
the long-term. Nevertheless, we are committed to enhancing workplace
flexibilities and overall workforce agility in order to ensure we
remain an employer of choice and competitive in today's talent market.
Question. In your opinion, what are the minimum qualifications that
an individual should possess to be nominated for a Senate-confirmed job
at the State Department or USAID? What are the ideal qualifications?
Answer. All nominees must be of trustworthy character and in
compliance with all ethics rules and requirements. An individual
nominated for a Senate-confirmed position should offer experience and
success leading a multi-faceted team to achieve a shared mission. The
individual should have an understanding and appreciation of foreign
affairs, diplomacy and national security.
Question. What steps are you and the Department taking to ensure
whistleblowers know their rights, know how to raise concerns through
appropriate channels, and are not subject to retaliation for exercising
their rights?
Answer. I have personally advised Department employees on their
rights and the many avenues to raise concerns without fear of
retaliation, including to the Inspector General. As Deputy Secretary of
State, I sent two Department-wide email messages to all personnel
regarding the rights of and protections for whistleblowers.
I have been an advocate for ensuring that all employees have access
to information on whistleblower protections and where to report
concerns, through policies published in the Foreign Affairs Manual,
Department Notices and cables to personnel abroad, information on the
Bureau Human Resources website and that of the Office of the Inspector
General, and through other agency publications and directives,
including materials such as posters. If confirmed, I will continue to
ensure whistleblower protection at the U.S. Mission in Russia is fully
in line with federal law and Department of State rules and regulations.
Question. Do you agree retaliation of any kind has no place in
federal government? Do you agree that anyone found to have engaged in
retaliation should be held fully accountable, up to and including
losing their job?
Answer. Yes. Retaliation for protected whistleblowing activity or
other protected activity has no place in the federal government. I
agree that any employee found responsible for engaging in a prohibited
personnel practice should be held accountable under the law.
Question. When did you first become aware of allegations of
retaliation at the Department? What did you do with those concerns? Did
you ever raise concerns about political retaliation at the Department
to Secretary Pompeo?
Answer. I first became aware of the issues under review by the
Office of the Inspector (OIG) in early 2018 and subsequently when a
Congressional letter was submitted to the Department in March 2018
prior to Secretary Pompeo's confirmation as Secretary of State. Upon
learning of the allegations, I submitted the matter to the OIG and the
Office of the Special Counsel for their review. If confirmed as
Ambassador to Russia, I will to foster an environment consistent with
the Department's goals of professionalism and excellence.
Question. What have you done, personally, to address concerns of
retaliation against career employees?
Answer. I have sought during my tenure at the Department of State
and throughout my career to foster an environment of professionalism
and excellence without prohibited retaliation. Upon learning of the
specific allegations, I took steps to refer the matter to the OIG in
March 2018 for independent review. I made a subsequent referral in June
2018 upon learning of additional allegations relating to employees in
the Bureau of Internal Organizations (IO). I have counseled employees
involved. Upon receiving the findings of the OIG with respect to the IO
Bureau, I have worked with the Under Secretary for Political Affairs to
put in place a corrective action plan for the IO bureau.
Question. In April 2018, according to the Inspector General, a PDAS
in IO expressed concerns about the management of IO and treatment of
staff by Moley and Stull. What steps did you take next?
Answer. When I became aware of the concerns, I counseled the
Assistant Secretary. I also supported the PDAS in securing a new job
opportunity within the Department.
Question. Did you recommend any disciplinary action for Assistant
Secretary Moley, including administrative steps to sideline Moley's
supervisory role?
Answer. I engaged with Assistant Secretary Moley to improve the
management and performance of the bureau. Following the release of the
IG report, I supported Assistant Secretary Moley's direct supervisor--
Under Secretary Hale--in pursuing management and performance
improvement measures.
Question. What prompted your June 25, 2018 meeting with Assistant
Secretary to discuss ``the general atmosphere in IO?''
Answer. In June, the Department received inquiries from a variety
of sources relating to concerns about the leadership and management of
the Bureau for International Organizations. I also asked the then-
Acting Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs to work with the
bureau to address those concerns. Additionally, on June 28, I referred
allegations relating to political retaliation to the Office of the
Inspector General and the Office of Special Counsel for independent
review.
Question. After your meeting with Assistant Secretary Moley on June
25, 2018, at which he dismissed employee concerns about leadership
misconduct and retaliation in IO, what steps did you take next to
protect IO employees or discipline Assistant Secretary Moley?
Answer. I asked the then-Acting Under Secretary of State for
Political Affairs to work with the bureau to address those concerns.
Additionally, on June 28, I referred allegations relating to political
retaliation to the Office of the Inspector General and the Office of
Special Counsel for independent review.
Question. Given you were aware of employee concerns about
leadership misconduct in IO for at least three months by the time you
met with Mr. Moley directly, did you express concerns to Secretary
Pompeo or any other senior State Department officials about his conduct
before meeting with him? How about afterward?
Answer. I asked the then-Acting Under Secretary of State for
Political Affairs to work with the bureau to address those concerns.
Additionally, on June 28, I referred allegations relating to political
retaliation to the Office of the Inspector General and the Office of
Special Counsel for independent review.
Question. Did you ask Moley to resign? Why not?
Answer. Assistant Secretary Moley has announced his resignation,
and he will be leaving the Department on November 29.
Question. What steps are you taking to address low morale at the
Department and in the IO Bureau?
Answer. Since the release of the OIG report in August, I joined the
Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, who oversees the
bureau, in meeting with staff during a town hall. As the Department
wrote to you on October 29, the Department will continue to work with
IO to reinforce the Department's ethos statement, which calls for all
personnel to apply the highest standards of professionalism. As called
for in the OIG report, the Under Secretary submitted a comprehensive
corrective plan to the OIG within the 60 day timeframe set out in the
report. He has put in place measures to ensure the IO bureau is
carefully executing the plan.
Question. What steps are you and the Department taking to ensure
whistleblowers know their rights and are not subject to retaliation for
exercising them?
Answer. During my tenure as Deputy Secretary, I have been an
advocate for ensuring that all employees are apprised of their rights
under the Whistleblower Protection Act and Department policy through
Department Notices, messages to personnel overseas, information
available through the Bureau of Human Resources and the Office of the
Inspector General, and other Department publications. I sent two
Department-wide email messages to all personnel regarding rights and
protections for whistleblowers. I have personally directed the
Department's publication of the rules that protect personnel who report
wrong-doing, and continue to encourage personnel to come forward if
they believe there are valid instances of waste, fraud, or abuse. If
confirmed, I will ensure that my staff apply the Department's clear
guidance to our Mission in Russia, including posting these materials in
highly visible locations in all buildings.
Question. What else can the State Department do to prevent and
counter retaliation?
Answer. The Department, in coordination with the Office of the
Inspector General's Whistleblower Protection Coordinator, must work
diligently to ensure employees are aware of their rights under the
Whistleblower Protection Act, as well as to ensure accountability for
any retaliation. During my tenure as Deputy Secretary, I sent two
Department-wide email messages to all personnel regarding the rights of
and protections for whistleblowers. I have personally directed the
Department's publication of the rules that protect personnel who report
wrong-doing, and continue to encourage personnel to come forward if
they believe there are valid instances of waste, fraud, or abuse. If
confirmed, I will continue to ensure that employees understand the
Department takes seriously any allegation of retaliation, and anyone
engaging in retaliation would be subject to disciplinary action, up to
and including separation.
Ukraine Policy/Giuliani
Question. What did you know about Rudy Giuliani's involvement in
Ukraine policy? What is the basis of that understanding?
Answer. I have not engaged with Mr. Giuliani. What information I
had came from conversations with State Department colleagues and from
media reports. As I testified at my confirmation hearing, I was aware
that Mr. Giuliani had an interest in and negative assessment of our
ambassador in Ukraine.
Question. When did you first learn that Mr. Giuliani was seeking to
meet with Ukrainian officials?
Answer. I have not engaged with Mr. Giuliani. I was aware of Mr.
Giuliani's interest in Ukraine but unaware of any particular meetings
he sought with Ukrainian officials. I am aware of press coverage on
that topic since mid-September of this year.
Question. How did you learn that Mr. Giuliani was seeking to meet
with Ukrainian officials?
Answer. I have not engaged with Mr. Giuliani. I was aware of Mr.
Giuliani's interest in Ukraine but unaware of any particular meetings
he sought with Ukrainian officials. I am aware of press coverage on
that topic since mid-September of this year.
Question. When did you learn that Mr. Giuliani was seeking to meet
with State Department officials about Ukraine?
Answer. I have not engaged with Mr. Giuliani. I was not aware that
he sought a meeting with State Department officials. I am aware only of
what has been reported in the press since mid-September of this year.
Question. How did you learn that Mr. Giuliani was seeking to meet
with State Department officials about Ukraine?
Answer. I have not engaged with Mr. Giuliani. I was not aware that
he sought a meeting with State Department officials. I am aware only of
what has been reported in the press since mid-September of this year.
Question. Were you aware of Mr. Giuliani's meetings with Ukrainian
officials on or around the dates that they happened?
Answer. No.
Question. Are you aware of other meetings between Mr. Giuliani and
foreign officials?
Answer. No, only what has been reported in the press.
Question. Are you aware of other meetings between Mr. Giuliani and
State Department officials?
Answer. No.
Question. Did you instruct anyone in the Department to not provide
assistance to Mr. Giuliani regarding his meetings with foreign
officials?
Answer. No.
Question. Did you ever discuss Ambassador Yovanovitch with Rudy
Giuliani?
Answer. No.
Question. Were you aware that Special Envoy Kurt Volker or
Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland were engaged with Mr. Giuliani
regarding Ukraine? How were you aware?
Answer. As I stated during my hearing, I was not aware of any
engagement by Mr. Volker or Ambassador Sondland with Mr. Giuliani until
I read media reports beginning in mid-September of this year.
Question. Who from the Department received readouts of, met with,
or spoke to Mr. Giuliani about his meetings with foreign officials?
Answer. As I told the committee, I have not engaged Mr. Giuliani. I
am aware only of what has been reported in the press since mid-
September of this year.
Question. Were you ever asked to communicate to Ukrainian officials
President Trump's desire for assistance in investigating one of his
political opponents or unsubstantiated theories related to Ukraine's
involvement in the 2016 U.S. election?
Answer. No.
Question. Do you have any reason to believe that Ukraine interfered
in the 2016 U.S. election? If so, what?
Answer. I have no information regarding Ukrainian interference in
the 2016 U.S. election. As you are aware, the Counselor of the
Department received a file that I subsequently directed the Office of
the Legal Adviser to submit to the Office of the Inspector General
(OIG) for its review. I understand from the OIG letter to the Congress
that the Inspector General later submitted the file to the FBI for its
review.
Question. Since you have been in your current role, how many times
have you met or communicated with Rudy Giuliani? Please describe the
subject and nature of your discussions with him.
Answer. I have not engaged with Mr. Giuliani at all in that time.
Question. Were you aware of any attempts by Giuliani to lobby,
directly or indirectly, the State Department about any individuals,
topics, clients, or countries? If so, whom/what topics? Please provide
details.
Answer. Other than what I have testified in my confirmation hearing
and in response to questions 29-40, I am not.
Question. Were you ever directed by Secretary Pompeo or anyone
outside the State Department to meet or communicate with Rudy Giuliani?
If so, please describe the circumstances.
Answer. No.
Question. When did you first become aware that Mr. Giuliani was
working with and directing the actions of State Department officials on
U.S. policy toward Ukraine?
Answer. I have not engaged with Mr. Giuliani. I refer to my answers
to previous questions.
Question. Upon learning of Mr. Giuliani's role with regards to U.S.
policy toward Ukraine, did you or anyone at the State Department take
any steps to ensure that U.S. policy was not being influenced by Mr.
Giuliani's private interests?
Answer. I have not engaged with Mr. Giuliani. Secretary Pompeo has
clearly stated the U.S. policy towards Ukraine: provide security and
support to Ukraine to push back against Russian aggression, tackle the
challenges of corruption that have long plagued the country's march
towards democracy and rule of law, and support energy independence.
That direction was clear and well understood across the Department.
Question. Did you or anyone at the State Department review Mr.
Giuliani's business interests for potential conflicts of interest?
Answer. I did not. And I have not engaged with Mr. Giuliani.
Question. Are you aware of Mr. Giuliani working with any other
State Department officials on any other matters involving countries
besides Ukraine?
Answer. I have not engaged with Mr. Giuliani. I am not aware of
such activity.
Question. Were you aware of any efforts to provide Viktor Shokin
with a visa to enter the United States? If so, what did you know and
what did you do in response? What did you do to stop it?
Answer. I have learned that Mr. Giuliani advocated for a visa for
Viktor Shokin but that the visa was denied. I was not involved in any
deliberations in relation to this matter.
Question. Since you have been in your current role, has anyone from
outside the State Department contacted you regarding Dmitry Firtash? If
so, please describe the content of those discussions.
Answer. No.
Question. You testified in your nomination hearing that neither
you, nor Secretary Pompeo, nor John Bolton ordered Volker, Sondland,
and Taylor to coordinate with each other in pressing the Ukrainians for
these investigations into Burisma or the origins of the 2016 U.S.
elections interference. You also testified that, since you learned of
these activities in September, you have not made any attempt to find
out where their instructions were coming from. Why did you not seek to
find out why people under your control were being given direction from
an unknown source? Why did you not try to find out what the policy of
the U.S. toward Ukraine was during this time period?
Answer. Secretary Pompeo has clearly stated the U.S. policy towards
Ukraine: provide security and support to Ukraine to push back against
Russian aggression, tackle the challenges of corruption that have long
plagued the country's march towards democracy and rule of law, and
support energy independence. That direction was clear and well
understood across the Department.
Question. Were you ever asked to communicate to Ukrainian officials
President Trump's desire for assistance in investigating one of his
political opponents or unsubstantiated theories related to Ukraine's
involvement in the 2016 U.S. election?
Answer. No.
Question. Have you received or are you aware of any requests from
Ukraine that the U.S. investigation of oligarch Ihor Kolomoisky, a
former business partner and patron of Ukraine President Zelenskyy, for
money laundering to be dropped? Are you aware of any discussions of
U.S. legal proceedings against Kolomoisky?
Answer. No.
Question. Have you or anyone at the State Department undertaken any
action in response to the statement from Donald Trump that China should
investigate Hunter Biden to pursue the issue with China or with any
other country?
Answer. No.
Zelenskyy Call
Question. When did you first hear concerns from senior officials
about the July 25 Trump-Zelenskyy call?
Answer. I learned from press reports in September of this year.
Question. Did you speak to any Ukrainian officials between May 1,
2019 and September 12, 2019? If so, what did you discuss?
Answer. I don't believe I did.
Question. Did you ever communicate to Ukrainian officials that the
President wanted to discuss corruption or investigations in Ukraine?
Answer. Yes. Addressing corruption in Ukraine has been a
longstanding policy concern of the United States and this
administration. As a general matter, U.S. personnel who meet with
Ukrainian officials emphasize U.S. concerns regarding corruption and
the need for the United States to see reform efforts by the government
of Ukraine. I have had many conversations with Ukrainian officials on
this topic during my tenure as Deputy Secretary.
Security Assistance
Question. When did you first become aware that security assistance
to Ukraine would not be immediately obligated? What did you do to
ascertain why it was being held up?
Answer. To the best of my knowledge, the first time I learned that
security assistance to Ukraine would not be immediately obligated was
in late July. I received a letter from OMB in early August informing
the Department and USAID that a number of accounts would be temporarily
frozen pending further review. I assumed the Ukraine assistance hold
was related to the administration's broader foreign assistance review
and a potential rescission package.
Question. Did you ever discuss assistance for Ukraine with U.S.
diplomats based in Ukraine, including but not limited to Ambassador
Taylor and Ambassador Yovanovitch?
Answer. Not with Ambassador Taylor. I did with Ambassador
Yovanovitch in 2018.
Question. Did you discuss assistance to Ukraine with Ambassador
Sondland or Special Representative Volker?
Answer. No, I do not recall any such discussions.
Question. Sondland testified that he understood all of his actions
involving Ukraine to have ``the blessing of Secretary Pompeo,'' and
that, ``very recently,'' he received a congratulatory note from
Secretary Pompeo saying he was doing great work and encouraging him to
``keep banging away.'' To what extent were you aware of Sondland's
actions in Ukraine? Were you aware of Secretary Pompeo's ``very
recent'' note to Sondland? Did Sondland keep you updated on his work
relating to Ukraine?
Answer. I was aware that Ambassador Sondland was involved in
Ukraine policy and had attended President Zelenskyy's inauguration. I
am not aware of any discussions he had with the Secretary. That said,
Secretary Pompeo's guidance on Ukraine policy is clear: the United
States is providing security and support to Ukraine to push back
against Russian aggression, tackling the challenges of corruption that
have long plagued the country's march towards democracy and rule of
law, and supporting energy independence.
Question. When did Sondland start engaging with Ukraine, which, as
you know, is not an EU member state? Did you instruct Sondland to
engage with Ukraine? When? How?
Answer. I do not know when Ambassador Sondland first engaged on
Ukraine policy. I know that he attended President Zelenskyy's
inauguration in late May 2019.
Question. Did you make any effort, through formal channels or
otherwise, to weigh in and reverse the Office of Management and Budget
hold on security assistance to Ukraine?
Answer. I was not directly involved in the policy discussions with
OMB regarding its review of Ukraine security assistance over the
summer. The Department of State has consistently supported security
assistance for Ukraine, and this administration took action to make
lethal assistance available to Ukraine in its efforts to protect itself
against Russian aggression.
Question. Other than Ukraine, have you signed off on shutting down
assistance to any country until that country addressed any alleged
corruption issue in which a U.S. person was said to be involved?
Answer. I have not signed off on shutting down assistance to
Ukraine or any other country for that stated reason.
Question. In your view, what changed from the time the funds were
withheld until they were released in early September, other than the
fact that the fiscal year was coming to a close? Did the White House
communicate any changes to you? Did the State Department provide any
analysis about Ukraine's anti-corruption efforts during this time
period?
Answer. I was not directly involved in the policy discussions with
OMB regarding its review of Ukraine security assistance over the
summer. The Department of State has consistently supported security
assistance for Ukraine, and this administration took action to make
lethal assistance available to Ukraine in its efforts to protect itself
against Russian aggression.
Question. Did you have any role in providing during the period of
``interagency review'' of security assistance to Ukraine? Was the State
Department involved in this interagency review in any manner? Please
describe.
Answer. I was not directly involved in the policy discussions with
OMB regarding its review of Ukraine security assistance over the
summer. The Department of State has consistently supported security
assistance for Ukraine, and this administration took action to make
lethal assistance available to Ukraine in its efforts to protect itself
against Russian aggression.
Question. Did the State Department take into account the Department
of Defense's May 23, 2019 certification of Ukraine's anti-corruption
efforts in its analysis?
Answer. I was not directly involved in the policy discussions with
OMB regarding its review of Ukraine security assistance over the
summer. The Department of State has consistently supported security
assistance for Ukraine, and this administration took action to make
lethal assistance available to Ukraine in its efforts to protect itself
against Russian aggression.
Question. Sondland testified that the U.S. Mission to the EU's June
4, 2019 event had a main event and then, ``Following the main event.a
smaller, separate dinner for about 30 people. President Zelenskyy and
several other leaders of EU and non-EU member states attended the
dinner, along with Secretary Perry, U.S. State Department Counselor
Ulrich Brechbuhl on behalf of Secretary Pompeo, and numerous other key
U.S. and EU officials.'' Did you participate in the decision to send
Brechbuhl on Pompeo's behalf? When was that decision made?
Answer. I was not involved in Ambassador Sondland's diplomatic
outreach or the development of his guest list.
Question. Sondland testified that ``my boss Secretary Pompeo was
very supportive of our Ukraine strategy''--speaking about the strategy
that Sondland, Secretary Perry, and Ambassador Volker were pursuing.
Did you ever hear Pompeo express support of the ``Ukraine strategy''?
To whom?
Answer. Secretary Pompeo's guidance on Ukraine policy is clear: the
United States is providing security and support to Ukraine to push back
against Russian aggression, tackling the challenges of corruption that
have long plagued the country's march towards democracy and rule of
law, and supporting energy independence. This is the only guidance on
Ukraine policy that I have heard him express, and the only guidance I
have.
Question. Sondland testified that he encouraged Ambassador Taylor
to contact Secretary Pompeo about ``concerns that the Ukrainians could
perceive a linkage between U.S. security assistance and the President's
2020 reelection campaign.'' Did Ambassador Taylor contact you about
these concerns? When? What did you say?
Answer. No, Ambassador Taylor did not contact me regarding his
concerns.
Question. Taylor testified that he wrote and transmitted a first-
person cable to Pompeo relaying his concerns about the ``folly'' of
withholding of military aid to Ukraine on August 29, 2019. Did you see
that cable? If so, when? What was your response?
Answer. No. Ambassador Taylor's views were consistent with the
Department of State's support of security assistance for Ukraine. For
this reason, this administration took action to make lethal assistance
available to Ukraine in its efforts to protect itself against Russian
aggression.
Trump Organization
Question. Since you have been in your current role, how many times
have you met or communicated with individuals from the Trump
Organization? Please describe the content of your discussions with
them.
Answer. I have not engaged in any such discussions.
Question. Since January 20, 2017, how much money has the State
Department spent at properties owned or licensed by the Trump
Organization?
Answer. I am aware of instances in which official diplomatic
activity took place at a Trump-owned property. As you know, the
Department of State has statutory authorization to spend appropriated
funds on the ``travel of the President, the Vice President, or a Member
of Congress to a foreign country, including advance arrangements,
escort, and official entertainment.'' Once the trip is confirmed, the
Department coordinates the execution of required logistical support
using appropriated funds. The Department does not track this data.
The G7
Question. President Trump selected his own property, Trump National
Doral Miami, to host the 2020 Group of Seven (G7) leader-level summit.
He has since walked back the decision, which raises further concerns
about the process by which the Trump administration has been planning
the U.S. Chairmanship of the G7 in 2020.
In the past, the White House would pick the host city and the
Department would choose the hotels for the G7 site. Is that the
process that was followed leading up to the selection of Doral
as the site for the 2020 G7 summit? If not, will it be followed
moving forward?
Answer. As the G7 is a domestic conference, the State Department's
Office of Presidential Travel Support did not participate in the site
selection. State Department employees from the Presidential Travel
Support office do not stay at Trump properties when they travel and
have never stayed at the Doral in particular.
Question. Did you have any role in providing recommendations about,
or in selecting the G7 site? If so, describe that role.
Answer. No.
Question. What was the Department's role in the initial selection
of Doral to host the 2020 G7? Which Bureaus, Offices, and personnel in
the Department were involved at any point in the selection process?
Which Bureaus, Offices, and personnel in the Department will be
involved moving forward? Please provide dates for the selection of the
location for the G7 summit, including the date that the site selection
process for the 2020 G7 began, the date that an initial solicitation
was sent out, when proposals were received, when Doral was selected,
when Doral was decided against, when the process of selection began
again, and the deadline for a new site to be selected.
Answer. I understand that neither the Office of Presidential Travel
Support nor the Office of the Procurement Executive were involved in
the now-reversed selection of Doral to host the 2020 G7.
Question. Was the Department consulted in the decision to rescind
the initial selection of Doral to host the 2020 G7? If so, which
Bureaus, Offices, and personnel in the Department were involved? When?
Answer. I understand that neither the Office of Presidential Travel
Support nor the Office of the Procurement Executive were involved in
the selection or rescission of Doral to host the 2020 G7.
Question. Since the rescinded location decision, has the Department
been consulted in the site selection process moving forward for the
2020 G7? If so, which Bureaus, Offices, and personnel in the Department
are involved in the process?
Answer. I understand that neither the Office of Presidential Travel
Support nor the Office of the Procurement Executive have been involved
in the site selection process for the 2020 G7.
Question. Did President Trump or anyone else at any point suggest
hosting any other events associated with U.S. Chairmanship of the G7 in
2020 at any other Trump Organization properties in addition to Doral?
Answer. I understand that neither the Office of Presidential Travel
Support nor the Office of the Procurement Executive have been involved
in the site selection process for the 2020 G7.
Question. Does the Department have a total estimated budget for the
2020 U.S. Chairmanship of the G7 in its entirety, including a total
estimated budget for the 2020 G7 leader-level summit, and including the
Department's portion? How much of that would go directly to the host
venue?
Answer. As notified in the FY 2019 Diplomatic Programs end-of year
Congressional Notification (CN 19-297), the Department provided $11.3
million in FY 2019 funding within the Office of the Chief of Protocol
allocation for G7 preparation activities, including funding of the site
selection. The FY 2020 request includes an additional $10 million. The
Department will be able to provide a more detailed estimate after a
site is determined and other details become available.
Question. Did anyone in the Department seek a legal opinion or
guidance about hosting an official summit at Doral? Did anyone in the
Department seek a legal opinion or guidance about hosting an official
summit at Doral? Did the Office of the Legal Adviser furnish any
opinion?
Answer. No. The Office of the Legal Adviser provides legal guidance
as necessary to bureaus and offices at the State Department to support
their decision making and planning for major events such as the G-7.
However, the decision about where to hold the G-7 in 2020 was made by
the White House, not the State Department.
Climate and the G7
Question. Mulvaney said that ``climate change will not be on the
agenda'' for next year's G7 summit.
Do you believe that climate change should be on the agenda for the
2020 G7?
Answer. I support the White House's proposed ``back to basics'' G7
Presidency. Climate change is one of many complex global challenges.
The United States supports a balanced approach that promotes economic
growth and improves energy security while protecting the environment.
Question. Given your current position as Deputy Secretary of State,
what role has, does, and will the Department play in the agenda-setting
process for the 2020 G7, including on decisions such as whether to
include climate change?
Answer. The Department has been consulted and supports the White
House proposed ``back to basics'' G7 Presidency. Climate change is one
of many complex global challenges. The United States supports a
balanced approach that promotes economic growth and improves energy
security while protecting the environment.
Question. Do you believe it is appropriate for the U.S., or even
has the authority, to unilaterally strike an issue, like climate
change, from the agenda of the G7?
Answer. Each G7 President sets priorities and goals for the year.
Foreign Interference
Question. In the wake of President Trump's comments welcoming
derogatory information on a U.S. political figure from foreign
entities, it is important that the State Department have explicit
guidance for all of its personnel on how to deal with this scenario.
Guidance on handling interactions that prompt concern about
exploitation by a foreign entity, such as FAM Chapter 12, Section 262,
does not clearly address this situation.
Do you agree that any candidate for office in the United States who
is presented with information on an opponent from a foreign
power should report that to the FBI?
Answer. If confirmed, I will follow the Department of State's
guidance with regard to reporting such information.
Question. If a foreign person or government approaches you or a
staffer at the embassy with derogatory information on a U.S. political
figure, what is your understanding of official State Department policy
on how to handle this specific situation?
Answer. If confirmed, I will follow the Department of State's
guidance and report that conduct back through appropriate channels. If
confirmed, I will work with the Embassy's regional security officer on
such reporting.
Question. Has a cable with clear guidance on how to handle this
specific situation been sent to all U.S. embassies?
Answer. Not on this precise topic, but the Department does
regularly convey to posts the importance of prompt and accurate
reporting and the need to follow all Department policies and
procedures.
Question. In your current role as Deputy Secretary of State, do you
commit to issuing clear guidance to all U.S. embassies on how embassy
staff should handle the specific situation of a foreign person or
government approaching them with derogatory information on a U.S.
political figure? Existing guidance on handling interactions that
prompt concern about exploitation by a foreign entity, such as FAM
Chapter 12, Section 262, does not clearly address this situation.
Answer. I commit to review the existing guidance and to update it
and communicate the update to posts as appropriate.
Question. If confirmed as U.S. Ambassador to Russia, do you commit
to issuing clear guidance on how to handle this specific situation?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I will work with the Embassy Regional
Security Officer to be sure that all personnel are familiar with their
responsibilities to report derogatory information of any kind.
Anticorruption
Question. Senator Coons asked you in your nomination hearing about
the Trump administration's repeated attacks on U.S. anticorruption
funding. Budgets reflect priorities, and the President's budget shows a
diminished prioritization of State Department anticorruption efforts.
You responded that ``the prime obstacle to anticorruption reform in
Ukraine is not technical or monetary support by the United States but
the will of the Ukrainian government.''
What role do you believe U.S. technical and monetary support plays
in U.S. anticorruption efforts?
Answer. Given corruption's deleterious impact internationally,
including on U.S. foreign policy interests, the United States should
draw strategically upon its full range of tools to affect change.
Combined with political will of the receiving government, U.S.
technical support can play an important role in addressing corruption,
as part of a toolkit of other effective measures such as bilateral
pressure and public diplomacy, leadership in multilateral bodies, and
sanctions.
Question. Do you believe combatting corruption should be a U.S.
foreign policy priority?
Answer. Yes. Combatting corruption should remain a top U.S. foreign
policy priority. Corruption facilitates transnational organized crime,
hinders economic development, disadvantages U.S. business, undermines
democratic governance and the rule of law, and increases instability.
Corruption also makes countries more vulnerable to foreign malign
influence. To address corruption internationally, the United States
should continue bilateral engagement and public diplomacy, exercise
leadership in multilateral bodies, deploy targeted sanctions, and
support foreign assistance programs that promote reform, build
capacity, and increase cooperation across borders.
Alliances
Question. President Trump has made a number disparaging comments
about U.N. member states. In tweets, he has referred to Canadian Prime
Minister Justin Trudeau as ``Very dishonest & weak,'' called Europe ``A
total mess!''
Do you personally agree with these statements? Is this how the U.S.
should be conducting diplomacy? How do you plan to keep U.S.
alliances strong with some of our closest partners, including
those who have been the target of the President's verbal
attacks? What do you see as the role of U.S. alliances
generally?
Answer. The United States has consistently affirmed its support for
NATO, including to collective defense under Article 5. The Alliance has
been the bulwark of international peace and security for 70 years. Each
generation has worked to adapt NATO to face the challenges of its
times, and we continue working with our NATO Allies to do just that. As
the President said, the NATO of the future must include a focus on
terrorism, as well as threats from Russia on NATO's eastern and
southern borders.
Question. Do you believe that allies are important and integral to
U.S. foreign policy?
Answer. Yes.
Whistleblower Protection
Question. As you know, those working for the federal government,
including civil service, foreign service, and contractors, who possess
information they reasonably believe demonstrates a violation of law;
gross mismanagement; gross waste of funds; abuse of authority; a
substantial and specific danger to public health or safety; or
censorship related to research, analysis, or technical information are
protected and entitled under federal law to raise those concerns
through authorized channels, including to Congress or Inspectors
General, without fear of retribution or reprisal. Even in cases where
information is required to be kept secret in the interest of national
defense or the conduct of foreign affairs, disclosure to Inspectors
General or the Special Counsel is still protected. It is imperative
that senior officials throughout government ensure that employees know
their rights, and that employees are not discouraged from raising valid
concerns.
Do you agree with the President's statements on whistleblowers,
including his reference to them as ``spies''?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to ensure whistleblower
protection in accordance with federal law and Department of State rules
and regulations.
Question. What are you doing to stand up for career employees, both
internally and externally?
Answer. I never cease to be impressed by the skill, dedication, and
determination of the Department's employees who serve in the Foreign
Service, Civil Service, and as locally employed staff. Throughout my
tenure I have sought to support the Department's employees as they
further our nation's foreign policy objectives by recognizing and
endorsing their work both domestically and on the global stage. If
confirmed, I will continue to ensure that all employees with whom I
work understand my commitment to our One Team, One Mission ethos, and
take every opportunity to promote the strength and skill of our team to
our interlocutors at home and abroad.
Question. What are you doing to ensure that all State Department
personnel know and understand their rights under federal whistleblower
laws?
Answer. During my tenure as Deputy Secretary, I have advocated to
ensure that all employees are apprised of their rights under the
Whistleblower Protection Act and Department policy through Department
Notices, messages to personnel overseas, information available through
the Bureau of Human Resources and the Office of the Inspector General,
and other Department publications. I have personally directed the
Department's publication of the rules that protect personnel who report
wrongdoing. I have also sent two Department-wide email messages to all
personnel on this topic. And I have raised the issue in large and small
group meetings.
If confirmed, I commit to ensure that everyone at Mission Russia
understands their rights and protections in this regard.
Question. What have you done to make sure all employees feel free
to report concerns through the proper channels, including to Congress
and Inspectors General?
Answer. During my tenure as Deputy Secretary, I have advocated to
ensure that all employees are apprised of their rights under the
Whistleblower Protection Act and Department policy through Department
Notices, messages to personnel overseas, information available through
the Bureau of Human Resources and the Office of the Inspector General,
and other Department publications. I have personally directed the
Department's publication of the rules that protect personnel who report
wrongdoing. I have also sent two Department-wide email messages to all
personnel on this topic. And I have raised the issue in large and small
group meetings.
If confirmed, I commit to ensure that everyone at Mission Russia
understands their rights and protections in this regard.
Question. Has the U.S. Embassy in Russia issued any communications
or documents to staff regarding whistleblower rights or communicating
or cooperating with Congress since January 2017? If so, please provide
a copy of each such communication or document. If not, do you pledge to
issue such a communication if confirmed as Ambassador to Russia?
Answer. All employees, including those at Embassy Moscow, have
access to FAM information on whistleblower protections, including
prohibited personnel practices. All employees also have access to
Department policies that inform employees of protections for those who
make protected disclosures to the Office of Inspector General, the
Office of Special Counsel, and Congress. If confirmed, I commit to
communicating directly with all staff at the Embassy to ensure they
know their whistleblower protection rights in accordance with federal
law and Department of State rules and regulations.
Question. In light of President Trump's efforts to discredit and
unmask the identity of a whistleblower, how do you plan to counter the
damage to U.S. credibility in pressing for greater whistleblower
protections globally?
Answer. Employees are apprised of their rights under the
Whistleblower Protection Act and Department policy through Department
Notices, messages to personnel overseas, information available through
the Bureau of Human Resources and the Office of the Inspector General,
and other Department publications
If confirmed, I commit to communicating directly with all staff at
the Embassy to ensure they know their whistleblower protection rights
in accordance with federal law and Department of State rules and
regulations.
Question. How do you plan to advance whistleblower protection at
the U.S. Embassy to Russia?
Answer. If confirmed, I commit to communicating directly with all
staff at the Embassy to ensure they know their whistleblower protection
rights in accordance with federal law and Department of State rules and
regulations.
Yovanovitch
Question. Did you ever personally advocate for a statement of
support on behalf of Ambassador Yovanovitch? In your nomination
hearing, you said, ``At the time of her removal, I did not.'' Did you
do so at any other time?
Answer. I have consistently advocated for Department personnel
during my tenure as the Deputy Secretary of State. It has been my honor
to lead such a distinguished and professional workforce. With regard to
Ambassador Yovanovitch, I sought to be clear and honest with her
regarding the President's direction with regard to her tenure as
Ambassador to Ukraine and to ensure she was in a position to begin the
next phase of her career in the Foreign Service.
Question. At what point did you learn that the President had lost
confidence in Ambassador Yovanovitch and no longer wished her to serve?
Who told you?
Answer. As I testified at my confirmation hearing, the Secretary
informed me in discussions over a period of time in the spring of 2019
that the President had lost confidence in Ambassador Yovanovitch.
Question. Did you ever discuss Ambassador Yovanovitch with Rudy
Giuliani?
Answer. No.
Question. What specifically did you do to protect Ambassador
Yovanovitch from political retaliation?
Answer. I sought to be clear and honest with Ambassador Yovanovitch
regarding the President's direction with regard to her tenure as
Ambassador to Ukraine and to ensure she was in a position to begin the
next phase of her career in the Foreign Service. I worked with the
Director General to secure an appropriate onward assignment for someone
of her stature. Ambassador Yovanovitch continues to serve the
Department with distinction and is currently teaching the next
generation of diplomats at Georgetown University in Washington D.C.
Question. How did you defend Ambassador Yovanovitch against efforts
by President Trump, Giuliani, and others to discredit her using
debunked conspiracy theories?
Answer. I sought to be clear and honest with Ambassador Yovanovitch
regarding the President's direction with regard to her tenure as
Ambassador to Ukraine and to ensure she was in a position to begin the
next phase of her career in the Foreign Service. I worked with the
Director General to secure an appropriate onward assignment for someone
of her stature. Ambassador Yovanovitch continues to serve the
Department with distinction and is currently teaching the next
generation of diplomats at Georgetown University in Washington D.C.
Question. Ambassador Yovanovitch testified that you told her in
your April 2019 conversation that there had been a concerted campaign
against her, and that the Department had been under pressure from Trump
to remove her since the summer of 2018. At what point did you become
aware of the smear campaign against Ambassador Yovanovitch and Mr.
Giuliani's role in seeking her removal?
Answer. I was aware of questions raised regarding the Ambassador in
mid to late 2018, but did not become aware of more acute issues until
the early spring of 2019. All U.S. ambassadors serve at the pleasure of
the President. As stated during my confirmation hearing, the President
lost confidence in her and I conveyed this to her.
Question. Ambassador Yovanovitch testified that you told her in
your April 2019 conversation that she had done nothing wrong and this
was not like other situations where you had recalled ambassadors for
cause. Do you stand by that assessment? Had Ambassador Yovanovitch done
nothing wrong?
Answer. Yes. As I told the committee, the President lost confidence
in Ambassador Yovanovitch, and she therefore could no longer serve as
ambassador.
Question. Did you receive instructions from the President, the
White House, Rudy Giuliani, or Secretary Pompeo about Ambassador
Yovanovitch's removal on prior to May 7, 2019? If so, what were they?
Answer. As I told the committee, the Secretary informed me in
discussions over a period of time that the President had lost
confidence in Ambassador Yovanovitch and she therefore could no longer
serve as ambassador.
Question. After you became aware of Ambassador Yovanovitch's
recalling, did you express concern to Secretary Pompeo about the way
she was being treated? Did you express concerns before?
Answer. As I told the committee, the President lost confidence in
Ambassador Yovanovitch and she therefore could no longer serve as
ambassador. I sought to be clear and honest with Ambassador Yovanovitch
regarding the President's direction and to ensure she was in a position
to begin the next phase of her career in the Foreign Service.
Question. Did you speak to Ambassador Taylor about concerns he had
about Ambassador Yovanovitch's treatment as he tried to make a final
decision on taking the post in Ukraine?
Answer. I was not consulted by Ambassador Taylor in his decision-
making regarding acceptance of this position in Kyiv.
Question. Taylor testified that the decision of whether to agree to
Secretary Pompeo's request to return to Kyiv was ``not an easy
decision,'' because of how Ambassador Yovanovitch had been treated. Are
you concerned about the implications for U.S. foreign policy if
qualified candidates think twice about accepting important positions
because of uncertainty that they will be treated fairly?
Answer. I was not consulted by Ambassador Taylor in his decision-
making regarding acceptance of this position in Kyiv. It is an honor to
represent the United States and to lead the women and men who serve in
U.S. embassies overseas.
Question. Michael McKinley testified that he left his post over
frustration with Pompeo regarding the treatment of Ambassador
Yovanovitch. He testified that he asked Pompeo repeatedly to show
support for Ambassador Yovanovitch in the past month (September 2019-
October 2019) but that he did not respond. Did McKinley ask you to show
support for Ambassador Yovanovitch? If so, when?
Answer. No.
Disinformation Packet on Yovanovitch
Question. To the best of your knowledge, how did the Secretary of
State come into possession of a packet of disinformation that included
claims about Ambassador Yovanovitch?
Answer. As I testified at my confirmation hearing, my understanding
is that the Counselor had been given the package by either the
Secretary or someone at the White House. The Counselor then provided
the file to me, and I directed that it be transmitted to the Office of
the Inspector General.
Question. Was it mailed? Hand-delivered?
Answer. I believe it was hand-delivered.
Question. You testified that the packet of disinformation came ``in
response to inquiries by the Secretary and others about what our
ambassador had done.'' What were those inquiries?
Answer. I do not have any additional information beyond my
testimony that he sought factual information about her performance as
ambassador.
Question. Did the Secretary ask people inside the State Department
for information on what Ambassador Yovanovitch ``had done''?
Answer. I do not know. I know the Counselor did.
Question. Did the Secretary ask people outside the State Department
for information on what Ambassador Yovanovitch ``had done''? Who?
Answer. Yes. I am not aware of the names of the people he
consulted.
Question. What is your understanding of what the Secretary was
referring to?
Answer. I understood it to mean any evidence to support removing
our Ambassador to Ukraine.
Question. What had people told him that she ``had done''?
Answer. I do not know, apart from the general assertion that she
did not support the President or his foreign policy.
Question. You testified that you believe that the Counselor, Ulrich
Brechbul, obtained the packet from the White House. What is your
understanding of who from the White House gave it to him?
Answer. As I told the committee, my understanding is that the
Counselor had been given the package by either the Secretary or someone
at the White House. I do not have any additional information.
Question. From whom did you receive the packet?
Answer. As I stated during my hearing, I received it from the
Counselor.
Question. Did you discuss the packet with the Secretary? What
specifically did you discuss about it?
Answer. Yes, I informed the Secretary of my recommendation to have
the packet referred to the OIG for further review.
Question. Did you discuss the packet with Ulrich Brechbul? What
specifically did you discuss about it?
Answer. We discussed that it should be provided to the OIG for
review.
Question. Did you ask the Secretary how he came into possession of
the packet?
Answer. As I stated during my hearing, I was under the impression
he or the Counselor received it from someone at the White House.
Question. You testified that you asked where it came from. What
were you told in response?
Answer. I did not have a clear understanding of the origins of the
materials, which was one of the reasons I referred it to the Office of
the Inspector General.
Question. With who else did you discuss the packet?
Answer. The Office of the Legal Adviser.
Question. Upon receiving it, were you concerned that someone was
seeking to smear Ambassador Yovanovitch?
Answer. I was unsure what the file was and the motivations of those
who created it. Hence, I directed that it be provided to the Office of
the Inspector General for review.
Question. Why did you recommend that the Acting Legal Adviser
provide it to the Inspector General?
Answer. The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) serves as an
independent body to review allegations of potential wrongdoing. As I
stated at the hearing, I was unsure what the file was and the
motivations of those who created it. Hence, I directed that it be
provided to the OIG for review.
Question. You testified that ``you [were]n't aware of all that
might be going on in the background.'' What did you mean?
Answer. I was unsure what the file was and the motivations of those
who created it. Hence, I directed that it be provided to the Office of
the Inspector General for review.
Question. At the time you received the packet, why did you think
that Rudy Giuliani might be involved with the information it contained?
Answer. As I stated at the hearing, I was generally aware of Mr.
Giuliani's concerns about our Ambassador to Ukraine.
Question. Is it your understanding that Giuliani gave the packet to
the Secretary, or that he caused it to be delivered to the Secretary
through the White House? What is your basis for that understanding?
Answer. As I testified, I do not know the provenance of the packet.
Calls with Foreign Leaders
Question. When did you learn of the content of the President's July
25 call with President Zelenksy? What action did you take when you
learned of the July 25 call?
Answer. I learned of the content when it was released by the White
House on September 25. I consulted with my colleagues at the Department
about the continuity of our Ukraine policy, which Secretary Pompeo had
clearly stated was to: provide security and support to Ukraine to push
back against Russian aggression; tackle the challenges of corruption
that have long plagued the country's march towards democracy and the
rule of law; and support energy independence.
Question. Did you communicate, or are you aware of efforts by any
U.S. officials to communicate, to Ukrainian officials the topics that
the President wanted to discuss with President Zelenskyy?
Answer. No.
Question. Have you received transcripts or summaries of all of the
President's calls with foreign leaders?
Answer. No.
Question. Did you receive a transcript or summary of the
President's call with President Zelenskyy?
Answer. No.
Question. Did you receive a transcript or summary of any other
calls between the President and a foreign leader in which he raised his
political opponents?
Answer. No.
Question. Are you aware of any records of communications between
the President and foreign leaders that have not been stored on the
standard White House system for such calls?
Answer. I have no role in, and am not aware of, the White House
storage procedures.
Question. Have you or anyone at the State Department undertaken any
action in response to the statement from President Trump that China
should investigate Hunter Biden to pursue the issue with China or with
any other country?
Answer. No.
Social Media
Question. As a U.S. Ambassador, you are charged with representing
the interests of the American people and communicating the viewpoints
of the U.S. government overseas. This includes on any official social
media profiles you have. As a recent review by the State Department
Inspector General found, a number of Ambassadors have not complied with
the Department's social media policies.
Have you reviewed the Department's policies?
Answer. Yes. In response to the OIG recommendation, the Department
has developed and distributed guidance and illustrative examples of the
types of postings appropriate for official and personal social media
accounts, as well as types of postings that could lead to a violation
of Department policy. Further, the Department is providing employees,
including ambassadors and other senior officials, with regular social
media policy reminders, and is ensuring that social media policies are
adequately addressed during orientation sessions and through regular
training. The Department is finalizing a standard operating procedure
to assess, address, and, if necessary, recommend disciplinary measures
for potential violations of social media policies.
Question. Do you commit to following them going forward?
Answer. Yes.
Question. What are some examples of the types of posts that you
understand would require review by the Department?
Answer. For all Department personnel, any personal capacity public
communications must be reviewed if they are on a topic ``of
Departmental concern.'' The term ``of Departmental concern'' is defined
to mean ``[p]ertaining to current U.S. foreign policy or the
Department's mission (including policies, programs, operations or
activities of the Department of State or USAID), or which reasonably
may be expected to affect the foreign relations of the United States.''
Further, personal accounts and posts on such accounts must not claim to
represent the Department or its policies, or those of the U.S.
government, nor may they use any Department or other U.S. government
seals or logos.
Question. Do you commit to seeking review of any social media posts
on a personal account that could be considered a matter of Departmental
concern?
Answer. Yes, if confirmed, I commit to reviewing all allegations of
potential violations of the Department policy and other applicable
rules.
U.S.-Russia Relations
Question. If confirmed, will you encourage American companies to
attend the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum? Will you attend
the event?
Answer. We support American companies and investors that do
business in Russia, consistent with U.S. law. If confirmed, I will
commit to doing my best to support American companies without
undermining U.S. sanctions policy.
Question. In what ways will the State Department work with the NSC
and other government departments and agencies to address the arbitrary
detention of U.S. citizens who are seemingly being arrested for the
purpose of sanctions relief or prisoner trades?
Answer. The safety and welfare of U.S. citizens abroad is of the
utmost importance to the Department of State and the entire U.S.
government. The Department takes seriously its responsibility to assist
U.S. citizens who are incarcerated or detained abroad, promote their
fair treatment and a fair and transparent judicial process. If
confirmed, I will work with all relevant parts of the U.S. government
to protect and assist U.S. citizens.
Question. What actions will you take to secure Paul Whelan's
release? What policy options has the United States put on the table in
order to secure his release? Would you consider imposing targeted
sanctions if Paul Whelan is not released in a timely manner?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I will continue to press the Russian
government to either release Mr. Whelan or provide a fair public trial
for him, including an immediate fair and public hearing without undue
delay. The Embassy will also continue to monitor Mr. Whelan's case
closely and press for fair and humane treatment, unrestricted consular
access, access to appropriate medical care, and due process. I will
continue to raise these concerns with the Russian government, if
confirmed.
Question. Why was Maria Butina released early? In your response,
please do not refer me to the Department of Justice for an answer.
Answer. Maria Butina served the sentence imposed on her by a
federal court, as consistent with relevant federal law. She was then
deported to Russia.
Arms Control and Nonproliferation
Question. Russia remains the only country whose nuclear forces pose
an existential threat to the United States. One of the ways the United
States has sought to manage this threat is through arms control
agreements by limiting the size and capabilities of Russian nuclear
forces. These agreements also have sought to provide transparency and
stability to our nuclear relations with Russia to ensure we avoid a
catastrophic nuclear miscalculation by either side. I'm extremely
concerned the administration discounts the vital importance of arms
control to U.S. national security and is on course to allow the New
START Treaty to expire in February 2021.
Do you believe it is in the national security interests of the
United States to continue legally binding arms control efforts
with Russia?
Answer. Yes. The United States remains committed to effective arms
control that advances U.S., Allied, and partner security; is verifiable
and enforceable; and includes partners that comply responsibly with
their obligations. President Trump has charged this administration with
beginning a new chapter by seeking a new era of arms control that moves
beyond the bilateral treaties of the past. Going forward, the United
States calls upon Russia and China to join us in this opportunity to
deliver real security results to our nations and the entire world.
Question. Assuming Russia is in compliance with the New START
Treaty do you support a five year extension of it?
Answer. The administration has not yet made a decision about a
potential extension of the New START Treaty. Central to the U.S. review
of potential New START extension is whether an extension is in the U.S.
national interest, and how the Treaty's expiration would affect U.S.,
Allied, and partner security in an evolving security environment.
Question. The administration has stated it is seeking a new arms
control agreement with Russia and China that include a range of new and
complex issues. Who within the State Department is leading these
efforts since all of the senior arms control positions at the State
Department are now empty?
Answer. As Secretary Pompeo has said, ``We will continue to work to
allow the Treaty to be verified exactly as the verification regime
exists. As for its extension, we have agreed that we will gather
together teams to begin work not only on New START and its potential
extension, but also on a broader range of arms control issues that each
of our two nations have a vested interest in achieving an agreement
on.'' We have a talented group of State Department professionals and
senior leaders who continue to implement the President's policies.
Question. Do you believe if New START expires, and all limitations
on Russian strategic nuclear forces disappear, that Russia will
increase its strategic nuclear forces? Will changes to the U.S. nuclear
posture be necessary if New START disappears in 16 months? Wouldn't
these changes require significant additional funding for U.S. nuclear
forces?
Answer. While the United States has continued to reduce the number
and salience of nuclear weapons, others, including Russia and China,
have moved in the opposite direction. They have added new types of
nuclear capabilities to their arsenals, increased the salience of
nuclear forces in their strategies and plans, and engaged in
increasingly aggressive behavior, including in outer space and cyber
space. Russia and China must be brought to the arms control table as we
evaluate how our arms control agreements contribute to U.S. defense and
deterrence requirements, as well as those of Allies and partners.
Question. According to various reports, the administration is
planning to withdraw from the Open Skies Treaty. It appears the
administration is willing to take this step with zero consultation with
Congress or U.S. allies. The Open Skies Treaty is an important
multilateral arms control agreement and withdrawing would be yet
another gift from the Trump administration to Putin. It has been an
essential tool for United States efforts to constrain Russian
aggression in Ukraine. In December of 2018, the United States conducted
an extraordinary flight under Open Skies that the Department of Defense
stated was ``intended to reaffirm U.S. commitment to Ukraine and other
partner nations.?'' Has President Trump made a decision to withdraw the
United States from the Open Skies Treaty? Yes or No. Was the State
Department or the Defense Department consulted before a decision to
withdraw was taken?
Answer. No. The United States has not withdrawn from the Treaty on
Open Skies, and the United States continues to implement this Treaty. A
number of Allies have told us they value the Treaty and view it as a
key instrument for gathering information on Russian military formations
and troop deployments. We continue to work with our Allies and partners
on all Treaty related compliance and implementation issues related to
the Open Skies Treaty.
Question. We have spoken with numerous NATO allies who informed us
they deeply value the Open Skies Treaty and that a decision by the
United States to withdrawal would adversely impact their security? Did
the administration consult with allies before coming to this decision?
Answer. The United States has not withdrawn from the Treaty on Open
Skies, and the United States continues to implement this Treaty. A
number of Allies have told us they value the Treaty and view it as a
key instrument for gathering information on Russian military formations
and troop deployments. We continue to work with our Allies and partners
on all compliance and implementation issues related to the Open Skies
Treaty.
Question. What is the reasoning behind leaving Open Skies? How will
abrogating Open Skies affect U.S. security?
Answer. The United States has not withdrawn from the Treaty on Open
Skies, and the United States continues to implement this Treaty. We
continue to work with our Allies and partners on all compliance and
implementation issues related to the Open Skies Treaty.
Russia in Africa
Question. The administration's Africa strategy emphasizes Great
Power competition across the continent. As exemplified by the recent
Russia-Africa summit in Sochi, Russia is taking concrete steps to
expanding its power and influence. At the summit's opening President
Vladimir Putin pledged to double trade ties with the continent over the
next 5 years. Putin also signaled interest in natural resources,
promoting African partnerships with Russian natural gas and mineral
resource companies, even meeting individually with several leaders to
discuss potential projects. After the summit, the Central African
Republic's (CAR) President stated that his country is considering
hosting a Russian military base, and he would like Moscow to supply CAR
with new weapons.
What is your understanding of Russia's goals and aims for expanding
influence in Africa? If confirmed, how can you help shape the
administration's strategy for mitigating Russian influence
across the African continent?
Answer. U.S. interests require countering Russian efforts to
undermine the post-Cold War global order, including in Africa. The
Kremlin's aggressive and opportunistic approach to foreign policy seeks
global attention by inserting itself or its proxies to undermine
Western efforts at stability, or by offering its false model of
``sovereign democracy'' as an alternative to transparent democratic
institutions and processes. Russia views its outreach to African
countries as an avenue to break out of the international isolation
generated by its ongoing aggression against Ukraine and gain support in
international fora, including the U.N. and the Organization for the
Prevention of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). If confirmed, I will work with
all relevant U.S. government partners and agencies to support a
strategy to counter this malign activity.
A Russian national is a security adviser to CAR's President,
Faustin-Archange Touadera and there are reports indicating that
Russia's defense ministry intends to establish a five-person team at
CAR's defense ministry. Russia has supplied arms to the CAR government,
and the Russian private military contractor Wagner is present in the
country.
Question. What arms and material has the Russian government
supplied to CAR? What is your understanding of the nature and purpose
of Wagner's role in the Central African Republic? How many personnel do
they have in country? To your knowledge, did Wagner play a role in the
2018 murder of three Russian journalists in Central African Republic?
Do you see Wagner's role in CAR as positive?
Answer. The United States has serious concerns about Russian
efforts to bolster its influence in Africa through arms sales and the
use of private military companies (PMCs) and proxy forces, such as the
U.S.-sanctioned Wagner, as exemplified in the Central African Republic
(CAR). Malign activities such as these run counter to U.S. interests
and undermine democratic development on the African continent. We are
aware that Russia has supplied small arms and other military equipment
to CAR. If confirmed, I will press Russia to work transparently and
constructively with the international community to advance peace,
security, and good governance in CAR.
Question. If confirmed, what concrete actions will you take to
ensure transparency in Russia's activities in CAR?
Answer. If confirmed, I will press Russia to work transparently and
constructively with the international community to advance peace,
security, and good governance in CAR.
Question. Assistant Secretary Tibor Nagy was quoted in a recent
news article as stating that ``there is space for other countries to
play a positive role in the [African] region.'' What positive role is
Russia currently playing in Africa? What positive role could it play,
and what specifically will you do if confirmed to ensure that Russia's
role in Africa is positive?
Answer. Russia's ongoing malign activities in Africa, including
arms sales, the use of private military companies (PMCs) and proxy
forces, as well as corrupt economic practices, play a negative role and
undermine democratic development on the continent. While Russia
purports to be a major actor in Africa, its role remains relatively
modest. If confirmed, I will press the Russian government to be
transparent regarding its activities in Africa.
Question. Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report into Russian
meddling in the 2016 Presidential elections noted that the Kremlin
engaged in a concerted effort to upend the U.S. elections using social
media and cyberattacks. To your knowledge did or does the Kremlin have
similar plans to affect the outcome of African elections? If so, what
impact did these efforts have? Does the Kremlin have a broader malign
strategy to undermine democracy in Africa? What steps will you take as
Ambassador if confirmed to discourage malign efforts by the Kremlin to
impact the expansion of democracy in Africa?
Answer. The Kremlin's aggressive and opportunistic approach to
foreign policy seeks global attention by inserting itself or its
proxies to undermine Western efforts at stability, or by offering its
false model of ``sovereign democracy'' as an alternative to transparent
democratic institutions and processes. The United States has serious
concerns about Russian efforts to bolster its influence in Africa
through covert, corrupt, and coercive means, including electoral
interference. Malign activities such as these run counter to U.S.
interests and undermine democratic development on the African
continent. If confirmed, I will support continued efforts to counter
vigorously this destabilizing Russian activity.Russia in the Middle
EastThe administration's recent withdrawal from northern Syria has put
Vladimir Putin firmly in the driver's seat in Syria and helped to
reestablish Russia as a significant powerbroker in the Middle East. In
Syria, Russia has bombed civilians in order to allow Bashar al-Assad to
continue to rule over the rubble. In Libya, Russia has sided with
ostensible U.S. allies like Egypt and the UAE to support General
Heftar's destructive offensive in Tripoli against the international
recognized government of National Accord. Throughout the region, Putin
has cut energy and weapons deals, often in defiance of Congressional
sanctions that this administration appears unwilling to enforce.
Question. What are Russia's goals in the Middle East? What
countries in the region do you see as priorities for Russia and in what
countries should the U.S. prioritize pushing back on Russian influence?
Answer. Russia seeks to extend its influence in the Middle East and
undermine U.S. credibility, partnerships, and interests. Russia has not
shown a willingness, let alone a capability, to organize a collective
effort to confront a regional security threat. Russia has sought to
play both sides in conflicts across the region to advance its narrow
interests. The U.S. vision for the region stands in sharp contrast to
the transactional relationships offered by Russia. The United States
has a long track-record of working to bring peace, stability, and
prosperity to the Middle East. We defend our allies, we are committed
to economic growth that provides jobs and prosperity in the United
States and around the world, and we value individual freedom and
democracy.
Question. What steps is the U.S. taking to counter Russian
influence in the Middle East? What further steps should the U.S. take?
Answer. Russia seeks to extend its influence in the Middle East and
undermine U.S. credibility, partnerships, and interests. Russia has not
shown a willingness, let alone a capability, to organize a collective
effort to confront a regional security threat. Russia has sought to
play both sides in conflicts across the region to advance its narrow
interests. Our vision for the region stands in sharp contrast to the
transactional relationships offered by Russia. The United States has a
long record of working to bring peace, stability, and prosperity to the
Middle East. We defend our allies, we are committed to economic growth
that provides jobs and prosperity in the United States and around the
world, and we value individual freedom and democracy.
Question. If confirmed, what steps will you take to counter Russian
influence in the Middle East?
Answer. We will counter Russian influence in the Middle East by
continuing to demonstrate that the United States remains the partner of
choice to address the region's most pressing challenges. We will work
to counter Russian disinformation that distorts the unhelpful role
Russia plays in prolonging regional conflicts. In Syria, we will
continue to call out Russia for its support of the murderous Assad
regime. In Libya, Russia's use of so-called ``private'' military forces
is plain to see. In the Gulf, Russia has reincarnated a failed 20-year
old concept to divert attention from more effective efforts such as our
International Maritime Security Construct. We have yet to see Russia
take a principled stand on human rights in the region.
Question. Do you believe that Russia is capable of or politically
willing to reduce Iranian influence in Syria?
Answer. Both Russia and Iran provide military and political support
to the Syrian regime. While Russia and Iran's goals in Syria are not
identical, we do not assess that Russia is seeking to limit Iran's
influence in Syria.
Question. Russia remains a key party to the JCPOA and has made
clear its opposition to the maximum pressure campaign against Iran and
has been muted in its condemnation of Iranian backsliding in the deal.
What common interests does Russia share with the U.S. regarding Iran?
What role will you play in engaging with Russia regarding Iran and the
JCPOA?
Answer. Although we have a shared interest with Russia in ensuring
that Iran does not have nuclear weapons, Russia has generally been
obstructionist in holding Iran accountable for both its JCPOA and NPT
commitments. Every nation, including Russia, has an interest in
preventing a nuclear Iran. If confirmed, I will play a supporting role
to the Secretary and Special Representative Hook in implementing our
Iran policy.
Question. Russia continues to push weapons systems and arms sales
with various Middle East countries. What specific steps will you take
to address this concern and potential threat to U.S. interests in the
region?
Answer. We take reports of purchases of major Russian weapons
systems seriously and engage with host governments on the matter. The
Department does not pre-judge such sales before money is exchanged. If
the Department identifies a potentially significant transaction for
purposes of Section 231, it would review the specific facts of the case
with these factors in mind. If a country is contemplating purchasing a
major Russian system, we have frank discussions with the host
government about the consequences of such sales. We have informed all
countries about CAATSA implications for significant Russian arms
purchases, and wherever possible we encourage partners to opt for
systems from alternate suppliers that will meet their needs.
Question. What message does it send to other countries in the
Middle East that the United States has yet to fully implement CAATSA
sanctions against Turkey for its purchase of the S400 Air Defense
system?
Answer. The administration is deeply concerned by the delivery of
S-400 systems to Turkey, as demonstrated by our swift decision to
suspend Turkey from the F-35 program. Our deliberative process on
CAATSA sanctions is ongoing, and we are committed to implementing
CAATSA. Our message to all our allies and partners around the world
remains the same: avoid transactions with Russia's defense and
intelligence sectors that could result in sanctions pursuant to CAATSA
Section 231. As a result, Russia has lost billions of dollars' worth of
deals.
Humanitarian Situation in Northeastern Syria
Question. What steps is the administration/State Department taking
to mitigate the humanitarian catastrophe in Northeast Syria?
Answer. The State Department and USAID are committed to providing
humanitarian assistance to the most vulnerable Syrians in need,
regardless of territorial control. Some humanitarian partners,
including U.N. partners, are currently operating in Syrian government-
controlled areas. Relief organizations that maintain registration with
the government of Turkey are able to provide humanitarian assistance to
some parts of Syria through Turkey but face many administrative
barriers that limit assistance. Seeking registration and permissions to
operate in areas controlled by either government is a significant
challenge and the types of assistance permitted are often limited.
Question. As Russian and Syrian forces take control of territory,
there are thousands of Syrian aid workers under immediate threat of
harassment, harm, arrest, conscription or worse. Will the USG ensure
that funding for the humanitarian response inside Syria be made
flexible to cover the costs of evacuation and relocation of these
vulnerable Syrians who have supported U.S. efforts and interests? What
is the diplomatic strategy for ensuring humanitarian access to those in
need in NE Syria via the most direct routes, including cross-border
mechanisms authorized under UNSC Resolution 2449?
Answer. The U.S. government is committed to providing humanitarian
assistance to the most vulnerable Syrians in need, regardless of
territorial control, and many of our partners continue to provide
assistance in the northeast, in whole or in part, where security
allows. We work with partners to ensure flexibility and the protection
and safety of their international and national staff. Shifts in lines
of control and entities providing administrative control could impact
the ability of organizations to provide humanitarian assistance. The
U.S. government strongly supports the renewal of UNSCR 2165 which
authorizes the use of four border crossings for relief operations. Both
State/PRM and USAID offer Duty of Care financial assistance for this
very purpose.
Crackdown on Activism in Russia
Question. Please discuss your understanding of U.S visa policy
toward pro-democracy activists from Russia, in light of the fact that
many have been criminally convicted by the Russian state as a result of
their activism (with criminal charges and facts often fabricated or
grossly exaggerated) and the fact that many are not employed, again due
to their activism.
Answer. Democracy activists are always welcome to apply for visas
and, by law, are not refused due to conviction for purely political
offenses. Consular officers adjudicate visas consistent with the
Immigration and Nationality Act and the CFR, which explicitly exempt
``offenses that resulted in convictions obviously based on fabricated
charges or predicated upon repressive measures against racial,
religious, or political minorities.'' By U.S. law and Department
policy, any visa applicant convicted of any crime is given the
opportunity to explain the circumstances of the conviction during a
visa interview.
Question. Would you support the use of Global Magnitsky sanctions
against judges, law enforcement investigators, and prosecutors who
actively engage in the fabrication of cases and the criminal
prosecution of pro-democracy protestors, and of the parents of youth
protestors, often based on false or extremely exacerbated charges?
Answer. The Global Magnitsky Act empowers the United States to take
significant steps to protect and promote human rights and combat
corruption around the world. If confirmed, I will work with all
relevant interagency partners to implement Global Magnitsky in
accordance with U.S. law, including against those who would use
fabricated evidence or false charges against innocent protestors or
activists.
Question. If confirmed, how would you work as Ambassador with the
U.S. State Department and the administration to increase pressure on
the Kremlin to release the now more than 300 political prisoners held
in the Russian Federation?
Answer. I share Congressional concerns about the deteriorating
human rights situation in Russia and, if confirmed, I will speak out
about the growing number of political prisoners, the erosion of
fundamental freedoms, crackdowns on demonstrations, and other concerns.
Political prisoners in Russia are reportedly placed in particularly
harsh conditions of confinement and subjected to other punitive
treatment within the prison system, such as solitary confinement or
punitive stays in psychiatric units. If confirmed, I will work to hold
violators of human rights accountable, including by using sanctions and
visa restrictions, where we are able to identify conduct that meets the
required legal thresholds.
Question. In early October, U.N. Secretary General Guterres sent a
letter to all Member States raising the alarm about the financial
situation of the U.N. and calling on States to pay their dues as soon
as possible. Due to the U.N.'s financial crisis, the Secretary General
has already suspended non-essential travel, stopped hiring, and
cancelled or deferred some meetings. The letter indicated that unless
States pay up, the U.N. may be unable to cover salaries beginning in
November. As of October 30, 2019, has the U.S. paid all its assessed
dues to the U.N. in full? If not, please detail what funding is
outstanding, why the funding has not yet been obligated, and when the
Department expects those funds to be paid.
Answer. The Department paid $180 million toward the calendar year
2019 U.S. assessment for the U.N. regular budget in mid-October. A
balance of $494 million remains outstanding. The Department is in the
process of seeking additional funds beyond those available under the
current continuing resolution, in order to pay an additional $200
million in late November.
The Department has paid $634 million in U.N. peacekeeping
assessments this year. Taking into account the application of $27
million in credits from prior-year contributions, a balance of $1.6
billion in current-year U.S. assessments remains outstanding. The
Department will be paying these assessments at the rate of the 25
percent cap on peacekeeping assessments later this fall.
Question. What steps should the Department take to ensure that it
pays its U.N. bills in full and on time?
Answer. Paying the U.N. regular budget assessment in full and on
time would require reversing the long-standing practice of deferring
payments for the regular budget until the following fiscal year. That
practice has been in place since the early 1980s. The Department paid
$180 million toward the calendar year 2019 U.S. assessment for the U.N.
regular budget in mid-October. A balance of $494 million remains
outstanding. The Department is in the process of seeking additional
funds beyond those available under the current continuing resolution,
in order to pay an additional $200 million in late November.
The Department is taking steps to pay U.N. peacekeeping assessments
on a more timely basis. Paying peacekeeping assessments in full would
require either: (a) reducing the actual peacekeeping assessment rate
from the current 27.9 percent to 25 percent; or (b) reaching agreement
to lift the 25 percent legislative cap on U.S. peacekeeping
assessments. The Department has paid $634 million in U.N. peacekeeping
assessments this year. Taking into account the application of $27
million in credits from prior-year contributions, a balance of $1.6
billion in current-year U.S. assessments remains outstanding. The
Department will be paying these assessments at the rate of 25 percent
later this fall.
Foreign Assistance
Question. Do you believe that it is in the U.S. interest to provide
development assistance supporting activities that improve economic
growth and opportunity, stability, wellness, and security? Do you
believe the cuts to foreign assistance the administration has
consistently proposed for fiscal years 2018, 2019, and 2020, if
enacted, would improve the effectiveness U.S. foreign assistance?
Answer. Yes, I support the administration's budget requests.
Foreign Assistance can be an effective tool, when deployed correctly
and used in concert with diplomacy, to accomplish administration
priorities and advance U.S. national security objectives. I look
forward to continuing to support the effective and efficient use of
every tax dollar appropriated by Congress.
Question. During the President's 2018 State of the Union speech and
again at the U.N. General Assembly in the Fall of last year, the
President made the statement that the U.S. should only provide
assistance ``to our friends.'' What is the policy realizing these
statements? Who is, and is not, considered ``our friends''? What role
have you played in developing and implementing this policy? Do you
believe that this sort of transactional politics serve as the basis for
determining where and to whom receives U.S. foreign assistance?
Answer. With limited resources, it is important to focus our
foreign assistance where we can have the greatest impact. And there has
been an ongoing foreign assistance review to achieve that goal.
Question. Can you explain the policy and process that led to the
administration's decision to suspend most foreign assistance to
Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador? Would you please also provide the
data that supports or recommends withholding or suspending foreign
assistance as effective means towards reducing migration from these
countries?
Answer. The President directed the Secretary and the Department to
reprogram certain aid that would have gone to El Salvador, Guatemala,
and Honduras to send a message that these governments must demonstrate
the political will to do more to address outward migration. The
Secretary also decided to condition further action on some Fiscal Year
2017 foreign assistance funds until the Department is satisfied that
these countries are taking sufficient action to reduce the number of
migrants coming to the U.S. border. Reductions in apprehensions of
illegal immigrants at our southern border and the recently signed
Asylum Cooperation Agreements (ACAs) are testament to the effectiveness
of this policy. Some of the foreign assistance to these countries was
resumed on October 16, 2019.
Question. What are the goals and objectives that administration
expects to accomplish through the suspension of foreign assistance to
Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador? Would you please include how these
goals and objectives apply to any decision to maintain, carryover, or
instate a suspension on foreign assistance to these countries for
fiscal year 2020 and beyond?
Answer. Earlier this year, consistent with the President's
direction, the Department reprogrammed foreign assistance previously
planned for these countries to persuade them to do more to stop illegal
immigration through our southern border. Reductions in apprehensions of
illegal immigrants at our southern border and the recently signed
Asylum Cooperation Agreements (ACAs) are testament to the success of
this policy. On October 16, the Department informed Congress of our
intent to move forward with some targeted U.S. foreign assistance for
El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras aimed at advancing our joint
efforts to deter illegal immigration from these countries.
Question. What role have you played in the decision to suspend most
foreign assistance to El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala?
Answer. I worked with the Director of the Office of Foreign
Assistance to implement the President's decision to reprogram most
foreign assistance to these countries.
Question. What guidance is the State Department giving the USAID
missions to El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala on how to plan for the
year ahead while the status and availability of the resources remains
in question?
Answer. The progress these countries have made toward our mutual
goals is a step in the right direction. These programs will complement
our joint security plans for each government; augment private sector
efforts to create economic opportunity; promote the rule of law,
institution building, and good governance; and help these countries
develop their capacities to implement the recently signed agreements to
build stronger local asylum systems. The Department and USAID look
forward to working with Congress in support of foreign assistance
programs that aim to decrease outward migration and improve U.S.
national security.
Climate Security
Question. Do you believe the effects of climate change present
challenges to U.S. national security that must be accounted for?
Answer. I have no reason to take issue with the 2018 Worldwide
Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community, which identifies
the impacts of climate change, among other factors, as likely to fuel
economic and social discontent, and notes that extreme weather events
in a warmer world have the potential for greater impacts and compound
with other drivers to raise risks. National security agencies analyze
and take into account all information and factors that could affect
national security.
Question. Are you aware of efforts, led by the White House
(particularly those led by former Senior national security advisor Dr.
William Happer, to question or reevaluate the significance of and
utilization of climate science in U.S. national security planning?
Answer. I am not. I am also not in a position to comment on
internal policy deliberations at the White House, including
participation and topics of discussions.
Question. What role, if any, did you have in decisions and
implementation of policies to diminish the consideration, or question
the validity, of applying consensus climate science to national
security planning? Have you expressed concerns, or opposed, any of the
administration's efforts to diminish the utilization and application of
climate science in national security planning?
Answer. I have no reason to take issue with the 2018 Worldwide
Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community, which identifies
the impacts of climate change, among other factors, as likely to fuel
economic and social discontent, and notes that extreme weather events
in a warmer world have the potential for greater impacts and compound
with other drivers to raise risks. National security agencies analyze
and take into account all information and factors that could affect
national security.
Paris Agreement
Question. Do you believe it is in the U.S. national interest to be
the only country not party to the Paris Agreement on Climate Change?
How are U.S. interests' better served as a non-party to the Paris
Agreement?
Answer. When the President announced his intention to withdraw from
the Paris Agreement absent the identification of better terms for the
American people, he emphasized concerns that the United States had
pledged to do much more to reduce emissions under the Agreement than
major U.S. economic competitors, and that the United States would put
itself at an economic disadvantage. As a Party to the UNFCCC and in
other fora, the Department continues to work to ensure that the United
States remains engaged in international negotiations and discussions on
the issue of climate change to advance and protect U.S. interests.
Question. How is the United States, when (or if) it becomes a non-
party to Paris Agreement, is insulated or shielded from decisions and
actions achieved by the parties to Paris Agreement that effect the
global economy?
Answer. The United States is proud of our record as a world leader
in reducing all emissions and fostering resilience at home and abroad.
The Department will remain a Party to the U.N. Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC), and will continue to participate in
international climate negotiations to ensure a level playing field and
to protect U.S. economic and environmental interests. The United
States' approach to environmental protection serves U.S. interests and
has unburdened communities, individuals, and industries to develop and
implement policies that fit their needs. This approach leverages the
ingenuity of our citizens and businesses to protect the environment,
ensure our energy security, and grow our economy.
When the President announced his intentions to withdraw the U.S.
from the Paris Agreement on June 1, 2017 he mentioned his intention to
take a number of alternative and related actions to the U.S.'s
withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. In your role as Deputy Secretary
of State can you please provide answers, to the best of your knowledge,
to the following:
Question. What progress has been made by the President to ``start
to negotiate, and we will see if we can make a deal that's fair''? What
involvement and work has the State Department done towards developing a
new ``fair'' ``deal''? What efforts has the White House made to ``to
immediately work with Democrats to either negotiate our way back into
Paris''? Have you received any instruction, or taken any initiative to
deliver on this objective as mentioned by the President?
Answer. The U.S. position with respect to the Paris Agreement has
not changed. I am not in a position to comment on internal policy
deliberations and I would have to refer you to the NSC for more
specific information in response to those questions.
Question. What is the timeline for delivering outcomes on either of
these intended actions?
Answer. The U.S. position with respect to the Paris Agreement has
not changed. I am not in a position to comment on internal policy
deliberations and I would have to refer you to the NSC for more
specific information in response to those questions.
El Salvador
Question. What was the strategic reason and rationale for
suspending and reprogramming U.S. foreign assistance to El Salvador?
Answer. The President directed the Secretary and the Department to
reprogram certain aid that would have gone to El Salvador to send a
message that the government must do more to address outward migration.
The Secretary further decided to condition further action on some
Fiscal Year 2017 foreign assistance funds until the Department is
satisfied El Salvador is taking sufficient action to reduce the number
of migrants coming to the U.S. border. On October 16, the President
decided to resume certain foreign assistance to El Salvador due to the
successful efforts of that government in reducing illegal migration to
the United States.
Question. Can you tell us when you were informed of the President's
decision to suspend and reprogram U.S. foreign assistance to El
Salvador?
Answer. On March 29, 2019.
Question. Were you informed of this decision prior to the
president's announcement?
Answer. No, I was not personally informed prior to the decision.
Once the decision was made, I supported State Department colleagues in
implementing it.
Question. What steps did you personally take to carry out this
decision?
Answer. Along with the Secretary, I instructed the Department to
carry out the President's decision. I also personally engaged the House
Appropriations Committee about the status of the assistance to these
countries.
Question. What steps did you personally take in the decision to
partially reinstate foreign assistance to El Salvador?
Answer. At the President's direction on October 13, I worked with
the relevant offices in the Department and USAID to move forward with
targeted assistance to El Salvador.
Question. What evaluation did the State Department conduct about
the repercussions to U.S. national interests and national security of
suspending and reprogramming U.S. foreign assistance to El Salvador?
When did such an evaluation start and when did it finish? What were the
findings of any such evaluation?
Answer. In April 2019, the Secretary initiated a review of all
Department of State and United States Agency for International
Development (USAID) Fiscal Year 2017 foreign assistance funding for
current agreements and awards for El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.
This complex review encompassed $617 million in planned assistance
spanning 707 individual programs and activities for these countries.
The review focused on costs that would be incurred by shutting down
existing activities. As a result of the review, the Secretary decided
in June 2019 that Fiscal Year 2017 funds previously awarded via grants
and contracts to implementing partners, would continue. These
activities total approximately $450 million.
Question. What specific steps does the United States want El
Salvador to take prior to obligating new U.S. foreign assistance for El
Salvador? Has El Salvador taken any such steps? What is the potential
timeline for reinstating U.S. foreign assistance to El Salvador?
Answer. The President and the Secretary expect the government of El
Salvador to take clear action to stem irregular migration to the United
States, such as combatting migrant smuggling and human trafficking
rings, enhancing border security, dissuading its citizens from
illegally immigrating, and receiving and reintegrating its returned
citizens. The Department works with DHS to monitor migration flows in
the region and actions by the government of El Salvador to reduce
irregular immigration. El Salvador has taken important steps, including
signing an Asylum Cooperation Agreement. Because of this successful
approach, the President on October 16 reinstated targeted foreign
assistance to support such actions.
Question. To your knowledge, is the government of El Salvador
speaking with any other foreign donors or investors-including, but not
limited to the government of China- to offset the impact of the U.S.
cuts during this period in which we have suspended foreign assistance?
Answer. No, not to my knowledge. Nonetheless, increasing engagement
by China and Russia in the region poses a nascent but serious challenge
to U.S. national security interests. We actively engage governments on
both the risks posed by problematic Chinese assistance as well as the
opportunities presented by working with democratic development partners
that bring international quality standards, transparency, and respect
for human rights. These alternatives include the United States, Japan,
South Korea, Taiwan, and multilateral development finance institutions
such as the Inter-American Development Bank.Guatemala
Question. What was the strategic reason and rationale for
suspending and reprogramming U.S. foreign assistance to Guatemala?
Answer. The President directed the Secretary and the Department to
reprogram certain aid that would have gone to Guatemala to send a
message that the government must do more to address outward migration.
The Secretary further decided to condition further action on some
Fiscal Year 2017 foreign assistance funds until the Department is
satisfied Guatemala is taking sufficient action to reduce the number of
migrants coming to the U.S. border. On October 16, the President
decided to resume certain foreign assistance to Guatemala due to the
successful efforts of the government in reducing illegal migration to
the United States.
Question. Can you tell us when you were informed of the President's
decision to suspend and reprogram U.S. foreign assistance to Guatemala?
Answer. On March 29, 2019.
Question. Were you informed of this decision prior to the
president's announcement?
Answer. No, I was not personally informed prior to the decision.
Once the decision was made, I supported State Department colleagues in
implementing it.
Question. What steps did you personally take to carry out this
decision?
Answer. Along with the Secretary, I instructed the Department to
carry out the President's decision. I also personally engaged the House
Appropriations Committee about the status of the assistance to these
countries.
Question. What evaluation did the State Department conduct about
the repercussions to U.S. national interests and national security of
suspending and reprogramming U.S. foreign assistance to Guatemala? When
did such an evaluation start and when did it finish? What were the
findings of any such evaluation?
Answer. In April 2019, the Secretary initiated a review of all
Department of State and United States Agency for International
Development (USAID) Fiscal Year 2017 foreign assistance funding for
current agreements and awards for Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras.
This complex review encompassed $617 million in planned assistance
spanning 707 individual programs and activities for these countries.
The review focused on costs that would be incurred by shutting down
existing activities. As a result of the review, the Secretary decided
in June 2019 that Fiscal Year 2017 funds previously awarded via grants
and contracts to implementing partners, would continue. These
activities total approximately $450 million.
Question. What specific steps does the United States want Guatemala
to take prior to obligating new U.S. foreign assistance for Guatemala?
Has Guatemala taken any such steps? What is the potential timeline for
reinstating U.S. foreign assistance to Guatemala?
Answer. The President and the Secretary expect the government of
Guatemala to take clear action to stem irregular migration to the
United States, such as combatting migrant smuggling and human
trafficking rings, enhancing border security, dissuading its citizens
from illegally immigrating, and receiving and reintegrating its
returned citizens. We work with DHS to monitor migration flows in the
region and actions by the government of Guatemala to reduce irregular
immigration. Guatemala has taken important steps, including signing an
Asylum Cooperation Agreement. Because of this successful approach, the
President on October 16 reinstated targeted foreign assistance to
support such actions.
Question. Is the government of Guatemala speaking with any other
foreign governments-including, but not limited to the government of
China-to offset the impact of the U.S. cuts during this period in which
we have suspended foreign assistance?
Answer. No, not to my knowledge. Nonetheless, increasing engagement
by China and Russia in the region poses a nascent but serious challenge
to U.S. national security interests. We actively engage governments on
both the risks posed by problematic Chinese assistance as well as the
opportunities presented by working with democratic development partners
that bring international quality standards, transparency, and respect
for human rights. These alternatives include the United States, Japan,
South Korea, Taiwan, and multilateral development finance institutions
such as the Inter-American Development Bank.
Honduras
Question. What was the strategic reason and rationale for
suspending and reprogramming U.S. foreign assistance to Honduras?
Answer. The President directed the Secretary and the Department to
reprogram certain aid that would have gone to Honduras to send a
message that the government must do more to address outward migration.
The Secretary further decided to condition further action on some
Fiscal Year 2017 foreign assistance funds until the Department is
satisfied Honduras is taking sufficient action to reduce the number of
migrants coming to the U.S. border. On October 16, the President
decided to resume certain foreign assistance to Honduras due to the
successful efforts of the government in reducing illegal migration to
the United States.
Question. Can you tell us when you were informed of the President's
decision to suspend and reprogram U.S. foreign assistance to Honduras?
Answer. On March 29, 2019.
Question. Were you informed of this decision prior to the
president's announcement?
Answer. No, I was not personally informed prior to the decision.
Once the decision was made, I supported State Department colleagues in
implementing it.
Question. What steps did you personally take to carry out this
decision?
Answer. Along with the Secretary, I instructed the Department to
carry out the President's decision. I also personally engaged the House
Appropriations Committee about the status of the assistance to these
countries.
Question. What evaluation did the State Department conduct about
the repercussions to U.S. national interests and national security of
suspending and reprogramming U.S. foreign assistance to Honduras? When
did such an evaluation start and when did it finish? What were the
findings of any such evaluation?
Answer. In April 2019, the Secretary initiated a review of all
Department of State and United States Agency for International
Development (USAID) Fiscal Year 2017 foreign assistance funding for
current agreements and awards for Honduras, El Salvador, and Honduras.
This complex review encompassed $617 million in planned assistance
spanning 707 individual programs and activities for these countries.
The review focused on costs that would be incurred by shutting down
existing activities. As a result of the review, the Secretary decided
in June 2019 that Fiscal Year 2017 funds previously awarded via grants
and contracts to implementing partners, would continue. These
activities total approximately $450 million.
Question. What specific steps does the United States want Honduras
to take prior to obligating new U.S. foreign assistance for Honduras?
Has Honduras taken any such steps? What is the potential timeline for
reinstating U.S. foreign assistance to Honduras?
Answer. The President and the Secretary expect the government of
Honduras to take clear action to stem irregular migration to the United
States, such as combatting migrant smuggling and human trafficking
rings, enhancing border security, dissuading its citizens from
illegally immigrating, and receiving and reintegrating its returned
citizens. We are working with DHS to monitor migration flows in the
region and actions by the government of Honduras to reduce irregular
immigration. Honduras has taken important steps, including signing an
Asylum Cooperation Agreement. Because of this successful approach, the
President on October 16 reinstated targeted foreign assistance to
support such actions.
Question. Is the government of Honduras speaking with any other
foreign governments-including, but not limited to the government of
China-to offset the impact of the U.S. cuts during this period in which
we have suspended foreign assistance?
Answer. No, not to my knowledge. Nonetheless, increasing engagement
by China and Russia in the region poses a nascent but serious challenge
to U.S. national security interests. The Department actively engages
governments on both the risks posed by problematic Chinese assistance
as well as the opportunities presented by working with democratic
development partners that bring international quality standards,
transparency, and respect for human rights. These alternatives include
the United States, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and multilateral
development finance institutions such as the Inter-American Development
Bank.
U.S.-Mexico Joint Declaration and Supplemental Agreement
Question. On August 7, 2019 I sent a letter to the Secretary
regarding the U.S.-Mexico Joint Declaration and Supp. Agreement. To
date, I have not received a fulsome, accurate, and transparent written
response to each question as requested. I have also received the
following statements conveyed by the Department to the committee in
response to questions originally submitted to the Department on June 8,
2019:
``We can confirm that we regard the Joint Declaration with Mexico
to be an authoritative political agreement that both
governments will implement in good faith.''--email from the
Bureau of Legislative Affairs (C. Donnelly) to SFRC staff,
dated July 12. Acting Legal Adviser String, in his July 24
appearance before SFRC, testified that the JD is an
``important, authoritative agreement.''
``We can now confirm that the United States regards the June 7
Joint Declaration and the Supplementary Agreement with Mexico,
which we have previously provided to the committee,
collectively to constitute a binding agreement under
international law. We will be transmitting these instruments to
Congress, in accordance with the Case Act.''--email from the
Bureau of Legislative Affairs (C. Donnelly) to SFRC staff,
dated July 29, and letter from Assistant Secretary for
Legislative Affairs to Ranking Member Menendez, dated August 1.
``We consider the Joint Declaration and Supplementary Agreement to
be, collectively, an executive agreement, concluded in the
exercise of the President's constitutional authority for the
conduct of foreign relations.''--email from the Bureau of
Legislative Affairs (C. Donnelly) to SFRC staff, dated July 29,
and letter from Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs to
Ranking Member Menendez, dated August 1.
Please explain why the Department characterized the Joint
Declaration (JD) as an ``authoritative political agreement,'' which
appears to blur the line between instruments that are binding under
international law--generally referred to as legal agreements--and
instruments that are not binding under international law--generally
referred to as political arrangements or commitments.
Answer. I understand that representatives from the Department of
State and the Department of Homeland Security recently have provided
detailed briefings to the staff of the Foreign Relations Committee on
the agreement. It is my further understanding that the United States
regards the Joint Declaration and Supplementary Agreement collectively
to constitute a legally binding agreement under international law and
that the Department transmitted these instruments to the Congress
pursuant to the Case Act on August 6, 2019.
Question. Please explain the precise characteristics that lead to
the classification of a written instrument or oral commitment as an
``authoritative political agreement.''
Answer. As you know, the President announced that the United States
and Mexico had entered into this agreement on June 7. Two days later,
the Mexican government issued a statement indicating a view that this
arrangement was not legally binding.
In the wake of this Mexican statement, we believed it was important
to take time to review the status of the arrangement and engage with
the government of Mexico before stating a definitive position, and it
was during this period that we communicated the position that we viewed
this arrangement as an ``authoritative political agreement.''
While we recognize the ambiguity of this statement, we believed it
was important at that time, given those ongoing discussions.
We have now clearly communicated our view to the government of
Mexico that the arrangement is legally binding, consistent with the
requirements and timeframe envisioned by the Case Act.
Question. Please provide examples of other ``authoritative
political agreements'' in U.S. history. Were such instruments or oral
commitments referred to as ``authoritative political agreements'' at
the time they were finalized or concluded? If not, when were they
classified as such? For any examples, please indicate whether they are
binding or non-binding for purposes of international law, and whether
they were reported under the Case Act (if finalized subsequent to
enactment of that statute).
Does the United States ever enter into political agreements that
are not ``authoritative?'' If yes, please explain why, and
please provide examples of such non-authoritative political
agreements.
Does the Department generally transmit to Congress authoritative or
non-authoritative political agreements pursuant to the Case
Act? If yes, please provide examples. If no, please explain why
not.
Answer. My understanding is that the situation presented a number
of unique issues. As you know, the President announced that the United
States and Mexico had entered into this agreement on June 7. Two days
later, the Mexican government issued a statement indicating a view that
this arrangement was not legally binding.
In the wake of this Mexican statement, we believed it was important
to take time to review the status of the arrangement and engage with
the government of Mexico before stating a definitive position, and it
was during this period that we communicated the position that we viewed
this arrangement as an ``authoritative political agreement.''
While we recognize the ambiguity of this statement, we believed it
was important at that time, given those ongoing discussions.
We have now clearly communicated our view to the government of
Mexico that the arrangement is legally binding, consistent with the
requirements and timeframe envisioned by the Case Act.
With respect to the decision to report this under the Case Act, my
understanding is that the Department followed the criteria set out at
22 CFR 181.2 in deciding whether any undertaking, oral agreement,
document, or set of documents, including an exchange of notes or of
correspondence, constitutes an international agreement within the
meaning of the Case Act. These include the identity and intention of
the parties; the significance of the arrangement; specificity,
including objective criteria for determining enforceability; the
necessity for two or more parties; and the form of the instrument. It
is my understanding that the Department transmitted to Congress the
Mexico Joint Declaration and Supplementary Agreement under the Case Act
on August 6, 2019.
Question. Were the JD and Supplementary Agreement (SA) negotiated
and concluded pursuant to C-175 authority?
If yes, did the C-175 authorization and underlying memorandum of
law indicate that the JD, the SA or both, individually or
collectively, would constitute a binding agreement under
international law? Please explain.
If yes, please proved the date(s) any such C-175 authority was
issued.
If yes, please provide copies of the authority and underlying
memorandum of law.
If the JD and/or the SA were not negotiated and/or concluded
pursuant to C-175 authority, please explain why.
Answer. The Circular 175 process is an internal executive branch
process for coordinating and facilitating review and approval of
proposed international agreements. I am not in a position to discuss
the administration's internal deliberations regarding the negotiation
of the Joint Declaration and Supplementary Agreement. I can assure you,
however, that the Joint Declaration and Supplementary Agreement were
reviewed and approved prior to their conclusion.
Question. Please indicate whether the JD alone is binding under
international law.
Please identify the characteristics of the JD from which it can be
concluded that both the United States and Mexico regard the JD
as binding under international law.
Please indicate which specific provisions of the JD impose binding
obligations on either the U.S., Mexico, or both.
Please indicate whether the SA alone is binding under international
law.
Please identify the characteristics of the SA from which it can be
concluded that both the United States and Mexico regard the SA
as binding under international law.
Please indicate which specific provisions of the SA impose binding
obligations on either the U.S., Mexico, or both.
Answer. I understand that representatives from the Department of
State and the Department of Homeland Security recently have provided
detailed briefings to the staff of the Foreign Relations Committee on
the agreement. It is my understanding that the United States regards
the Joint Declaration and Supplementary Agreement collectively to
constitute a legally binding agreement under international law.
The two components of this arrangement contain a series of
commitments, some of which are legally binding and others of which are
not legally binding. The essential objective of this arrangement was to
commit the government of Mexico to implement a series of measures
designed to stem the flow of migrants into the United States.
As the negotiations unfolded, it became essential to the
administration to secure the firmest possible commitment that the
government of Mexico would commence the negotiation of a safe third
country agreement to ensure that the administration could put such an
agreement in place if the other measures identified in the arrangement
were unsuccessful in addressing the migrant flow problem.
In our view, it is necessary to read the two components of the
arrangement--the Joint Declaration and Supplementary Agreement--
together as establishing and identifying the triggering conditions for
the Mexican obligation to ``take the all necessary steps under domestic
law with a view to ensuring that the agreement will enter into force
within 45 days.''
We believe that these arrangements have allowed our two countries
to make important progress in stemming the flow of migrants.
Question. Please identify and explain in detail the specific
factors that the Department analyzed in arriving at the position that
the JD and SA collectively are binding under international law.
Please provide a detailed explanation, with relevant examples, of
the legal theory by which the Department believes it is
possible for a subsequent instrument, such as the SA, to render
a change in the legal character of a prior instrument that was
not itself previously considered binding under international
law.
Please indicate whether the Department's analysis of the binding
nature of the JD, SA, and the JD and SA collectively is
consistent with the practice and precedent of the United States
on international agreements and arrangements, or if the
analysis departs from the practice and precedent of the United
States in this area. If it does differ, please explain the
following: how it differs; why the executive branch departed
from U.S. practice and precedent; whether the executive
branch's position on the JD, SA, and SA and JD collectively is
a one-time departure from U.S. practice and precedent, or
whether the departure represents a shift in executive branch
practice; and whether the executive branch has made the
government of Mexico (GOM) aware of any departure in practice
and precedent.
During the course of the negotiations of the JD and SA, what was
the position of the United States on whether the JD, the SA,
and the JD and SA collectively were binding under international
law?
Acting Legal Adviser String appeared to indicate in his July 24
testimony that questions of whether the JD and SA were binding
under international law were still being considered within the
executive branch. If the United States did not have a position
on the question of whether the instruments were binding during
the negotiation or when the instruments were finalized, please
explain why that would be the case. Did the position of the
United States on whether the instruments were binding change
from the outset of the negotiations to the date the instruments
were finalized or at any point between the date the instruments
were finalized to the July 29 communication from the Department
to SFRC staff. If yes, please explain the substance of the
change(s)--i.e. from what to what--and the reason(s).
Answer. I understand that representatives from the Department of
State and the Department of Homeland Security recently have provided
detailed briefings to the staff of the Foreign Relations Committee on
the agreement. It is my understanding that the United States regards
the Joint Declaration and Supplementary Agreement collectively to
constitute a legally binding agreement under international law.
The two components of this arrangement contain a series of
commitments, some of which are legally binding and others of which are
not legally binding. The essential objective of this arrangement was to
commit the government of Mexico to implement a series of measures
designed to stem the flow of migrants into the United States.
As the negotiations unfolded, it became essential to the
administration to secure the firmest possible commitment that the
government of Mexico would commence the negotiation of a safe third
country agreement to ensure that the administration could put such an
agreement in place if the other measures identified in the arrangement
were unsuccessful in addressing the migrant flow problem.
In our view, it is necessary to read the two components of the
arrangement--the Joint Declaration and Supplementary Agreement--
together as establishing and identifying the triggering conditions for
the Mexican obligation to ``take the all necessary steps under domestic
law with a view to ensuring that the agreement will enter into force
within 45 days.''
We believe that these arrangements have allowed our two countries
to make important progress in stemming the flow of migrants.
Question. Has the position that the JD and SA collectively
constitute a binding agreement under international law been conveyed to
the GOM?
If yes, please indicate when this position was first conveyed to
the GOM. If no, please explain why it has not been conveyed to
the GOM.
What is the Department's understanding of the position of the GOM
on the following:
Whether the JD is binding for purposes of international law,
Whether the SA is binding for purposes of international law, and
Whether the JD and SA collectively are binding for purposes of
international law.
[Please note that the preceding questions are not a request for the
Department to speak on behalf of the GOM; rather we are interested in
the Department's understanding of the GOM's position.]
Answer. I understand that representatives from the Department of
State and the Department of Homeland Security recently have provided
detailed briefings to the staff of the Foreign Relations Committee on
the agreement. It is my understanding that the government of Mexico is
aware that United States regards the Joint Declaration and
Supplementary Agreement collectively to constitute a legally binding
agreement under international law. I have no first-hand information
regarding the government of Mexico's views on this matter.
Question. If the GOM does not share (and never has shared) the
executive branch position that the JD and SA collectively are binding
under international law, would that change the executive branch
position that the JD and SA collectively are binding? If no, please
explain.
If the GOM does not share (and never has shared) the executive
branch position that the JD and SA collectively are binding
under international law, could the GOM be bound by any
provision of such instruments? If yes, please explain.
In light of the executive branch position that the JD and SA
collectively are binding under international law and the
indication that they will be transmitted to Congress pursuant
to the Case Act, does the Department commit to transmitting to
Congress, pursuant to the Case Act, all similarly-situated
instruments going forward?
Does the Department generally transmit to Congress authoritative or
non-authoritative political agreements pursuant to the Case
Act? If yes, please provide examples. If not, why not?
Answer. I understand that representatives from the Department of
State and the Department of Homeland Security recently have provided
detailed briefings to the staff of the Foreign Relations Committee on
the agreement. It is my understanding that the United States regards
the Joint Declaration and Supplementary Agreement collectively to
constitute a legally binding agreement under international law.
With respect to the Department's reporting practice with regard to
the Case Act, my understanding is that the Department follows the
criteria set out at 22 CFR 181.2 in deciding whether any undertaking,
oral agreement, document, or set of documents, including an exchange of
notes or of correspondence, constitutes an international agreement
within the meaning of the Case Act, and that it will continue to do so.
Question. The Department has indicated that it ``consider[s] the
Joint Declaration and Supplementary Agreement to be, collectively, an
executive agreement, concluded in the exercise of the President's
constitutional authority for the conduct of foreign relations.'' Please
be more specific concerning the constitutional authority asserted as
the basis for the JD and SA. Which specific provisions of the
Constitution does the Department view as providing the domestic legal
authority for the JD and SA?
Prior to the JD and SA, had the United States concluded any
international instrument related to immigration or migration
and asserted ``the President's constitutional authority for the
conduct of foreign relations'' or any other constitutional
authority of the President as the sole domestic legal basis for
the instrument(s)?
If yes, please provide a list of each instrument that meets these
criteria, the date it was concluded, and a statement of the
specific constitutional provisions that provide the asserted
authority.
Answer. It's my understanding that the Department transmitted the
Mexico Joint Declaration and Supplementary Agreement under the Case Act
on August 6, 2019 and that the accompanying report indicated that the
legal authority for entering into the agreement was Article II of the
U.S. Constitution.
Question. What are the most important actions you have taken in
your career to date to support democracy and human rights? What has
been the impact of your actions?
Answer. I have consistently sought to advance democracy and human
rights over the course of my career and during my tenure as Deputy
Secretary, including by meeting with civil society activists and
highlighting the cases of individual dissidents. Recently, I was proud
to co-host a widely attended and publicized event during the high-level
week of the U.N. General Assembly at which Uighur victims and advocates
spoke about the horrific abuses being perpetrated by the Chinese
government against Uighurs and other Muslim minorities in Xinjiang.
This work has brought more countries to bring pressure on China over
these abuses. I have also played a primary role in implementing new
economic and visa sanctions authorities against serious violators of
human rights and corrupt officials under the Global Magnitsky Act and
Section 7031(c) of the Appropriations Act of 2019.
Question. What issues are the most pressing challenges to
democratic development in Russia? These challenges might include
obstacles to participatory and accountable governance and institutions,
rule of law, authentic political competition, civil society, human
rights and press freedom. Please be as specific as possible.
Answer. The most pressing challenges to democratic development in
Russia include impunity for gross violations of human rights such as
extrajudicial killings and torture; rampant corruption and weak rule of
law; the lack of authentic political competition; violence and
discrimination against minorities; and restrictions on civil society,
religious freedom, public demonstrations, and the press.
Question. What steps will you take--if confirmed--to support
democratic development in Russia? What do you hope to accomplish
through these actions? What are the potential impediments to addressing
the specific obstacles you have identified?
Answer. The Russian government uses its powerful state propaganda
machine to mischaracterize our support for universal human rights as an
effort to foment a ``color revolution'' or ``interfere in Russia's
internal affairs.'' The Russian government also seeks to deter our
diplomatic mission from maintaining routine contacts with civil society
and to impose costs on those in Russia who would engage with us. If
confirmed, I will ensure that Mission Russia coordinates with
likeminded embassies to push back against false propaganda narratives
and any actions taken to deter our diplomats from performing their core
functions.
Question. How will you utilize U.S. government assistance resources
at your disposal, including the Democracy Commission Small Grants
program and other sources of State Department and USAID funding, to
support democracy and governance, and what will you prioritize in
processes to administer such assistance?
Answer. I believe that the Russian people, like people everywhere,
deserve a government that supports an open marketplace of ideas,
transparent and accountable governance, equal treatment under the law,
and the ability to exercise their rights without fear of retribution.
Although the space for civil society and free media in Russia has
become increasingly restricted, Russian organizations and individuals
continue to express a desire to engage with the United States. As long
as this continues to be the case, the United States will support
opportunities for direct interactions between Russians and Americans,
including through peer-to-peer, educational, cultural, and other
regional programs on themes of mutual interest.
Question. If confirmed, do you commit to meet with civil society
members, human rights and other non-governmental organizations in the
U.S. and with local human rights NGOs, and other members of civil
society in Russia? What steps will you take to pro-actively address
efforts to restrict or penalize NGOs and civil society via legal or
regulatory measures?
Answer. Yes. The Russian government has launched a crackdown on
independent civil society through laws that label NGOs ``undesirable
foreign organizations'' and ``foreign agents,'' and prevented the
political opposition from appearing on the ballot. If confirmed, I will
meet with members of Russian, U.S., and other civil society members. I
will also work with allies and partners to call on the Russian
government, in both public statements and private discussions, to
uphold its international obligations and OSCE commitments to promote
and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms, including regarding
the right to freedom of association.
Question. If confirmed, do you commit to meet with democratically
oriented political opposition figures and parties? What steps will you
take to encourage genuine political competition? Will you advocate for
access and inclusivity for women, minorities and youth within political
parties?
Answer. If confirmed, I plan to meet with a broad spectrum of
Russian political leaders, including individual politicians and
political parties. Representing America's democratic values, if
confirmed, I will encourage genuine political competition and urge
Russian authorities to honor their OSCE commitments to hold free and
fair elections and respect the rights of free expression, association,
and assembly.
Question. Will you and your embassy team actively engage with
Russia on freedom of the press and address any government efforts
designed to control or undermine press freedom through legal,
regulatory or other measures? Will you commit to meeting regularly with
independent, local press in Russia?
Answer. If confirmed, I plan to actively engage with Russia on
freedom of the press. I will routinely prioritize meeting with
independent and local media.
Question. Will you and your embassy team actively engage with civil
society and government counterparts on countering disinformation and
propaganda disseminated by foreign state or non-state actors in the
country?
Answer. The Department is leveraging public diplomacy and public
affairs resources to counter disinformation. This includes promoting
positive and truthful narratives. If confirmed, I will continue to
support these efforts at Mission Russia.
Question. Will you and your embassy teams actively engage with
Russia on the right of labor groups to organize, including for
independent trade unions?
Answer. The Department will engage with Russia on the rights of
workers and the fundamental right of free association. I will speak out
about violations of the Russian people's? right to free association,
including restrictions on independent labor unions.
Question. Will you commit to using your position, if confirmed, to
defend the human rights and dignity of all people in Russia, no matter
their sexual orientation or gender identity? What challenges do the
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) people face in
Russia? What specifically will you commit to do to help LGBTQ people in
Russia?
Answer. LGBTI persons in Russia face daily discrimination and fear
of violence. The Russian Federation should not continue to turn a blind
eye to the grave human rights abuses and violations occurring on its
soil, including those against LGBTI people. If confirmed, I will call
upon Russia to investigate allegations of abuse, particularly in
Chechnya. Unfortunately, rather than live up to its international
obligations and commitments and its own constitution, Russia appears to
support the perpetrators rather than the victims and has failed to
address the grave situation in Chechnya.
Responsiveness
Question. Do you commit to respond promptly to all requests for
information by Members of this committee?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you commit to appear before this committee upon
request?
Answer. Yes.
Question. If you become aware of any suspected waste, fraud, or
abuse in the Department, do you commit to report it to the Inspector
General?
Answer. Yes.
Administrative
Question. Has anyone ever made a formal or informal complaint or
allegation of sexual harassment, discrimination (e.g., racial, ethnic,
religious, etc.), or inappropriate conduct against you, in a workplace
or any other setting? If so, please describe the nature of the
complaint or allegation, your response, and any resolution, including
any settlements.
Answer. No. I take issues of sexual harassment, discrimination, and
inappropriate conduct with the utmost seriousness and have done so
throughout my career.
Question. Have you ever addressed concerns or allegations of sexual
harassment, discrimination (e.g., racial, ethnic, religious, etc.), or
inappropriate conduct made against any employee over whom you had
supervisory authority? If so, please describe the outcome and actions
taken.
Answer. During my tenure as Deputy Secretary of State, I have
immediately addressed any concerns raised to me in accordance with the
Department of State's policies, including reporting conduct or
allegations to the Department's Office of Civil Rights, the Inspector
General, or the Office of Special Counsel, as appropriate.
Question. Do you agree that any targeting of or retaliation against
career employees based on their perceived political beliefs, prior work
on policy, or affiliation with a previous administration, is wholly
inappropriate and has no place in the federal government? If confirmed,
what will you do to ensure that all employees under your leadership
understand that any retaliation, blacklisting, or other prohibited
personnel practices will not be tolerated?
Answer. Yes, I agree that any targeting of, or retaliation against,
career employees based on their perceived political beliefs, prior work
on policy, or affiliation with a previous administration is wholly
inappropriate. I take allegations of such practices seriously, and if
confirmed, I will ensure that all employees under my leadership
understand that any retaliation, blacklisting, or other prohibited
personnel practices will not be tolerated.
responses to follow-up questions for the record submitted
to hon. john joseph sullivan by senator robert menendez
Documents
Question. In October 2019, Ambassador Michael McKinley testified
before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence as part of
the House impeachment inquiry. Ambassador McKinley testified that State
Department employees had been meeting about collecting documents and
data in response to congressional requests for documents on Ukraine. By
October 2019, there had been multiple requests for documents about the
withholding of U.S. security assistance to Ukraine, including by the
House committees leading the impeachment inquiry, and a request I sent
on September 24, 2019.
What efforts have you made to ensure that the documents collected
are being produced toCongress?
Answer. I searched my records and ensured that my staff searched
theirs, and sent any potentially responsive documents to the Bureau of
Administration for collection and, when authorized, production.
Question. Did you collect documents in response to the House's
inquiry?
Answer. Yes.
Question. If so, when did you collect documents?
Answer. In early October 2019.
Question. Who instructed you to collect documents?
Answer. I collected potentially responsive documents following a
tasking issued by the Executive Secretariat, as is standard process in
the Department's document collection.
Question. To whom did you provide those documents?
Answer. As is standard process in the Department's document
collection, my staff and I provided the documents to the Bureau of
Administration, which compiles the documents for further review.
Question. Have you had any further communications with any
Department officials about providing those documents to Congress?
Answer. No.
Question. Have you collected any documents in response to my
September 24, 2019 letter?
Answer. My document search in early October of this year captured
documents also responsive to your September 24, 2019 letter.
Question. Have you had any further communications with any
Department officials about providing those documents to Congress?
Answer. No.
Question. Did you have any advance knowledge of the Secretary's
October 1, 2019 letter before it was sent to the House Committee on
Foreign Affairs?
Answer. No.
Question. Did you provide any opinion or recommendation as to what
that letter should or should not contain?
Answer. No.
Question. Do you agree with the statements in that letter,
including that the House's request ``can be understood only as an
attempt to intimidate, bully, and treat improperly the distinguished
professionals of the Department of State''?
Answer. Yes.
Ambassador McKinley also testified that he raised questions about
the accuracy of statements that Secretary Pompeo had made to Congress
in his October 1, 2019 letter. Are you aware of those concerns? Did
they concern you? What, if anything, did you do in response?
He never discussed his concerns with me. I understand from his
testimony that he did not read the letter.
Question. Ambassador McKinley also testified that he raised
questions about the accuracy of statements that Secretary Pompeo had
made to Congress in his October 1, 2019 letter. Are you aware of those
concerns? Did they concern you? What, if anything, did you do in
response?
Answer. He never discussed his concerns with me. I understand from
his testimony that he did not read the letter.
Kent Memorandum
Question. Ambassador McKinley testified that Deputy Assistant
Secretary George Kent wrote a memorandum on or about October 3, 2019
regarding his treatment by other Department officials, including a
lawyer in the Legal Adviser's office (``L Bureau''). He testified that
he passed that memo on to you. Did you read that memo?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Did it contain allegations that a State Department lawyer
was trying to keep him from sharing information with Congress?
Answer. The memo raised concerns about a briefing to European
Bureau personnel by a career attorney from the Bureau of Legal Affairs.
Question. Did it cause you any concern?
Answer. Yes.
Question. What did you do upon receiving that memo? Did you discuss
it with anyone?
Answer. I asked the Acting Legal Adviser to address the concerns
raised in the memo directly with those in the Bureau of European
Affairs who had received the prior briefing.
Bullying Concerns
Question. Ambassador McKinley also testified that he forwarded
allegations to senior officials, including you, about intimidation and
bullying of Department employees who had been asked to provide
testimony to Congress. Did you read what Amb. McKinley forwarded?
Answer. Yes. The memorandum is the same document discussed in the
response to the preceding category of questions and raised concerns
about a briefing by a career attorney from the Bureau of Legal Affairs
to personnel of the European Bureau.
Question. Did those allegations concern you?
Answer. Yes.
Question. What, if anything, did you do in response?
Answer. I asked the Acting Legal Adviser to address the concerns
raised in the memo directly with those in the Bureau of European
Affairs who had received the prior briefing.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted
to Hon. John Joseph Sullivan by Senator Todd Young
Question. Have you adhered to applicable laws and governing
conflicts of interest?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Have you assumed any duties or any actions that would
appear to presume the outcome of this confirmation process?
Answer. No.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear and testify before
this committee when requested by the Chairman and the Ranking Member?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to provide documents, and electronic
communications in a timely manner when requested by this committee, its
subcommittees, and other appropriate committees of Congress and to the
requester?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Will you ensure that you and your staff complies with
deadlines established by this committee for the production of reports,
records, and other documents, including responding timely to hearing
questions for record?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Will you cooperate in providing witnesses and briefers in
response to congressional requests?
Answer. Yes.
Question. And finally, will those briefers be protected from
reprisal for their briefings?
Answer. Yes.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted
to Hon. John Joseph Sullivan by Senator Benjamin L. Cardin
Human Rights:
Question. What are the most important actions you have taken in
your career to date to promote human rights and democracy? What has
been the impact of your actions?
Answer. I have consistently sought to advance democracy and human
rights in various ways over the course of my career, including by
regularly meeting with civil society activists and highlighting the
cases of individual dissidents. Recently, I was proud to host a widely
attended and publicized event during the high-level week of the U.N.
General Assembly at which Uighur victims and advocates spoke about the
horrific abuses being perpetrated by the Chinese government against
Uighurs and other Muslim minorities in the Xinjiang region. In
organizing this event, we were able to convince a number of other
countries to co-sponsor with us. This led to much greater media
coverage and pressure on China to change its policy in Xinjiang. I have
also played a primary role in increasing the Department's use of the
new economic and visa sanctions authorities against serious violators
of human rights and corrupt officials under the Global Magnitsky Act
and Section 7031(c) of the Appropriations Act of 2019.
Question. What are the most pressing human rights issues in Russia?
What are the most important steps you expect to take--if confirmed--to
promote human rights and democracy in Russia? What do you hope to
accomplish through these actions?
Answer. President Putin has gutted independent institutions, turned
the parliament into a rubber stamp, eliminated judicial independence,
and taken control of all televised media. The government increasingly
restricts free speech in public and online. It has launched a crackdown
on independent civil society through laws that label NGOs ``undesirable
foreign organizations'' and ``foreign agents,'' and prevented the
political opposition from appearing on the ballot. If confirmed, I will
work with allies and partners to call on the Russian government, in
both public statements and private discussions, to uphold its
international obligations and OSCE commitments to promote and protect
human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Question. If confirmed, what are the potential obstacles to
addressing the specific human rights issues you have identified in your
previous response? What challenges will you face in Russia in advancing
human rights, civil society and democracy in general?
Answer. The Russian government uses its powerful state propaganda
machine to mischaracterize our support for universal human rights as an
effort to foment a ``color revolution'' or ``interfere in Russia's
internal affairs.'' The Russian government also seeks to deter our
diplomatic mission from maintaining routine contacts with civil society
and to impose costs on those in Russia who would engage with us. If
confirmed, I will ensure that Mission Russia coordinates with
likeminded embassies to push back against false propaganda narratives
and any actions taken to deter our diplomats from performing their core
functions.
Question. Are you committed to meeting with human rights, civil
society and other non-governmental organizations in the U.S. and with
local human rights NGOs in Russia? If confirmed, what steps will you
take to pro-actively support the Leahy Law and similar efforts, and
ensure that provisions of U.S. security assistance and security
cooperation activities reinforce human rights?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to meet regularly with a broad
spectrum of Russian society, including human rights activists, civil
society, and religious minorities. I will also ensure that we fully
implement the Leahy Law.
Question. Will you and your embassy team actively engage with
Russia to address cases of key political prisoners or persons otherwise
unjustly targeted by Russia?
Answer. If confirmed, my team and I will engage with Russian
authorities to push for the release of political prisoners and to call
for the fair treatment of other persons unjustly targeted by Russia.
Question. Will you engage with Russia on matters of human rights,
civil rights and governance as part of your bilateral mission?
Answer. If confirmed, I will engage with Russian authorities and
members of civil society to urge respect for human rights and good
governance in Russia.
Diversity
Question. Research from private industry demonstrates that, when
managed well, diversity makes business teams better both in terms of
creativity and in terms of productivity. What will you do to promote,
mentor and support your staff that come from diverse backgrounds and
underrepresented groups in the Foreign Service?
Answer. If confirmed, I would make strong mentoring relationships
an integral part of the Embassy culture by promoting initiatives that
support employee engagement, job satisfaction, development of
leadership skills, and increased teamwork. Mentorship and inclusion are
basic components of sound leadership.
As Deputy Secretary of State, I have worked with the Department's
Employees Affinity Groups (EAGs) and the Office of Civil Rights to
further diversity and inclusion. I host a quarterly Diversity Forum
with all EAGs and dedicate my Office's resources to meeting one-on-one
with the EAGs to learn and address their priorities. If confirmed, I
would ensure that meaningful discussions to advance diversity and
inclusion efforts take place at Mission Russia.
Question. What steps will you take to ensure each of the
supervisors at the Embassy are fostering an environment that is diverse
and inclusive?
Answer. If confirmed, I will promote a robust Equal Employment
Opportunity (EEO) program at post that includes continuous training and
sensitization, meet with EEO counselors to gain their perspectives, and
ensure that Embassy personnel are aware of the Department of State's
discrimination and harassment policies and how to report violations. I
will review current mentoring and support programs, meet with the
direct-hire and local staff to determine where inclusivity is perceived
as lacking and direct the Mission management team to make needed
improvements. In addition, I will review our human resources processes
to determine where and how we can mitigate unconscious bias and provide
access to training to support these efforts.
These are all components of the best leadership traits that I have
observed during my career. If confirmed, I will stress the need for
respect (in the workplace and for all colleagues), honestly, and
accountability.
Conflicts of Interest
Question. Do you commit to bring to the committee's attention (and
the State Department Inspector General) any change in policy or U.S.
actions that you suspect may be influenced by any of the President's
business or financial interests, or the business or financial interests
of any senior White House staff?
Answer. I commit to comply with all relevant federal ethics laws,
regulations, and rules. And I commit to raise any and all concerns that
I may have on any ethics or legal issue through appropriate and
established channels.
Question. Do you commit to inform the committee if you have any
reason to suspect that a foreign government, head of state, or foreign-
controlled entity is taking any action in order to benefit any of the
President's business or financial interests, or the interests of senior
White House staff?
Answer. I commit to comply with all relevant federal ethics laws,
regulations, and rules. And I commit to raise any and all concerns that
I may have on any ethics or legal issue through appropriate and
established channels.
Question. Do you or do any members of your immediate family have
any financial interests in Russia?
Answer. No. My investment portfolio includes diversified mutual
funds, which may hold interests in companies with a presence overseas,
but which are exempt from the conflict of interest laws. I remain
committed to ensuring that my official actions will not give rise to a
conflict of interest. In addition to those investments from which I
have already divested, I will divest any investments the State
Department Ethics Office deems necessary to avoid a conflict of
interest. I assure the committee that I will remain vigilant with
regard to my ethics obligations.
Corruption
Question. How do you believe political corruption impacts
democratic governance and the rule of law generally, and in Russia
specifically?
Answer. Political corruption undermines the legitimacy of
democratic governments and impedes any democracy's efforts to adhere to
the rule of law, respect its citizens' rights, and treat all citizens
equally under the law. In Russia specifically, Russian citizens have
increasingly criticized political corruption by protesting the results
of the 2018 presidential election and the government's efforts to block
the registration of legitimate candidates for this year's local
elections. Political corruption in Russia has also resulted in a
judicial system that is subject to undue influence from politicians,
the executive branch, the military, and other security forces; as a
result, Russian citizens are increasingly turning to the European Court
of Human Rights for independent, transparent rulings.
Question. What is your assessment of corruption trends in Russia
and efforts to address and reduce it by that government?
Answer. Despite Russia's claims to the contrary, corruption
continues to be the linchpin of the government's strategy to retain
control, provide profit for President Putin's oligarchs, punish
political opponents, and enable opaque governance to benefit the ruling
elite. Its manifestations include bribery of officials, misuse of
budgetary resources, theft of government property, kickbacks in the
procurement process, extortion, and improper use of official positions
to secure personal profits. Official corruption continues to be rampant
in numerous areas, including education, military conscription, health
care, commerce, housing, social welfare, law enforcement, and the
judicial system.
Question. If confirmed, what steps will you take to strengthen good
governance and anticorruption programming in Russia?
Answer. If confirmed, I promise to work with allies and partners to
call on the Russian government, in both public statements and private
discussions, to uphold the rule of law and create an independent
judiciary in order to respect its citizens' rights, and treat all
citizens equally under the law.
Question. As you know, Russia uses transnational corruption
networks to influence politicians, gain access to elite circles, and
produce foreign policy outcomes advantageous to both Russia and its
authoritarian model. This system uses ill-gotten gains to exert foreign
influence.
Question. How can the United States combat this weaponization of
corruption? How can we be more proactive in engaging in anti-corruption
diplomacy?
Answer. Our response to Russia's export of corruption to achieve
its political objectives continues to be rooted in democratic
principles of transparency, accountability, and integrity. We will
proactively identify and publicly address Russian corruption and
speedily impose sanctions on corrupt foreign officials and agents
working on behalf of or aligned with Russia. We will also continue to
work with our allies to press Russia to uphold its anticorruption
obligations and defend against attempts by Russia to distort the
international anticorruption framework. We will use all the tools of
diplomacy, including foreign assistance, to insulate our partners from
all avenues of Russia's malign influence.
Question. Corrupt Russian officials go about conducting all manner
of malfeasance to protect their interests, twist the system of
governance to their will, and silence rivals, dissidents, activists,
journalists, and others who might expose their wrongdoing. They achieve
this through a combination of reputation laundering and transnational
repression, such abusive red notices at INTERPOL, defamation lawsuits
meant to bankrupt their target, or plain old assassination. How can the
United States counter these aspects of Russian foreign policy?
Answer. As a democratic country that values freedom of speech, we
must continue to respond quickly and publicly to Russian officials'
misuse of legitimate institutions to silence their political critics.
The U.S. government will continue to work with our allies and partners
to quickly identify and address these abuses by corrupt Russian
officials and to impose swift punishment through sanctions, visa
restrictions, and expulsions. We also will continue to coordinate with
our allies to push back against Russia's attempts to undermine or abuse
the international framework to combat corruption. One example of
progress to this end is INTERPOL's reforms allowing for a legal review
of red notices prior to publication.
Question. How can the United States and our allies work to diminish
our roles as safe havens for Russian illicit wealth? How can we cease
to be a complicit element of authoritarian kleptocracy?
Answer. The U.S. government must continue its whole-of-government
approach-in addition to its combined efforts with allies and partners-
to identify Russian individuals and corporations who attempt to
obfuscate their identity and nationality to bring money into the United
States illegally and take measures to prevent them from doing so.
Election Security
Question. In July 2019, FBI Director Christopher Wray told the
Senate Judiciary Committee that ``the Russians are absolutely intent on
trying to interfere with our elections,'' and in October 2019, Facebook
reported that it removed a Russia-based network of Facebook and
Instagram accounts (together with three Iran-based networks) engaged in
a disinformation campaign targeting U.S. presidential candidates.
Former DNI Dan Coats said that Russia, among other nations, is
``increasingly using cyber-operations to threaten both minds and
machine in an expanding number of ways--to steal information and to
influence our citizens.'' Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller found
in his recent report that Russia interfered in a ``sweeping and
systematic fashion'' in our 2016 presidential election.
Do you agree with these assessments from the FBI, DNI, and Special
Counsel?
Answer. Yes. I agree with the intelligence community's assessment
that Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S.
presidential election; one of the objectives of Russia's influence
campaign was to erode faith in U.S. democratic institutions. I also
agree with the DNI statement in December 2018 that while there was no
evidence that U.S. election infrastructure was targeted in the 2018
midterms, the intelligence community saw Russia conduct influence
activities and messaging campaigns targeted at the United States to
promote their strategic interests. I anticipate that Russia will
continue to try to promote Moscow's strategic interests, stoke internal
division, and erode faith in U.S. democratic institutions in the lead
up to the 2020 elections.
Question. Is the United States government doing enough to deter and
prevent Russian election interference in the United States or
elsewhere? What specific steps would you additionally take deter
Russian interference?
Answer. The administration is working on a whole-of-government
basis-together with an integrated public-private coalition--to ensure
the security of America's elections. This administration has imposed
serious sanctions on Russia for prior attempts at election
interference, including a new round of sanctions in September 2019. I
have been clear in my interactions with senior Russia leaders that
there will be serious consequences should Russia or its proxies attempt
to interfere in our electoral processes again. If confirmed, I will
continue to emphasize in Moscow that Russia will meet swift costs for
attempts to interfere in democratic processes. And that if Russia
desires improved relations with the United States, it must stop trying
to interfere in our elections and in our democracy generally.
Question. What are Russia's objectives in seeking to interfere in
the 2020 U.S. presidential election?
Answer. Russia's influence campaigns seek to promote Moscow's
strategic interests, stoke internal division, and erode faith in U.S.
democratic institutions, thereby weakening the United States.
Question. Last summer, we became aware that a Russian oligarch
close to Vladimir Putin became the largest investor in a fund tied to
the company that hosts Maryland's statewide voter registration,
candidacy, and election management system; the online voter
registration system; online ballot delivery system; and the unofficial
election night results website. The disclosure to state officials of
this change in ownership was made by the FBI and not the company
itself. This is why Senators Klobuchar, Van Hollen, and I introduced
the Election Systems Integrity Act (ESIA) (S. 3572), which would
require disclosure of foreign ownership of election service providers.
In 2016, accounts tied to Russia circulated misinformation targeted to
African American groups. The messages contained incorrect information
about voting, and were designed to sow division. Senator Klobuchar and
I have also introduced the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation
Prevention Act (S. 1834) which, among other actions, addresses the use
of digital platforms to disseminate false information regarding federal
elections to U.S. voters.
Do you believe this legislation would help prevent Russian
interference in the 2020 election?
Answer. In my role at the Department of State, I have not reviewed
this legislation as it is focused on domestic activities. But, as I
have testified previously, we do need a robust response to Russian
election interference, including the examples cited above. Any effort
by the Russian government or its proxies to interfere in our elections
is unacceptable. All branches of government, civil society, and the
private sector must work together to protect our elections from any
type of foreign interference.
Question. Will you commit to review both the ESIA and the Deceptive
Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act?
Answer. Yes. While I will review legislation for potential Russia
policy implications, I will defer to my colleagues in the domestic
agencies for a review of these proposed statutes and evaluation of the
domestic aspects.
Syria
Question. Russia reportedly helped broker the recent agreement
between the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and the Syrian
government to deploy government forces to northeastern Syria. On
October 15, 2019, the Russian Ministry of Defense stated that Russian
military police units were patrolling between Turkish and Syrian
military forces near Manbij. On October 22, Russia and Turkey
reportedly concluded an agreement providing for Russian assistance in
removing Kurdish fighters from a ``safe zone'' near the Syrian-Turkish
border and joint patrols of Russian military police and Turkish forces.
What is the U.S. position on current Russian activities in Syria?
Answer. The United States is very concerned about Russia's support
to the Assad regime. Russia uses its veto power in the U.N. to shield
the Assad regime from scrutiny over its use of chemical weapons and the
continued targeting of civilians. Russia could do more to help reach a
political solution in Syria, including curbing Iran's influence. We
will continue to use diplomatic and economic leverage--including
engagement with other partners in the region--to ensure that Russia
cannot dictate Syria's future. We have also imposed a series of
sanctions on Russian companies for material support to the Assad
regime. Many questions remain for Russia and Turkey regarding their
October 22 arrangement in northeast Syria; we are seeking additional
information on this matter.
Ukraine
Question. On October 1, 2019, the Ukrainian government said that it
agreed to implement the so-called ``Steinmeier formula,'' a refinement
of the Minsk Protocols that would provide for internationally monitored
and approved elections in Russian-controlled territories in eastern
Ukraine in exchange for granting them ``special status.''
What are Russia's aims in agreeing to the ``Steinmeier formula''?
What is the U.S. position regarding the ``Steinmeier formula''?
Answer. The United States supports efforts to achieve a diplomatic
solution to the conflict in eastern Ukraine. President Zelenskyy agreed
to the Steinmeier formula, one of Russia's preconditions for a meeting
of the Normandy Quartet. As part of the Minsk agreements, Russia must
withdraw its forces and all heavy weapons in the Donbas, disband and
end its support to illegal armed formations on Ukraine's territory, and
agree to the reinstatement of Ukraine's control of its international
border. Minsk agreement political measures can be implemented only
after there is security on the ground. The Steinmeier Formula merely
addresses what would happen after local elections meeting OSCE/ODIHR
international ``free and fair'' standards. It thus complements, but
does not alter, Russia's obligations.
Question. With the resignation of U.S. Special Representative Kurt
Volker, what is the status of U.S. engagement in the conflict
resolution process?
Answer. The Department of State remains actively engaged to support
a diplomatic solution to the conflict in the Donbas. The United States'
support for Ukraine is unwavering. We steadfastly support Ukraine's
sovereignty and territorial integrity, secure within its
internationally recognized borders. We will never recognize Russia's
occupation and attempted annexation of Crimea, and we call for an
immediate end to Russia's aggressive behavior in Ukraine.
Question. How do you assess Russia's views of the new government in
Ukraine and its objectives in Ukraine?
Answer. Russia's participation in the prisoner exchange was a
positive step, although there were some troubling aspects including at
least one of the persons involved in the shoot-down of MH17. Russia's
increased dialogue with the new government in Ukraine has unfortunately
not led to any further tangible results. We urge Russia to start
implementing its commitments under the Minsk agreements.
Question. How does the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Syria affect
Russia's military and diplomatic role in Syria and the broader Middle
East?
Answer. The United States remains committed to seeking a political
solution to the Syria conflict and the enduring defeat of ISIS. We urge
Russia to play a more constructive role in seeking peace in the Middle
East and to hold the Assad regime accountable for its use of chemical
weapons against its own population. The Department will continue to use
diplomatic and economic leverage--including our engagement with other
partners in the region--to ensure that Russia cannot single-handedly
dictate Syria's future. We actively support the U.N.-led Geneva
political process to achieve an enduring solution to the conflict.
Countering Russian Influence Fund
Question. Since FY 2017, Congress has appropriated $625 million for
the Countering Russian Influence Fund, which among other things
provides support to countries in Europe and Eurasia to protect
electoral mechanisms against cyberattacks, improve the rule of law and
combat corruption, and help countries combat disinformation.
Is the Fund an effective mechanism, in your view? How can it be
improved?
Answer. The Countering Russian Influence Fund (CRIF) has been
effective in addressing the specific levers of Russian malign activity.
Foreign assistance funds appropriated under CRIF are a crucial piece of
our overall foreign assistance efforts to support the goals of
Countering America's Adversaries through Sanctions Act, and to counter
Russian malign influence. CRIF enables the Department and USAID to
provide targeted and innovative bilateral and regional programs to
enhance defense capacity of allies and partners; improve cyber and
energy security; diversify economies; support rule of law, independent
media, and civil society; and counter disinformation in coordination
with the Global Engagement Center.
Global Activities
Question. Russia has expanded its foreign relations to a worldwide
scale, cultivating close relations with China, India, and other
countries and organizations around the globe, including across the
Middle East, Latin America, and sub-Saharan Africa. In addition to
supporting authoritarian regimes that the United States opposes, Russia
seeks to develop a wide range of trade and/or investment relationships,
particularly in arms, oil and gas, nuclear energy, mining, and
foodstuffs (particularly wheat).
What is your assessment of Russian objectives in expanding its
military, economic, and diplomatic activity worldwide,
including in places like Venezuela, Libya, and the Central
African Republic?
Answer. We are concerned about Russia's unconstructive and
aggressive actions around the world and its efforts to undermine the
rules-based international order. The Department urges Russia to cease
its malign behavior and to work with the United States and other
members of the international community to address pressing challenges
to international security.
Political Prisoners/Human Rights
Question. On October 1, Senator Rubio and I sent a letter to
Secretaries Pompeo and Mnuchin urging them to impose Magnitsky
sanctions against Russian officials responsible for the widespread
false imprisonment of political dissidents and rights defenders.
Why do you think the Kremlin has resorted, as in the Soviet era, to
taking more political prisoners, especially when many of their
cases are widely known and condemned internationally? Do you
foresee more Russian and Ukrainian prisoner exchanges in the
future?
Answer. We have seen that the Kremlin is willing to use all
possible methods to silence political opponents, including detaining
more political prisoners. It is impossible to predict but we hope there
will be future Russian and Ukrainian prisoner exchanges.
Question. In addition to imposing robust sanctions against
officials responsible for politically motivated imprisonment, how else
can the U.S. continue to push for the release of political prisoners
and ensure accountability for those responsible for human rights
abuses?
Answer. If confirmed, I will advocate publicly and privately for
the release of political prisoners and support coordination with
likeminded allies to press for accountability for human rights
violations in international fora such as the U.N. and OSCE. I will
explore every possible avenue to ensure accountability for those
responsible for human rights abuses, including the use of targeted
sanctions and visa ban authorities, in such cases where we can
demonstrate that an individual's conduct meets legal standards.
Question. How do you assess the state of religious freedom in
Russia? How can the United States defend Russian religious minorities
against the misapplication of ``extremism'' laws?
Answer. Religious freedom in Russia continues to deteriorate as the
government engages in and tolerates severe violations of religious
freedom, including torture, arbitrary arrest, and imprisonment.
Widespread suppression of religious practice has led to the
imprisonment of over 200 individuals for practicing their faith.
Peaceful Jehovah's Witnesses, deemed an ``extremist'' organization in
2017, have subsequently been targeted. In Crimea, dozens of Muslim
Crimean Tartars have been sentenced to long prison sentences after
being falsely accused of belonging to a ``terrorist'' organization. The
United States will continue to speak out against Russia's misuse of
``extremism'' laws against religious minorities.
Question. What do you make of the Russian protest movements this
past summer ahead of the Moscow municipal elections? Are they similar
to protests we have seen before, or do they represent a new movement
that could bring about real change?
Answer. The protest movement in 2019 was significant and reflects
the Russian people's desire to have their voices heard and their votes
counted. If confirmed, I will call on the Russian government to honor
its OSCE commitments to hold free and fair elections and respect the
rights of free expression, association, and assembly.
Question. How can the United States operate in the Russian human
rights sphere when Russia has cracked down on ``foreign agents'' and
``undesirable organizations''? How can we best support Russian human
rights organizations?
Answer. If confirmed, I plan to meet with a wide range of Russian
civil society, work closely with likeminded embassies in Moscow to urge
Russian authorities to respect freedom of association, and speak out on
behalf of human rights defenders that are under threat.
Question. How can the United States support media freedom and the
protection of journalists in Russia?
Answer. Russia remains one of the most dangerous countries for
journalists to work. During commemorations of International Day to End
Impunity for Crimes Against Journalists on November 2, the Department
highlighted the case of Svetlana Prokopyeva, who faces up to seven
years in jail for suggesting that the Russian government's restrictions
on peaceful expressions of dissent may make people more likely to
resort to violence. If confirmed, I intend to use Embassy and
Department of State platforms to highlight the plight of embattled
journalists, promote the fundamental human right of free expression,
and continue pressing the Russian government to stop harassing
journalists.
Recent Prisoner Exchange
Question. On September 7, Russia and Ukraine conducted a prisoner
exchange that resulted in the release of 70 people who had been
imprisoned in both countries. Even still, Russia's number of political
prisoners is at an all-time high since the collapse of the Soviet
Union.
What else can the U.S. do to bring attention to the plight of
political prisoners in Russia?
Answer. I share Congressional concerns about the deteriorating
human rights situation in Russia and, if confirmed, I will speak out
about the growing number of political prisoners, the erosion of
fundamental freedoms, crackdowns on demonstrations, and other concerns.
Political prisoners in Russia are reportedly placed in particularly
harsh conditions of confinement and subjected to other punitive
treatment within the prison system, such as solitary confinement or
punitive stays in psychiatric units. If confirmed, I will work to hold
violators of human rights accountable, including by using sanctions and
visa restrictions, where we are able to identify conduct that meets the
required legal thresholds.
Question. Does the recent prisoner exchange between Russia and
Ukraine signal a new era of Russian willingness to compromise when it
comes to political prisoners, or was it simply a one-off event?
Answer. The September 7 prisoner exchange between Russia and
Ukraine was a positive step. If confirmed, I will continue to call on
Russia to release the over 300 political prisoners it holds, a group
that includes journalists, protesters, over 200 members of religious
minorities, and dozens of Crimean Tatars and other opponents of the
occupation of Crimea.
Question. What is the situation surrounding press freedom in
Russia? How can the U.S. stand up for journalists like Ivan Golunov,
who was arrested and then released after an international outcry?
Answer. Press freedom in Russia is under increasing threat.
Journalists are prosecuted for objective reporting, authorities raid
independent newsrooms as reprisals for coverage, and government censors
block or force the removal of critical content. Russia remains one of
the most dangerous countries for journalists to work. The Department
was outspoken about the case of Ivan Golunov, including at the OSCE
Permanent Council. Domestic and international outcry helped secure
Golunov's release. If confirmed, I will engage publicly and privately
to highlight the plight of embattled journalists in Russia and defend
the fundamental human right of free expression.
Sanctions
Question. Especially since 2014, sanctions have been a central
element of U.S. policy to counter Russian malign behavior.
In your view, how effective have sanctions been in response to
Russian activities?
Answer. Sanctions have had a serious negative effect on the Russian
economy, but have not achieved our ultimate policy objectives, such as
the return of sovereignty of Ukraine over the Donbas and Crimea. We are
committed to comprehensive implementation of CAATSA and have imposed
sanctions under sections 224, 228, and 231. We have also used the
threat of sanctions as leverage to deter sanctionable activity,
including through use of CAATSA 231 to deter or disrupt billions of
dollars' worth of Russian arms transactions, or Sections 225 and 232 to
deter participation in identified areas of Russia's energy sector. The
United States has sanctioned more than 300 individuals and entities for
their involvement in Russia's malign activities since January 2017.
Question. Why has the administration not used the full range of
sanctions authorities Congress established in the Countering America's
Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA)?
Answer. We are committed to comprehensive implementation of CAATSA
and have imposed sanctions under sections 224, 228, and 231. We have
also used the threat of sanctions as leverage to deter sanctionable
activity, including through use of CAATSA 231 to deter or disrupt
billions of dollars' worth of Russian arms transactions, or Sections
225 and 232 to deter participation in identified areas of Russia's
energy sector. Including sanctions imposed pursuant to CAATSA, the
United States has sanctioned more than 300 individuals and entities for
their involvement in Russia's malign activities since January 2017.
Question. Does the administration intend to impose sanctions on
Turkey for taking delivery of Russian S-400 missile systems?
Answer. Sanctions deliberations on this issue are ongoing. I cannot
pre-judge a sanctions decision prior to a determination by the
Secretary of State. The Secretary has made clear he is committed to
implementing CAATSA. CAATSA deliberations are multi-faceted, complex,
and conducted on a case-by-case basis. I cannot preview a timeline for
a CAATSA decision on Turkey. The administration is not waiting for the
outcome of CAATSA deliberations to take action in response to Turkey's
S-400 acquisition. The President's decision to unwind Turkey from the
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program makes clear how seriously we take
this issue.
Nuclear Arms Control
Question. White House officials have indicated that the United
States does not need to make a decision about an extension of the New
START nuclear arms reduction Treaty until next year, as the Treaty does
not expire until February 2021.
Do you support an extension of New START?
Answer. The administration has not yet made a decision about
potential extension of the New START Treaty. Central to the U.S. review
of potential New START extension is whether an extension is in the U.S.
national interest, and how the Treaty's expiration would affect U.S.,
Allied, and partner security in an evolving security environment. As
Secretary Pompeo has said, ``We will continue to work to allow the
Treaty to be verified exactly as the verification regime exists. As for
its extension, the Department has agreed that we will gather together
teams to begin work not only on New START and its potential extension,
but also on a broader range of arms control issues that each of our two
nations have a vested interest in achieving an agreement on.''
Question. Should future strategic arms reductions with Russia be
considered? If so, should they cover a wider range of weapons and
countries?
Answer. Yes. President Trump has charged his national security team
to think more broadly about arms control, both in terms of the
countries and the weapon systems involved. Bilateral treaties that
cover limited types of nuclear weapons or only certain ranges of
missiles insufficiently address the threat environment we face today.
Russia and China must both be brought to the table as we evaluate how
our arms control agreements contribute to U.S. defense and deterrence
requirements, as well as those of allies and partners. The Senate in
its advice and consent to ratification of the New START Treaty called
for negotiations with the Russian Federation to address the disparity
between U.S. and Russian stockpiles of nonstrategic nuclear weapons.
Question. In your view, what are possible implications of the U.S.
withdrawal from the INF Treaty?
Answer. On August 2, 2019, the United States terminated the INF
Treaty because Russia failed to return to compliance after developing,
flight-testing, and then fielding multiple battalions of an
intermediate-range missile system in violation of its obligations.
Russia is solely responsible for the Treaty's demise. Our NATO Allies
fully supported the United States' determination and withdrawal from
the Treaty, and we are working closely to ensure NATO's deterrence and
defense against the full-range of Russia's capabilities, including the
SSC-8. At the same time, President Trump has charged his national
security team to think more broadly about arms control, both in terms
of the countries and the weapon systems involved.
Paul Whelan's Imprisonment
Question. As you know, Whelan, a former Marine was arrested in
December 2018 and has since been held in Russian custody over
allegations of espionage. Ambassador Huntsman visited Whelan on October
2, his last working day, in addition to a few other visits. He called
for Whelan's immediate release.
If confirmed, what will you do as Ambassador to secure (or attempt
to secure) the release of Paul Whelan?
Answer. The safety and welfare of U.S. citizens abroad is of the
utmost importance to the Department of State and the entire U.S.
government. The Department takes seriously its responsibility to assist
U.S. citizens who are incarcerated or detained abroad. If confirmed, I
will continue to urge the Russian government to ensure a fair trial for
Mr. Whelan, including a fair and public hearing on his continued
detention without undue delay. The Embassy will also continue to
monitor Mr. Whelan's case closely and to press for fair and humane
treatment, unrestricted consular access, access to appropriate medical
care, and due process. I will continue to raise these concerns with the
Russian government.
International Games
Question. Microsoft announced that Russia hacked many anti-doping
organizations, including the U.S. Anti-Doping agency. I met with Dr.
Grigory Rodchenkov in March 2018, the Russian whistleblower who
uncovered Russia's fraud at the Olympics. He still lives his life in
fear of retaliation from Putin, despite his major contributions to our
knowledge about Russia's malfeasance. It is after him that my
colleagues and I have named the Rodchenkov Anti-Doping Act, which would
criminalize doping conspiracies in international competitions and
demonstrate once and for all that when the Russian FSB pushes Russia's
athletes to cheat in international games, we do and will always
perceive it as fraud against all U.S. and international athletes
competing.
How do you intend to confront Russia's use of international games
for soft-power purposes, its consistent bad behavior in those
games and as a member of the organizations that run them, and
Putin's cozy relationship with prominent figures in
international sports, such as International Olympic Committee
President, Thomas Bach?
Answer. State-sponsored hacking and disinformation campaigns pose
serious threats to our security and to our open society. As one example
of how we are challenging Russia in this space, in 2018, the Department
of Justice took actions against seven hackers, all military
intelligence officers in the Russian Main Intelligence Directorate
(GRU), for litany of crimes, including computer hacking into the World
Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and International Olympic Committee (IOC).
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted
to Hon. John Joseph Sullivan by Senator Jeanne Shaheen
Question. White House officials have indicated that the United
States does not need to make a decision about an extension of the New
START nuclear arms reduction Treaty until next year. Do you agree with
the need for the New START Treaty to be extended by February 2021? Are
you aware that the Treaty will end if it is not extended by that time?
Answer. The administration has not yet made a decision about
potential extension of the New START Treaty, which will expire on
February 5, 2021, if the United States and Russian Federation do not
agree to extend the Treaty for up to five years. Central to the U.S.
review of a potential New START extension is whether an extension is in
the U.S. national interest, and how the Treaty's expiration would
affect U.S., Allied, and partner security in an evolving security
environment.
Question. When is the appropriate time to begin negotiations on the
New START Treaty extension?
Answer. As the New START Treaty is not scheduled to expire until
February 5, 2021, the administration has time to determine whether it
is in the U.S. national interest to extend. As Secretary Pompeo has
said, ``We will continue to work to allow the Treaty to be verified
exactly as the verification regime exists. As for its extension, the
U.S. government has agreed to gather together teams to begin work not
only on New START and its potential extension, but also on a broader
range of arms control issues that each of our two nations have a vested
interest in achieving an agreement on.''
Question. Is it appropriate to forego the New START Treaty
extension to advance a multilateral or trilateral agreement?
Answer. President Trump has charged his national security team to
think more broadly about arms control, both in terms of the countries
and the weapon systems involved. Bilateral treaties that cover limited
types of nuclear weapons or only certain ranges of adversary missiles
are insufficient to address the threat environment we face today. The
administration has not yet made a decision about a potential extension
of the New START Treaty.
Question. Would it be possible to negotiate a multilateral or
trilateral agreement after New START extension by February 2021?
Answer. President Trump has charged his national security team to
think more broadly about arms control, both in terms of the countries
and the weapon systems involved. Russia and China must be brought to
the table as we evaluate how our arms control agreements contribute to
U.S. defense and deterrence requirements, as well as those of allies
and partners. It is important to negotiate a new trilateral arms
control agreement that will constrain both Russia and China, and that
will thus help prevent a dangerous arms race for far longer than merely
the few more years New START would exist even if it were extended.
Question. Is it necessary to forego existing constraints on
Russia's nuclear arsenal to try for a new Treaty?
Answer. President Trump has charged his national security team to
think more broadly about arms control, both in terms of the countries
and the weapon systems involved. The administration has not yet made a
decision about a potential extension of the New START Treaty, which
does not expire for over a year. As Secretary Pompeo has said, ``We
will continue to work to allow the Treaty to be verified exactly as the
verification regime exists. As for its extension, we have agreed that
we will gather together teams to begin work not only on New START and
its potential extension, but also on a broader range of arms control
issues that each of our two nations have a vested interest in achieving
an agreement on.'' It is important to negotiate a new trilateral arms
control agreement that will constrain both Russia and China, and that
will thus help prevent a dangerous arms race for far longer than merely
the few more years New START would exist even if it were extended.
Question. Can the United States both pursue an extension and a
multilateral/trilateral agreement without losing one for the other?
Answer. The administration has yet to determine whether New START
extension is in the U.S. national interest. Whether we can extend and
negotiate a new agreement depends on the willingness of Russia and
China to engage us constructively to deliver better security for the
world as President Trump has called for. That is why it is so important
for the international community to make clear to both Russia and China
that it is essential that they negotiate with the United States on a
trilateral approach.
Question. In your current role, you oversaw a State Department
Working Group dealing with Brain Trauma suffered by Foreign Service
Officers in Cuba and China. Why did the State Department ultimately
determine that these groups remain separate and distinct even though
the brain injuries mirrored one another?
Answer. We have relied on medical and scientific experts from
across the government and from many private medical institutions in
making any determinations on this issue. My understanding from the
experts who examined and treated all of the patients is that although
the constellation of symptoms and the findings on examination were
similar between both groups, the histories and physical findings of the
patients from China did not match that of the Cuba cohort. That being
said, the patients from China received the same level of care and
benefits that those from Cuba were afforded.
Question. Have all Foreign Service Officers in China and Cuba
applied and/or received long-term workers' compensation to deal with
their injuries?
Answer. While all individuals interested in pursuing workers'
compensation claims have applied, several individuals have decided not
to apply for workers' compensation. The Department of Labor has
approved the overwhelming majority of workers' compensation claims.
Question. How many in each cohort have/have not received worker's
compensation?
Answer. While the Department of Labor has approved the overwhelming
majority of workers' compensation claims, some initial workers'
compensation claims (two from China, one from Cuba) lacked sufficient
detail to be approved and are in the appeals phase. These individuals
have not received workers' compensation.
Question. Is the threat of Foreign Service Officers receiving these
injuries resolved?
Answer. No. The safety and security of U.S. personnel, their
families, and U.S. citizens is our top priority. Our response continues
to be guided by the facts. World-class specialists and other scientists
at the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Miami, the
National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention continue to examine the medical data to gain a better
understanding of the nature and mechanism of injury that caused these
patients' symptoms.
Our investigation is ongoing, and the U.S. government is working
diligently to determine what happened to our staff and their families.
Question. Could you describe your perspective of the growing
relationship between Russia and Turkey? Please also describe any joint
ventures that Turkey and Russia are pursuing together and if confirmed,
how you will view these ventures.
Answer. We have publicly expressed concerns about the relationship
of our NATO Ally, Turkey, with Russia, including the purchase of the S-
400 missile system. We are aware of media reports of potential military
hardware collaborations, which are not consistent with Turkey's
commitments as a NATO member, and are monitoring closely. I will
continue to adhere to and implement these policy views if confirmed.
Question. Is it your assessment that Russian President Vladimir
Putin and Turkish President Erdogan engage in illicit financing
operations and money laundering to be able to boost each other's own
wealth?
Answer. We have publicly expressed concerns about the relationship
of our NATO Ally, Turkey, with Russia. We urge both countries to
increase their efforts to curb illicit financial flows, safeguard their
banking systems, and improve compliance with international standards to
combat money laundering.
Question. Have you looked into the issue of the Russian government
developing ties with U.S. militias and biker groups? What is your view
on this situation? If confirmed, how will you address these issues?
Answer. I do not have a factual basis to address this question now,
but will look into this matter. Russia's efforts to stoke internal
divisions and foment violence outside of its borders are of great
concern. If confirmed, I will support ongoing U.S. government efforts
to counter this dangerous and destabilizing activity. In Moscow, I will
remind the Russian government that efforts to undermine stability and
security within the United States will not be tolerated.
Question. What is your view of the differences between the Russian
Federal Security Service (FSB) and Military Intelligence Agency (GRU)?
Are you concerned by the increased prevalence of the GRU?
Answer. The FSB is the principal security agency of Russia
primarily concerned with internal security of the Russian state and
counterintelligence. The GRU is the foreign military intelligence
agency of the General Staff of the Armed Forces. The United States is
concerned about ongoing GRU activity--including malicious cyber
activity, involvement in the attempted coup in Montenegro in 2016, and
responsibility for the chemical weapon attack on Sergei Skripal and his
daughter in Salisbury, UK. We have taken decisive action to respond to
this activity.
Question. In your testimony, you noted that Russia has been taking
back Russian detainees from Syria and Iraq back to Russia and described
concerns over the treatment of those that are taken back. Could you
further elaborate on your concerns?
Answer. Russia's human rights record, in this case especially
pertaining to prisoners, causes us concern. The United States does not
facilitate the transfer of detainees to any country that has not
committed to humane treatment assurances consistent with international
law and standards.
Question. Approximately, how many Russians have fought for ISIS in
Syria and Iraq? How many remain?
Answer. The Department is unable to provide details on Russian
fighters in an unclassified setting. The Department is happy to
promptly provide a classified briefing on this topic.
Question. Could you specify the amount of actual ISIS fighters or
detainees that Russia has taken back to Russia? Could you also specify
the amount of children and family members of ISIS fighters that Russia
has taken back?
Answer. The Department is unable to provide details on Russian
fighters and dependents in an unclassified setting. The Department is
happy to, provide promptly a classified briefing on this topic.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted
to Hon. John Joseph Sullivan by Senator Christopher A. Coons
Question. In your opening statement, you stated that you ``intend
to continue to press the Russian government for the release of Paul
Whelan.'' How specifically will you advocate for his release before and
during his trial?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to urge the Russian
government to ensure a fair trial, including an immediate fair and
public hearing on Mr.Whelan's detention before trial. My team will
continue to monitor Mr. Whelan's case closely and to press for fair and
humane treatment, unrestricted consular access, access to appropriate
medical care, and due process. I take Mr. Whelan's allegations of
mistreatment seriously. I will ask Russian authorities to investigate
these allegations and ensure Mr. Whelan's safety and security. I will
continue to raise Mr. Whelan's case at every opportunity.
Question. Will you advocate for the Trump administration to use the
full resources of the U.S. government, including sanctions, if
appropriate, to push for Mr. Whelan's release?
Answer. The safety and welfare of U.S. citizens abroad is of the
utmost importance to the Department of State, the entire U.S.
government, and to me personally. The Department takes seriously its
responsibility to assist U.S. citizens who are incarcerated or detained
abroad, and to use all appropriate means to secure the release of those
detained unjustly. If confirmed, I will continue to urge the Russian
government to ensure a fair trial for Mr. Whelan, including a fair and
public hearing without undue delay. My team will also continue to
monitor Mr. Whelan's case closely and to press for fair and humane
treatment, unrestricted consular access, access to appropriate medical
care, and due process. I will continue to raise these concerns with the
Russian government.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted
to Hon. John Joseph Sullivan by Senator Jeff Merkley
Question. Since 2002, the United States, its allies, and partners
have conducted over 500 observation missions over Russian territory
under the Treaty on Open Skies--one tool we have to reduce mistrust and
the threat of war on the continent. Do you believe that U.S. continued
implementation of the Treaty on Open Skies is in our national security
interest and that of our allies and partners?
Answer. The United States continues to implement the Treaty on Open
Skies. We continuously review all of our international agreements to
ensure they are in our national security interest. We are in full
compliance with our obligations under this Treaty, unlike Russia, which
has violated certain of its obligations. The Treaty, in force since
2002, provides for manned overflights of the States Parties' territory
in order to build confidence regarding military forces and intentions.
As the Secretary has said, ``[t]he United States remains committed to
effective arms control that advances U.S., allied, and partner
security; is verifiable and enforceable; and includes partners that
comply responsibly with their obligations.''
Question. Has the government of Ukraine and the other 32 States
Parties (other than Russia) to the Treaty on Open Skies advocated to
you or other senior State Department officials, in recent weeks, urging
the United States remain Party to the Treaty, and if so, what arguments
have they made to that effect?
Answer. The United States has not withdrawn from the Treaty on Open
Skies and the United States continues to implement this Treaty. A
number of allies have told us that they value the Treaty and view it as
a key instrument for gathering information on Russian military
formations and troop deployments. We continue to work with our allies
and partners on all compliance and implementation issues related to the
Treaty on Open Skies.
Question. Will you commit that members of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee will be consulted in advance of any decision by the
Administration on any changes to the U.S. implementation of the Treaty?
Answer. The United States has not withdrawn from the Treaty on Open
Skies and the United States continues to implement this Treaty. If that
were to change, there would be appropriate consultations with Congress,
including with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Question. Will you commit that the United States will not proceed
with the procurement or deployment of an intermediate or shorter-range
missile system to the territory of a European ally without first
signing a Memorandum of Understanding with that country agreeing to
that deployment as well as a North Atlantic Council consensus decision
as to ensure alliance unity?
Answer. On August 2, 2019, the United States withdrew from and
effectively terminated the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF)
Treaty solely because Russia failed to return to compliance after
developing, flight-testing, and then fielding multiple battalions of an
intermediate-range missile system in violation of its obligations. Our
NATO allies fully supported the U.S. determination and withdrawal from
the Treaty. We are working closely to ensure NATO's deterrence and
defense posture remains strong and united against the full-range of
Russia's capabilities, including the SSC-8. As the United States has
historically complied with the Treaty, we do not have a system that is
ready to be deployed. It is far too early to discuss potential
deployment.
Question. Would the expiration of the New Strategic Arms Reduction
Treaty (New START) with Russia on February 5, 2021--in the absence of a
replacement Treaty or agreement that enters into force on or before
that date--hamper U.S. insight into the location, movement, and
disposition of Russian strategic nuclear forces and would such a
development be in the U.S. national security interest?
Answer. The Administration has not yet made a decision about a
potential extension of the New START Treaty. Central to the U.S. review
of such an extension is a determination of whether it is in the U.S.
national interest and how the Treaty's expiration would affect U.S.,
allied, and partner security in an evolving security environment.
Question. If the United States, Russia, and China cannot agree to a
trilateral arms control agreement within the next year, is the
Administration prepared to extend the New START Treaty while any
trilateral dialogues continue?
Answer. President Trump has charged his national security team to
think more broadly about arms control, both in terms of the countries
and the weapon systems involved. Bilateral treaties that cover limited
types of nuclear weapons or only certain ranges of adversary missiles
are insufficient to address the threat environment we face today.
Russia and China must be brought to the table as we evaluate how our
arms control agreements contribute to U.S. defense and deterrence
requirements. Central to the U.S. review of a potential New START
extension is whether it is in the national interest and how the
Treaty's expiration would affect U.S., allied, and partner security in
an evolving security environment. That decision has not yet been made.
Question. What kinds of Chinese Weapons are the greatest priority
to limit in an arms control agreement?
Answer. President Trump has charged his national security team to
think more broadly about arms control, both in terms of the countries
and the weapon systems involved. Bilateral treaties that cover limited
types of nuclear weapons or only certain ranges of adversary missiles
are insufficient to address the threat environment we face today, in
which China will likely double its nuclear forces, including
intermediate range weapons systems, over the next decade.
Question. I am particularly concerned by Russia's efforts to help
North Korea evade sanctions. If confirmed, will you make it one of your
top priorities to pressure Russia to be a constructive partner in
maintaining pressure on North Korea to work toward denuclearization?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to press Russia to fully
implement and enforce all DPRK-related U.N. Security Council
resolutions, particularly those related to North Korean workers and the
supply of oil to the DPRK.
Question. One of the ways Russia helps North Korea evade sanctions
is by hosting approximately 10,000 North Korean workers, even though
all countries are required to no longer host these workers by the end
of the year. What will you do to press Russia to comply with its
obligations on guest workers?
Answer. Countries around the world are obliged by the U.N. Security
Council resolutions to fully implement and enforce existing sanctions.
Russia currently falls short of full implementation of all DPRK-related
U.N. Security Council resolutions. If confirmed, I will press Russia to
fully implement and enforce all DPRK-related U.N. Security Council
resolutions, particularly those related to North Korean workers.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted
to Hon. John Joseph Sullivan by Senator Cory A. Booker
Protecting Journalists
Question. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, Russia
is one of the world's worst offenders of violence against journalists.
It ranks 11th on the list of countries in which criminal groups,
politicians, and government officials turn to violence to stifle
critical and investigative reporting. What will you do to push the
Russian government to protect journalists?
Answer. Russia remains one of the most dangerous countries for
journalists to work. During commemorations of the International Day to
End Impunity for Crimes against Journalists on November 2, the
Department highlighted the case of Svetlana Prokopyeva, who faces up to
seven years in prison for suggesting that the Russian government's
restrictions on peaceful expressions of dissent may make people more
likely to resort to violence. If confirmed, I intend to use Embassy and
Department of State platforms to highlight the plight of embattled
journalists, promote the fundamental human right of free expression,
and continue pressing the Russian government to stop harassing
journalists.
Russian Efforts in Afghanistan
Question. Russia has bolstered its relationships with the Taliban
and in 2017 even reportedly supplied equipment and small arms to the
group. Russia has also expressed interest in supporting intra-Afghan
discussions. Do you view Russian diplomatic efforts as helpful or at
cross purposes with the United States?
Answer. Russia remains a factor in Afghanistan given its location,
history, and interests. Special Representative for Afghanistan
Reconciliation, Ambassador Khalilzad, coordinates with his Russian
counterpart, Ambassador Kabulov, to enlist Russian support for the U.S.
effort to promote a negotiated solution to the Afghan conflict that
ensures Afghanistan never again becomes a platform for transnational
terrorism. If confirmed, I will work with Ambassador Khalilzad to
engage Russia on this issue.
Question. Do you view Russia's efforts help or hinder the United
States' efforts?
Answer. We welcome Russia's willingness to engage in dialogue on
this important topic.
Question. What are Russia's goals and objectives in Afghanistan?
Answer. We understand that Russia seeks to stop the flow of drugs
from Afghanistan to Russia and to prevent terrorism from spilling over
into Central Asia and Russia.
Question. Does Russia continue to supply weapons and equipment to
the Taliban?
Answer. We are aware of media reports that the Russian government
clandestinely supplies arms to the Taliban. We condemn any such actions
that would undermine the elected government of Afghanistan and could
threaten Afghan civilians and U.S. and coalition forces.
Question. Should Russia be trusted as a partner for the United
States in Afghanistan?
Answer. The United States and Russia share common interests in
preventing Afghanistan from serving as a base for transnational
terrorism and in promoting a negotiated settlement to the conflict. Our
productive coordination with Russia is designed to advance our common
interests. We welcome Russia's willingness to engage in dialogue on
this important topic.
Question. Russia cites concerns about the Islamic State affiliate
in Afghanistan (Islamic State-Khorasan Province, aka ISKP or ISIS-K) to
justify much of its dealings in Afghanistan. To what extent does the
United States share those concerns and how much of a threat does ISKP
represent to Russia and/or its regional interests?
Answer. ISIS-K remains a serious threat in Afghanistan. If
confirmed, I will encourage continued dialogue with Russia to address
the threats posed to U.S. and Russian interests by ISIS-K and other
terrorist groups in Afghanistan.
Russian Efforts in Africa
Question. Russia has increased its interest in Africa. There are
reports that Russia has increasingly invested in efforts to undermine
democratic accountability in connection with upcoming African elections
in Ghana, Guinea, Cote d'Ivoire, Burkina Faso and Burundi. How do you
review Russian interests in Africa?
Answer. U.S. interests require countering Russian efforts to
undermine the post-Cold War global order, including in Africa. The
Kremlin's aggressive and opportunistic foreign policy approach seeks
global attention by inserting itself or its proxies to undermine
Western efforts at stability, or by offering its false model of
``sovereign democracy'' as an alternative to transparent democratic
institutions and processes. Russia views its outreach to African
countries as an avenue to break out of the international isolation
generated by its ongoing aggression against Ukraine and to gain
valuable support in international fora, including the U.N. and the
Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).
Question. How do you view these activities as threats to the United
States' interests in these countries?
Answer. The United States has serious concerns about Russian
efforts to bolster its influence in Africa through arms sales and the
use of private military companies (PMCs) and proxy forces, as
exemplified in the Central African Republic. Malign activities such as
these run counter to U.S. interests and undermine democratic
development on the African continent. Russia has expanded its
diplomatic and economic outreach to Africa by rekindling Cold War-era
relationships and hosting a large African Economic Conference in Sochi
in October 2019, attended by 40 African Heads of State.
Question. Do you believe the United States has done enough to
counter Russian meddling in democratic elections around the world?
Answer. Free and fair elections are essential to democracy. Russian
efforts to undermine democratic processes and the sovereignty of its
neighbors are unacceptable and require a whole-of-government response.
The Department of State works closely with other departments and
agencies, as well as with allies and partners, to protect our nations
against potential interference in our election processes. If confirmed,
I will continue to raise concerns about Russia's destabilizing activity
with Russian leadership at every opportunity. Our policy toward Russia
will not change until Moscow takes demonstrable steps to end this
activity.
__________
Letter in Support of John J. Sulivan's Nomination to be Deputy
Secretary of State
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Memorandum of the July 25, 2919 Telephone Conversation Between
President Donald J. Trump and President Zelenskyy of Ukraine
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Communication from Senator Robert Menendez to Hon. Mike Pompeo,
Regarding the Murder of Jamal Khashoggi
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Communication from Senator Robert Menendez to Hon. John J. Sullivan,
Regarding Foreign Assistance Funding
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Communication from Members of the Senate to Hon. John J. Sullivan,
Regarding Russia's Sale of the S-400 Air Defense System
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Communication from Members of the Senate to Hon. John J. Sullivan,
Regarding the Resignation of Juan Jimemez Mayor
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Communication from John C. Rood to Senator James E. Risch, Regarding
Ukraine's Progress Toward Compliance to Legislative Funding
Requirements
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Communication from Senator Robert Menendez to Hon. Mike Pompeo,
Regarding the Legal Status of the U.S.-Mexico Joint Declaration and
Supplementary Agreement of June 7, 2019
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Communication from Senator Robert Menendez to Hon. Mike Pompeo,
Regarding a Delay of Security Assistance to Ukraine
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Communication from Senator Robert Menendez to Hon. Mike Pompeo,
Regarding the Ukraine Controversy
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Communication from committee Chairmen Engel, Schiff, and Cummings, to
Hon. John J. Sullivan, Regarding Testimony by Current and Former State
Department Officials Before the House of Representative's Impeachment
Inquiry
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Communication from Senator Robert Menendez to Hon. Mike Pompeo, Urging
Secretary Pompeo's Recusal from All Ukraine-Related Matters
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Communication from the Minority Members of the SFRC to Hon. Mike
Pompeo, Regarding Secretary Pompeo's Failure to Defend Ambassador Marie
Yovanovitch from ``Undo Political Pressure''
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
NOMINATIONS
----------
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 31, 2019
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m. in
Room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Marco Rubio,
presiding.
Present: Senators Rubio [presiding], Gardner, Romney,
Young, Cardin, Shaheen, and Kaine.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARCO RUBIO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator Rubio. The Committee on Foreign Relations will come
to order.
I want to welcome the nominees.
Today we will consider five nominations: Ms. Andeliz
Castillo, to be the U.S. Alternate Executive Director of the
Inter-American Development Bank; Ms. Alma Golden, to be the
Assistant Administrator of the United States Agency for
International Development; Mr. Peter Haymond, to be the
Ambassador to Lao People's Democratic Republic; Ms. Alina
Romanowski, to be the Ambassador to the State of Kuwait; and
Ms. Leslie Meredith Tsou, to be Ambassador to the Sultanate of
Oman.
If confirmed, you will have important roles and
responsibilities in advancing our nation's foreign policy
objectives and in protecting our national security interests
and values. This is especially true for those countries with
concerning records on human rights and democracy and those in
which we are working to improve the economy, security, and
bilateral relations.
In Laos, Mr. Haymond, the U.S. continues to pursue policies
that advance the goal of a free and open Indo- Pacific. So I
will be interested to hear how you see Laos fitting into
America's strategy and interests in the region.
In Kuwait, it is a strategic partner for the United States
that is hosting military personnel and cooperating with us on a
host of issues, including countering regional threats. I will
be interested today to hear how we will continue to work with
the Kuwaitis on counterterror financing and find opportunities
to bring Kuwait closer to U.S. policy on halting Iran's
destabilizing activities in the region.
In Oman, the U.S. should also continue our cooperation,
particularly on countering threats posed by the brutal regime
in Tehran. We work together with them on many issues, and so I
look forward to hearing views on ways to strengthen the
relationship and advance our areas of mutual interest for our
nations.
Ms. Golden, on the USAID Global Health, the stakes of this
position are high as global health programs consume roughly a
third of USAID's budget. These programs and initiatives include
maternal and child health, controlling the HIV/AIDS epidemic,
combating infectious diseases such as tuberculosis, malaria,
and tropical diseases. And doing so is not just a moral
imperative. These are matters of national security for our
country. Global health crises such as an Ebola outbreak in the
DRC quickly become out of control, leaving many dead and
creating instability and chaos. I believe it is in our
country's interest to help countries build strong health
systems and improve global health security. And that is why
funding and effective leadership are important, and I look
forward to hearing about your priorities.
Finally, in the Inter-American Development Bank, the U.S.
has an opportunity to help support economic, social, and
institutional development in the region, a region of the world
that lies obviously in our own hemisphere and yet I think is
too often ignored. While we are one of the wealthiest nations
in the world, countries to our south suffer from poverty, weak
institutions, violence, political instability, dictatorial
regimes, and growing influence and pressure from China and
Russia. And so I look forward to hearing from you, Ms.
Castillo, how you hope to address many of these issues that are
holding back these countries in the region from becoming strong
democracies, that respect the rule of law and human rights, and
who have achieved economic stability and prosperity as well.
Should each of you be confirmed to your respective
positions, you will play important roles in advancing our
foreign policy. We are at a critical point in our history where
increasingly aggressive governments, such as the Chinese
Communist government and the Russian government under Vladimir
Putin, are working to weaken America's influence and role in
the world. They would love nothing more than to exert their
influence by stepping into vacuums left behind by our nation.
And for these reasons and many more, the U.S. must remain
engaged and play a key leadership role on the global stage,
find ways to support young and emerging democracies, and
strengthen our bilateral relationships around the world. We
have a real opportunity, and that is why your roles will be
important.
So, again, I want to thank each of you and your families
for your commitment to our nation and your willingness to
serve.
To the ranking member.
STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MARYLAND
Senator Cardin. Well, thank you, Chairman Rubio, for
calling this hearing. We have five very important nominees for
positions in regards to missions in other countries, as well as
international organizations.
I welcome all five of the nominees. I thank you for your
willingness to serve our nation during these extremely
challenging times, and we thank your families because we know
that this will be a sacrifice to the families. And we thank you
for your service.
As I do with just about every nominee, I will be asking you
questions concerning human rights and how you will advance
human rights. But today particularly the question that is on
the minds of most Americans is what your view was on the
Houston manager's decision as it related to the changing of
pitching.
[Laughter.]
Senator Shaheen. I do not think they have to answer that.
[Laughter.]
Senator Cardin. I do want to just acknowledge, Mr.
Chairman, that until the people of the District of Columbia
have their own U.S. Senators in this body, it is incumbent upon
the Senators from Maryland and Virginia to speak out on behalf
of the people of the District of Columbia. And we will.
And congratulations to the Washington Nats. It was a great
victory. I think we are all proud of the way that they
conducted their season. They never gave up even though there
were times that I think people wondered whether they had a
chance. And now, of course, winning the championship we have
great pride.
So moving on to this hearing and who we have here, Ms.
Castillo, I want to first thank you for your willingness. The
Inter-American Development Bank is very important in their
leadership in our own hemisphere. As the chairman has pointed
out, there are significant challenges that we confront today
from the influence of China and Russia in our hemisphere to the
challenges that have been brought forward in regards to the
migrations from Central America and the challenges from
Venezuela.
So we want to know how you will be leading this agency, if
confirmed, to provide the help that the Inter-American
Development Bank can do in regards to productivity and
innovation in our hemisphere, gender equality, dealing with
environmental stewardship, and the protection of human rights.
To Ms. Golden, in regards to the Bureau of Global Health,
we all understand that global health issues equals stability
for us. It is a national security concern, as well as a
humanitarian concern. So your leadership here is going to be
critically important. We have seen new Ebola outbreaks, as well
as measles and cholera, presenting challenges for us.
I will mention that I welcome your thoughts as to how this
administration's revised and expanded Mexico City policy is
going to affect our mission on dealing with issues such as
family planning. Even though no funds of the United States can
go for abortion, we know that it is also affecting other
programs and capacities within our mission to deal with global
health.
And in regards to Mr. Haymond, Ms. Romanowski, and Ms.
Tsou, I want to thank all three of you for your career service,
diplomatic service. That has been very much challenged in this
environment, but you are continuing to serve our nation in
critically important roles. Each of the countries that you have
been nominated to are critically important to us for national
security concerns, the growing influence of China. And I will
be asking you as to how you will advance American values, if
confirmed, including the protection of human rights of the
people of the country in which our mission is located. I look
forward to your testimony.
Again, thank you all for your willingness to serve our
country.
Senator Rubio. Thank you very much.
I guess I will start from right to left to introduce our
nominees.
Ms. Andeliz Castillo currently serves as the Special
Assistant to the President and Deputy Director of Public
Liaison and Intergovernmental Affairs in the Office of the Vice
President. Of course, she is nominated to be U.S. Alternate
Executive Director of the Inter-American Development Bank.
Ms. Alma Golden, to be Assistant Administrator of the
United States Agency for International Development. She is the
Executive Director of the U.S. Global Development Lab where she
oversees the lab and its operations.
Mr. Peter Haymond, to be the Ambassador to the Lao People's
Democratic Republic. He is a career member of the Senior
Foreign Service and currently serves as charge at the U.S.
embassy in Bangkok, Thailand.
Ms. Alina Romanowski to be Ambassador to the State of
Kuwait. Ms. Romanowski assumes her post as the Acting Principal
Deputy Coordinator for Counterterrorism on November 14th--
assumed her post on November 14th as the Principal Deputy
Coordinator for Counterterrorism where she oversees
coordination and integration of the Department of State and the
U.S. government's international efforts to advance specific
counterterrorism policies, objectives, and develops, and
implements them.
Ms. Leslie Meredith Tsou, to be Ambassador to the Sultanate
of Oman. She is a career member of the Senior Foreign Service,
is Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. mission in Israel, and
is the first Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. embassy in
Jerusalem. Previously she served as the senior advisor on Iran
and Director of the Office of Iranian Affairs at the Department
of State.
So thank you all for being here. We will start with you,
Ms. Castillo. Thank you, and you are recognized for your
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF ANDELIZ N. CASTILLO, OF NEW YORK, TO BE UNITED
STATES ALTERNATE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE INTER-AMERICAN
DEVELOPMENT BANK, VICE ELIOT PEDROSA
Ms. Castillo. Good morning, Chairman Risch, Chairman Rubio,
Ranking Members Menendez and Cardin, and members of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee.
I am very honored and humbled that President Trump has
nominated me to serve as the U.S. Alternate Executive Director
of the Inter-American Development Bank. I am grateful to
Secretary Mnuchin and U.S. Executive Director of the Inter-
American Development Bank Eliot Pedrosa for their confidence
and support throughout this process.
Earlier this year, I was blessed to become a mom to my 7-
month-old son, Noah Manuel. It is the toughest yet the most
rewarding role I have held thus far. I share this
responsibility with my loving husband, Reinaldo Pagan, who is
here with me today. I must say that I am an incredibly proud
wife of a U.S. veteran. My husband served this country for more
than 20 years in the U.S. Army.
My mom Nevis and my stepdad Jorge, who have always
supported me with their unconditional love, could not be here
today but are watching from home as they care for my son.
And lastly, I would be remiss if I did not recognize my
beautiful grandparents, Manuel and Bertha, who are watching
from above.
I was born and raised in New York City as a first
generation immigrant. My mother, along with her three sisters
and my grandparents, fled to the United States settling in New
York in pursuit of basic rights and opportunities that were
stripped away in their homeland of Cuba. Their experience of
losing everything due to communism and authoritarianism taught
me early on the value of democracy, economic opportunity, human
rights, and freedoms. In addition to my mother's immigrant
experience, her ability to successfully raise my brother Alex,
my sister Adrianna, and me for several years on her own
instilled the principles of self-reliance, hard work, and
perseverance.
In my nearly 15 years of professional experience, I have
had the great privilege to serve the American people in the
legislative and executive branch. I have worked in
communications, coalition-building, intergovernmental affairs,
and policy. My professional introduction to western hemisphere
affairs began in the office of south Florida Congressman
Lincoln Diaz-Balart and continued in a greater capacity after
joining the House Committee on Foreign Affairs under Chairman
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.
Today in the Vice President's office, although my primary
function is to serve as an interface between civil society
groups and Vice President Pence, I have worked closely with the
western hemisphere national security team on issues to advance
democracy and human rights throughout the region. I was
fortunate to visit Colombia, Argentina, Chile, and Panama with
the Vice President on his first official trip to Latin America.
Outside of government, I led a nonprofit organization as
Chief Operating Officer and Chief of Staff for several years. I
gained valuable management and operations experience,
overseeing a team of nearly 100 full-time employees across 10
States.
If I am fortunate to be confirmed, I look forward to
addressing issues that are hindering progress in Latin America
and the Caribbean such as poverty, corruption, weak
institutions, gang violence, socialism, lack of human capital,
and China's growing influence. The shared goal of the United
States and of the Inter-American Development Bank is to achieve
long-term economic prosperity, political stability, and freedom
across the hemisphere, fundamentally to improve the lives of
our southern neighbors. I share that vision and commit to
working with this administration and Congress, especially
members of this committee. I pledge to use the means available
to advance democracy and human rights. And as a proud Hispanic
woman, I look forward to working towards expanding
opportunities for women throughout Latin America and the
Caribbean.
Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member and other members of this
committee, thank you again for the opportunity to appear before
you. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Castillo follows:]
Prepared Statemenmt of Andeliz N. Castillo
Chairman Risch, Chairman Rubio, Ranking Members Menendez and Cardin
and members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: I am very
honored and humbled that President Trump has nominated me to serve as
the U.S. Alternate Executive Director of the Inter-American Development
Bank.
I am grateful to Secretary Mnuchin and U.S. Executive Director of
the InterAmerican Development Bank Eliot Pedrosa for their confidence
and support throughout this process.
Earlier this year, I was blessed to become a mom to my seven month
old son, Noah Manuel. It is the toughest, yet the most rewarding role I
have held thus far. I share this responsibility with my loving husband,
Reinaldo Pagan, who is here with me today. I must say that I am an
incredibly proud wife of a U.S. veteran. My husband served this country
for more than 20 years in the U.S. Army. My mom Nevis and stepdad
Jorge, who have always supported me with their unconditional love,
could not be here today but are watching from my home as they care for
my son. Lastly, I would be remiss if I did not recognize my beautiful
grandparents, Manuel and Bertha, who are watching from above.
I was born and raised in New York City as a first generation
immigrant. My mother, along with her three sisters, and my grandparents
fled to the United States, settling in New York in pursuit of basic
rights and opportunities that were stripped away in their homeland of
Cuba. Their experience of losing everything due to communism and
authoritarianism, taught me early on the value of democracy, economic
opportunity, human rights and freedoms. In addition to my mother's
immigrant experience, her ability to successfully raise my brother
Alex, my sister Adrianna and me for several years on her own instilled
the principles of self-reliance, hard work and perseverance.
In my nearly 15 years of professional experience, I have had the
great privilege to serve the American people in the legislative and
executive branch. I have worked in communications, coalition-building,
intergovernmental affairs, and policy. My professional introduction to
Western Hemisphere affairs began in the office of South Florida
Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart, and continued in a greater capacity
after joining the House Committee on Foreign Affairs under Chairman
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. Today, in the Vice President's office, although my
primary function is to serve as an interface between civil society
groups and Vice President Pence, I have worked closely with the Western
Hemisphere national security team on issues to advance democracy and
human rights throughout the region. I was fortunate to visit Colombia,
Argentina, Chile and Panama with the Vice President on his first
official trip to Latin America.
Outside of government, I led a non-profit organization as Chief
Operating Officer and Chief of Staff for several years. I gained
valuable management and operations experience, overseeing a team of
nearly 100 full-time employees across ten states.
If I am fortunate to be confirmed, I look forward to addressing
issues that are hindering progress in Latin America and the Caribbean
such as poverty, corruption, weak institutions, gang violence,
socialism, lack of human capital, and China's growing influence. The
shared goal of the United States and of the InterAmerican Development
Bank is to achieve long-term economic prosperity, political stability
and freedom across the Hemisphere--fundamentally to improve the lives
of our southern neighbors. I share that vision and commit to working
with this Administration and Congress, especially members of this
committee. I pledge to use the means available to advance democracy and
human rights. And as a proud Hispanic woman, I look forward to working
towards expanding opportunities for women throughout Latin America and
the Caribbean.
Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member and other members of this
committee, thank you again for this opportunity to appear before you. I
would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Rubio. Thank you, Ms. Castillo.
Ms. Golden?
STATEMENT OF DR. ALMA L. GOLDEN, OF TEXAS, TO BE AN ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT, VICE ARIEL PABLOS-MENDEZ
Dr. Golden. Senator Rubio, Senator Cardin, and Senator
Shaheen, and the other members that will be joining I guess
later, I am honored to be here today as the nominee for the
Assistant Administrator for the Bureau for Global Health in the
United States Agency for International Development. I am
humbled by President Trump's nomination and the confidence of
Administrator Green.
I would like to recognize and thank my incredible
colleagues in the Global Health Bureau, as well as well as the
Global Development Lab as well.
USAID's programs demonstrate the great compassion of the
American people, while advancing also the U.S. security
priorities and prosperity of our nation. If confirmed, I commit
to supporting the mission of the Global Health Bureau to
control the HIV epidemic, to prevent child and maternal deaths,
and to combat infectious diseases while we advance health
security.
I consider myself to be one of the richest women you will
meet. My wealth is not in money, but in relationships. I am
privileged to be the mother of four children. 4 years ago in
one of my last conversations with my eldest son, Dr. Matthew
Davis, my trauma surgeon son encouraged me to reenter public
service. I honor his inspiration today.
My other children, David Jonathan Davis; Barbara Davis
Eppink; Daniel Coe Davis; and Matt's wife, Sharon Davis; and
their families are supporting me from Texas.
Today Marina Svistova McCreight is with me. She joined our
family as a Freedom Support Act Scholar from Ukraine 25 years
ago and has been the daughter of my heart since that time. I am
grateful to the Congress for the extraordinary programs like
that which bring the world together.
I am the grandmother of 12 amazing grandchildren, 15 if you
count Marina's. So I am heavily invested in the future.
Administrator Green's inspiring vision for USAID has been
irresistible to this Texas pediatrician. My passion for access
to health care has gone back to my childhood. As a child, I was
inspired by stories I heard about missionaries who went to
other parts of the world to help people in need. Like most
young women growing up in the 1960s, I assumed I would enter
nursing. However, my father, who was a decorated World War II
aviator and who taught me to fly when I was 14, gave me wings
of another sort when he asked me, why do you not just become a
doctor?
Later as a pediatrician and a single mom in my hometown in
Texas, I could not serve overseas, but the needs of my own
county captured my heart. While volunteering with the public
health clinic, I recognized the absence of affordable,
accessible, quality care. I left private pediatrics and I
joined the University of Texas Medical Branch where for a
decade I ran a network of 16 clinics over a span of about 270
miles in south and east Texas providing health care in rural
and underserved communities. This experience of front-line
health care informed my 4 years at the Department of Health and
Human Services while I worked with the Office of Population
Affairs, as well as helped launch PEPFAR. It also has provided
important insights while I worked with USAID since October
2017.
If confirmed, I commit to bring not only my passion for
access to quality care, but also my experience to the countries
where USAID operates.
This administration proudly supports the Global Health
Security Strategy, an effective tool to prevent, detect, and
respond to infectious disease threats. I have witnessed the
complexity of the recent Ebola epidemic firsthand in the DRC,
and if confirmed, I commit to supporting and strengthening
global health security that builds resilience and
responsibility around the world.
USAID prioritizes the empowerment of women and girls, and
we must remain engaged in order to stop the harmful practices
of child marriage, child exploitation, domestic violence, and
other forms of trafficking and abuse. I commit to continuing
that fight.
One agent of change in health outcomes that is mostly
under-appreciated and inadequately resourced is men. Caring men
strengthen diverse health outcomes, including the use of
prenatal care, immunizations, school attendance, use of
voluntary family planning, and adequate nutrition while
lowering rates of domestic violence and exploitation. If
confirmed, I commit to identifying current programs and new
supports to help male champions of health and well-being.
Global Health is on the threshold of a decade of
significant change. We will confront, no doubt, new epidemics,
increase in antimicrobial resistance, changing populations and
additional manmade crises. But we also have extraordinary
possibilities.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here. I look forward to
answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Golden follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Alma Crumm Golden
Senator Rubio, Senator Cardin, and distinguished members of the
committee, I am honored to come before you today as the nominee for
Assistant Administrator of the Bureau for Global Health at the United
States Agency for International Development (USAID). I am humbled by
President Trump's nomination of me to serve in this important role, and
am grateful for the confidence Administrator Green has placed in me.
I would like to recognize and thank the incredible leaders in the
Global Health Bureau. USAID's Global Health programs demonstrate the
great compassion of the American people, while advancing U.S. national
security priorities and prosperity here at home. If confirmed, I commit
to supporting the mission of the Global Health Bureau to control the
HIV/AIDS epidemic, prevent child and maternal deaths, combat infectious
diseases, and promote global health security.
I am privileged to be the mother of four children. In one of my
last conversations with my late son, Matthew Davis, we discussed new
opportunities I had been offered in health policy, which ultimately led
me to serve in this administration and sit before you today. Just like
the accomplished trauma surgeon that he was, Matt cut to the heart of
our conversation and said, ``Go for it, Momma! Just go for it!'' Now,
three and a half years after my son's death, I know he is pleased that
I have this opportunity to truly ``go for it.'' I honor his inspiration
today.
I consider myself one of the richest women you will meet. My wealth
is not in money, but in relationships. I am the grandmother of 12
amazing grandchildren, and I can assure you, I am heavily invested in
the future. Today, my youngest son, Daniel Davis, my daughter, Barbara
Eppink, my middle son, David Davis, Matt's wife, Sharron, and their
families are supporting me from Texas. I am pleased to be joined today
by Marina Svistova McCreight. She joined our family as a Freedom
Support Act Scholar from Ukraine 25 years ago and has been the daughter
of my heart since. I am grateful to Congress for extraordinary programs
like that which bring the world together.
Administrator Green's inspiring vision for USAID--ending the need
for foreign assistance--is irresistible to this Texas pediatrician. I
have had a passion for access to health care for vulnerable populations
for as long as I can remember.
As a child with severe asthma, I admired the doctors and nurses who
cared for me. This admiration grew into a life-calling after hearing
stories at church of selfless missionaries who were providing medical
aid to those in need overseas. Like most young women in the 1960's
interested in a career in healthcare, I prepared to enter nursing.
However, my father, a decorated WWII aviator who taught me to fly when
I was 14, gave me wings of another sort when he asked, ``Why don't you
just become a doctor?'' That question set me on a new path.
After medical school, I became a pediatrician in my hometown of
Alvin, Texas. As a working single-mother of four, my capacity to serve
overseas was limited, but the needs in my own county captured my heart.
While volunteering with a free clinic, the absence of affordable,
accessible, and quality health care for children distressed me. I left
private practice to work for the University of Texas Medical Branch,
where, for a decade, I ran a network of 16 clinics that spanned over
270 miles of rural East and South Texas, and provided maternal and
child health care in rural and under-served communities. This
experience of front-line health care informed my four years at the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services while directing the Office of
Population Affairs and collaborating on the launch of the United States
President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), and has also
provided unique insights during my tenure at USAID since October 2017.
If confirmed, I commit to bring not only my passion for access to
quality care, but also my clinical, community, national and
international experience, to the countries in which for women and their
families, USAID operates.
USAID's work in global health saves lives at home and abroad. This
administration proudly supports the Global Health Security Agenda
(GHSA), an effective coalition to prevent, detect and respond to
infectious-disease threats, and the International Health Regulations
(IHRs). In March, on my second trip to the Democratic Republic of
Congo, I witnessed the complexity of the current Ebola epidemic first-
hand. If confirmed, I commit to doing everything I can to support and
strengthen the implementation of the IHRs, the GHSA, and the
administration's Global Health Security Strategy as tools for building
resilience and responsibility across nations to protect the United
States and the world.
USAID prioritizes the empowerment of women and girls through health
care, education, legal protection, and economic empowerment. It is
critical that USAID remain engaged in personal, community, national,
and international venues to stop the harmful practices of child
marriage; the sexual exploitation and abuse of girls and young women;
domestic and sexual violence; and trafficking in persons and other
forms of modern slavery. Communities thrive when women and girls
thrive. If confirmed to lead the Global Health Bureau, I commit to
promoting increased interagency collaboration to address these
important issues, particularly to the Departments of Health and Human
Services and State.
In addition, we must recognize one agent of change in health
outcomes that is mostly underappreciated and inadequately resourced:
men. Positive male figures, including caring fathers, strengthen
diverse health outcomes, such as the use of prenatal care, improved
immunization rates, lower rates of domestic violence, higher rates of
school completion, greater use of modern forms of voluntary family
planning, and lower prevalence of wasting and stunting that reflect
adequate nutrition. If confirmed, I commit to identifying synergies
with current programs, and to develop new opportunities to promote male
champions of the health and well-being of women and children.
The Journey to Self-Reliance is only possible with the engagement
of local partners, community groups, faith-based organizations, and the
private sector, which together produce long-term and sustainable
progress across sectors. Many of these partners have worked with us to
yield significant impact around the world for decades. If confirmed, I
commit to supporting innovative ways to strengthen USAID's existing
partnerships, and to exploring new collaborations.
Global health is at the threshold of significant change. The next
ten years will likely bring us unprecedented challenges, including new
epidemics, a rise in non-communicable diseases, an increase in
antimicrobial resistance, rapidly changing populations, and additional
man-made crises. If confirmed, I fully commit before God, this august
body, the administration, and the American people to partner with
governments, civil society, and the private sector in developing
nations to improve health, resilience, opportunities and self-reliance
around the world.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I look
forward to answering your questions.
Senator Rubio. Thank you, Dr. Golden.
Mr. Haymond?
STATEMENT OF PETER M. HAYMOND, OF VIRGINIA, A CAREER MEMBER OF
THE SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE, CLASS OF MINISTER-COUNSELOR, TO BE
AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA TO THE LAO PEOPLE'S DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC
Mr. Haymond. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, members of the
committee, thank you for giving me the honor of this
opportunity to appear before the committee today.
I also want to thank the President and the Secretary of
State for the confidence they have shown in me by nominating me
as the next U.S. Ambassador to the Lao People's Democratic
Republic.
I am joined today by my wife Dusadee, my companion and
closest partner over the past 30 years, also by my daughter
Faye, who knows well the challenges of growing up in the
frequent-moving Foreign Service life. Faye had already attended
five schools in four countries by the time she reached second
grade.
I am proud to have devoted almost 29 years to the service
of the American people as a Foreign Service officer. I believe
my multiple previous diplomatic assignments in Laos and in two
of Laos' most important neighbors, China and Thailand, have
prepared me well for this lofty assignment, should the Senate
confirm my nomination.
Today I am happy to say that the U.S.-Laos relationship
continues to develop beyond the heights reached in 2016 with
the announcement of our Joint Comprehensive Partnership. The
administration remains steadfast in its commitment to this
comprehensive partnership as the road map for furthering
deepening ties with Laos. If confirmed, I will diligently
explore new ways to deepen this burgeoning relationship with
Laos, based on common interests and a shared desire to heal the
wounds of the past.
In addition to a growing bilateral partnership with the
United States, Laos is a member of the 10-nation Association of
Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN. The administration's vision
for a free and open Indo-Pacific has ASEAN at its core and is
built on principles that are widely shared in the region:
ensuring the freedom of the seas and skies; insulating
sovereign nations from external pressure; promoting market-
based economics, open and transparent investment environments,
and free, fair, and reciprocal trade. It also supports good
governance and respect for human rights. These values and
policies have helped the Indo-Pacific region grow and thrive.
Laos itself is the geographic connective tissue of mainland
Southeast Asia, sharing over 3,000 miles of land borders with
China and four other ASEAN countries, including sub-regional
leaders Thailand and Vietnam. Laos is also one of the weakest
countries in ASEAN economically, making it potentially more
vulnerable to external pressure. If confirmed, working to
empower Laos as a sovereign nation will be a top priority.
Our sustained engagement with and support for Laos,
including increased senior official visits in recent years, has
engendered a greater trust and enabled progress on strategic
U.S. priorities.
Together with like-minded partners, we are seeking a Laos
that is more prosperous and better governed, protecting and
promoting the human rights of those in Laos. We are engaging
with emerging reform-minded leaders, and we are encouraging
Laos to maintain its sovereignty and be a constructive member
of the rules-based international order.
Although the emerging U.S.-Lao relationship holds promise,
significant roadblocks remain. The Lao People's Revolutionary
Party remains the ultimate authority in this one-party state,
and many of the Indo-China War veteran leaders still in charge
of the government first dealt with the United States in a very
different and difficult era in our relations. With American
help and encouragement, however, we are embarked now on a new
and positive era in our ties. As one example, we have been
assisting as the Lao government grapples with the many
challenges of transnational crime. To fight human trafficking,
for instance, Laos last year took notable new steps, although
there is still great room for improvement. If confirmed, I will
actively work with the Lao in their efforts to more effectively
transnational crime in the sub-region.
If confirmed, I would plan to focus on our forward- looking
comprehensive relationship with Laos, but I also pledge to
continue addressing challenges remaining from the past. I will
do everything I can to support the Defense POW/MIA Accounting
Agency's efforts to achieve the fullest possible accounting for
the remaining 286 U.S. personnel still missing in Laos from the
Indochina War. The United States is currently the number one
donor in the effort to remove unexploded ordnance, or UXO, that
remains from that war, having contributed some $200 million
since 1995. The Lao government has committed to eliminate UXO
as a barrier to national development by 2030, and the
administration supports that goal and believes it is
achievable.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, members of the committee, if
confirmed, I will devote all my ability and experience to
advancing U.S. objectives in Laos, a country that is an
important link in the administration's free and open Indo-
Pacific strategy. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Haymond follows:]
Prepared Statement of Peter M. Haymond
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, members of the committee, thank you
for giving me the honor of this opportunity to appear before the
committee today. I also want to thank the President and the Secretary
of State for the confidence they have shown in me by nominating me as
the next U.S. Ambassador to the Lao People's Democratic Republic.
I am joined today by my wife Dusadee, my companion and closest
partner over the past 30 years. Also by my daughter Faye, who knows
well the challenges of growing up in the frequent-moving Foreign
Service life--Faye had already attended five different schools in four
countries by the time she reached 2nd grade.
I am proud to have devoted almost 29 years to the service of the
American people as a Foreign Service Officer. I believe my multiple
previous diplomatic assignments in Laos--and multiple assignments in
two of Laos' most important neighbors, China and Thailand, most
recently as Deputy Chief of Mission and Charge d'Affaires in Bangkok--
have prepared me well for this lofty assignment, should the Senate
confirm my nomination.
Today, I am happy to say that the U.S.-Laos relationship continues
to develop beyond the heights reached in 2016 with Laos' successful
tenure as ASEAN chair and the first-ever visit to Laos by a U.S.
president, which included the announcement of our Joint Comprehensive
Partnership. The administration remains steadfast in its commitment to
this comprehensive partnership as the roadmap for further deepening
ties with Laos. If confirmed, I will diligently explore new ways to
deepen the burgeoning relationship with Laos, based on common interests
and a shared desire to heal the wounds of the past.
In addition to a growing bilateral partnership with the United
States, Laos is a member of the 10-nation Association of Southeast
Asian Nations, or ASEAN. The administration's vision for a Free and
Open Indo-Pacific has ASEAN at its core, and is built on principles
that are widely shared in the region: ensuring the freedom of the seas
and skies; insulating sovereign nations from external pressure;
promoting market-based economics, open and transparent investment
environments, and free, fair, and reciprocal trade. It also supports
good governance and respect for human rights. These values and policies
have helped the Indo-Pacific region grow and thrive.
Laos is the geographic connective tissue of Mainland Southeast
Asia, sharing over 3,000 miles of land borders with China and four
other ASEAN countries, including sub-regional leaders Thailand and
Vietnam. More of the strategic Mekong River flows through and along
Laos than through any other Southeast Asian nation. Laos is also one of
the weakest countries in ASEAN economically, making it potentially more
vulnerable to external pressure. If confirmed, working to empower Laos
as a sovereign nation will be a top priority.
Our sustained engagement with and support for Laos, including
increased senior official visits in recent years, has engendered
greater trust and enabled progress on U.S. strategic priorities. We are
currently joining with Japan, Australia, South Korea, and the European
Union as partners endeavoring to facilitate Laos' further integration
into the ASEAN Economic Community and global economy.
The Lao government is enthusiastic about American investment in
energy, which Laos sees as its most promising natural resource.
Hydropower dominates the sector, but solar and wind power generation
are promising and receiving growing interest from American business. In
August, Secretary Pompeo announced an additional $29.5 million dollars
in support of the Japan-U.S. Mekong Power Project or JUMPP to meet
growing energy demands in the Mekong.
With timely support from the State Department, USAID, the
Department of Commerce, the U.S. Trade and Development Agency (USTDA),
and the upcoming Development Finance Corporation, the U.S. government
and U.S. companies can help Laos diversify its economic relations and
lessen its dependence on any one country.
Together, with like-minded partners, we are seeking a Laos that is
more prosperous and better governed, protecting and promoting the human
rights of those in Laos; we are engaging with emerging reform-minded
leaders; and we are encouraging Laos to maintain its sovereignty and be
a constructive member of the rules-based international order.
Although the emerging U.S.-Lao relationship holds promise,
significant roadblocks remain. The Lao People's Revolutionary Party
remains the ultimate authority in this one-party state, and many of the
Indochina War-veteran leaders who are still in charge of the Party and
government first dealt with the United States in a very different and
difficult era in our relations. With American help and encouragement,
however, we are embarked on a new and positive era in our ties. As one
example, we have been assisting as the Lao government grapples with the
many challenges of transnational crime, including trafficking of
narcotics and wildlife; human trafficking; money laundering; and cases
of official corruption that have helped enable the other crimes. To
fight human trafficking, for instance, Laos last year took notable new
steps, though there is still great room for improvement. If confirmed,
I will actively work with the Lao in their efforts to more effectively
fight transnational crime.
If confirmed I would plan to focus on our forward-looking
comprehensive relationship with Laos, but I also pledge to continue
addressing challenges remaining from the past. I will do everything I
can to support the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency's efforts to
achieve the fullest possible accounting for the remaining 286 U.S.
personnel still missing in Laos from the Indochina War, including
acknowledging the Lao government's important role in successfully
returning our heroes home. The United States is currently the number
one donor in the effort to remove unexploded ordinance (UXO) that
remains from the war, having contributed some $200 million since 1995.
U.S. funding supports UXO clearance, risk education, survivor's
assistance, and capacity building. The Lao government has committed as
part of its strategic development goals to eliminate UXO as a barrier
to national development by 2030--the administration supports that goal
and believes it is achievable.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, members of the committee, if
confirmed, I will devote all my ability and experience to advancing
U.S. objectives in Laos, a country that is seeking more engagement with
the United States, and is an important link in the administration's
Free and Open Indo-Pacific Strategy. I would look to work closely with
the Congress in that effort, and hope to welcome many Members of
Congress to Vientiane, should I be confirmed.
I look forward to your questions.
Senator Rubio. Thank you.
Ms. Romanowski?
STATEMENT OF ALINA L. ROMANOWSKI, OF ILLINOIS, A CAREER MEMBER
OF THE SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE, TO BE AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY
AND PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO THE
STATE OF KUWAIT
Ms. Romanowski. Chairman Rubio, Ranking Member Cardin, and
distinguished members of the committee, I am honored to appear
before you today as the President's nominee to be the U.S.
Ambassador to the State of Kuwait.
With your permission, I would like to submit my full
statement for the record.
I am grateful to the President and Secretary Pompeo for
placing their trust and confidence in me. If confirmed, I
pledge to work closely with this committee to advance U.S.
interests, American values, and our strong relationship with
Kuwait.
First, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my
parents. I am a first generation American. My father came to
the United States from Poland in 1946. He enlisted in the U.S.
Army, served in Korea, and became an accomplished professor of
high-energy physics. My mother came to the United States from
Canada and gave back to our community as a high school French
teacher. They instilled in me a strong sense of service,
respect, and humility and are always with me in spirit.
I want to thank my family and friends for being here with
me today. My husband, Bill Matzelevich, served in the U.S. Navy
for 24 years as a submariner and has provided me with steadfast
support throughout my career. My two sons, Nicholas and Eric,
have brought me tremendous price and joy. My sister Dominique
is watching live stream from California. Without their love and
support, I would not be here today.
Mr. Chairman, November marks almost 40 years of my U.S.
government service, most of it focused on the Middle East in
positions at four different national security agencies. If
confirmed, I will draw on that broad experience to advance
American objectives in Kuwait and the region, not only on
security and economic issues, but also on democracy, human
rights, and the rule of law.
Kuwait hosts U.S. military forces that are critical to
stability and security in the Middle East and essential to our
national security interests. Kuwait is a key member of the
Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS and calls for unity among the
members of the Gulf Cooperation Council. If confirmed, I will
continue building on a partnership that I have directly
supported since the 1990 Gulf War.
The U.S. military and diplomatic partnership with Kuwait
has been essential to increasing pressure on Iran and
containing its malign activities throughout the region. We must
work together with key partners such as Kuwait to counter the
Iranian threat.
Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, my highest priority will be the
safety and security of all Americans in Kuwait. Over 45,000
private American citizens are working in Kuwait across a range
of industries.
Our strong people-to-people ties, however, go both ways.
Last year, over 12,000 Kuwaitis registered to study at
universities across America. These students inject more than
$1.2 billion into the U.S. economy each year. They take back
their understanding of the United States to Kuwait,
strengthening the social and cultural ties between our
countries.
Kuwait's economy centers on oil. Kuwait currently produces
2.75 million barrels of oil per day and wants to grow this in
the near future. To meet this goal, Kuwait is benefiting from
the expertise of U.S. oil services companies. This year,
Halliburton signed a $597 million contract to explore oil
offshore. If confirmed, advocating for U.S. businesses will be
one of my top priorities.
Kuwait must strengthen the rights of its vulnerable
populations, namely women, stateless Arab Biddon, and Kuwait's
large expat labor force. Our cooperation with Kuwait can drive
this change because strong, sustained U.S. advocacy was
critical to Kuwait's upgrade to tier 2 status in the 2019
Trafficking in Persons report. Kuwait is already a leader in
the region for allowing space for political expression,
fostering independent media, and encouraging participatory
government. If confirmed, I will make these issues an important
part of my dialogue with the Kuwaiti leadership and its
citizens.
Although our history with Kuwait is the foundation of the
lasting friendship that we have today, our relations must not
depend on what we have achieved in the past. The influence of
younger Kuwaitis born after the liberation in 1990 grows every
day. Together, we must build a foundation for the future rooted
in our shared values, interests, and vision. If confirmed, I
will work tirelessly to ensure the next generation of Americans
and Kuwaitis can be proud of our cooperation and shared values.
Chairman Rubio, Ranking Member Cardin, and distinguished
members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you today, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Romanowski follows:]
Prepared Statement of Alina L. Romanowski
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and distinguished members of the
committee: I am honored to appear before you today as President Trump's
nominee to serve as Ambassador to the State of Kuwait. I am grateful to
the President and to Secretary Pompeo for the trust and confidence they
have placed in me to undertake this important role. If confirmed, I
pledge to work closely with members of the committee to advance U.S.
national security interests and American values in Kuwait and to ensure
Kuwait remains a strong regional partner for the United States.
I would first like to express my deepest gratitude to my family and
friends. Without their love and support, I would not be here today. As
a first generation American, I must recognize my father who came to the
United States from Poland in 1946. He enlisted in the U.S. Army, served
in Korea, and became an accomplished professor of high-energy physics.
My mother came to the United States from Canada and gave back to our
community as a high school French teacher. They instilled in me a
strong sense of service, respect, and humility and are always with me
in spirit.
I would also like to recognize my husband and my children who are
here with me today. My husband, Bill Matzelevich, served in the U.S.
Navy for 24 years as a submariner and has provided me with steadfast
support throughout my career. Our two sons, Nicholas and Eric, have
brought tremendous pride and joy to me. My sister, Dominique, could not
be here today, but is watching the live stream from California. I also
thank the many friends and colleagues who have played important roles
in my career--some of them are here today.
Mr. Chairman, this November will mark almost 40 years of my service
with the U.S. government, almost half of it as a career Senior
Executive focused on the Middle East in positions with the Departments
of State and Defense, the U.S. Agency for International Development,
and the intelligence community, where I began my career. If confirmed,
I will draw on that broad experience and my leadership to continue to
advance American objectives in Kuwait and the region, focusing not only
on security and economic issues, but also on democracy, human rights,
and the rule of law.
Kuwait hosts U.S. military forces that are critical to stability
and security in the Middle East and essential to our national security
interests. If confirmed, I look forward to building on a partnership I
have directly supported since the 1990 Gulf War to advance U.S.
national security interests.
The U.S. military and diplomatic partnership with Kuwait has been
essential to increasing pressure on Iran and containing its malign
activities throughout the region. Through its proxies, Iran has sown
violence against U.S. allies and U.S. interests across the Middle East
and beyond. The September 14 attacks against critical oil
infrastructure in Saudi Arabia represent a dangerous escalation in
Iran's behavior. Iranian attacks against international oil tankers in
the Gulf threaten freedom of navigation in one of the world's most
critical seaways. Through its support of the Houthis in Yemen, Bashar
al Assad's regime in Syria, and Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iran is working
to destabilize the entire region. We must work together with key
partners such as Kuwait to counter this threat.
Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, my highest priority will be the safety
and security of all Americans in Kuwait. Over 45,000 U.S. citizens are
working in Kuwait as military contractors, teachers, and
businesspeople, in addition to U.S. government and military personnel.
Our strong people-to-people ties, however, go both ways. Last year
over 12,000 Kuwaitis registered to study at universities across the
United States--from Idaho to New Jersey to Utah to Connecticut. These
students come to the United States on scholarships fully funded by the
Kuwaiti government and represent an injection of more than $1.2 billion
into the U.S. economy each year. These students bring their life and
cultural experience to the United States, and take back their knowledge
and understanding of the United States to Kuwait. This exchange greatly
strengthens the social and cultural ties between our two countries.
This is a strong bond that we continue to build from generation to
generation, with the recognition that relationships with our partners
need to be nurtured and tended.Kuwait's economy centers on oil. Kuwait
currently produces 2.75 million barrels of oil per day and want to
increase production to as much as 4 million in the near future. To meet
this goal, Kuwait is benefitting from the technical expertise of U.S.
oil services companies, as many countries in the region have. One
recent example is the $597 million contract that Halliburton signed to
explore for offshore oil, a first for the Kuwait Petroleum Company.
Significant opportunities for U.S. businesses to provide services and
equipment also exist in the petroleum refining, petrochemicals, power
generation and transmission, and water desalination industries. If
confirmed, advocating for U.S. businesses will be one of my top
priorities.Kuwait must strengthen the rights of members of vulnerable
populations in the country, namely: women, stateless Arabs known
colloquially as the Bidoon, and Kuwait's large expatriate labor force.
The United States can help. We know that our cooperation with Kuwait
can drive this change because strong, sustained U.S. advocacy and
partnership were critical to Kuwait's upgrade to Tier 2 status in the
2019 Trafficking in Persons report. Kuwait is already a leader in the
region for allowing space for political expression, fostering an
independent media, and encouraging participatory government. Kuwaitis
have a well-functioning and empowered elected parliament. If confirmed,
I will make these issues an important part of my discussions with
Kuwaiti leadership, and I will continue a regular dialogue with
Kuwaitis as they pursue advances in democratic, economic, and social
development, as well.Kuwait's importance to the United States goes
beyond our bilateral relationship. Under the leadership of the Amir,
His Highness Sheikh Sabah AlAhmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah, Kuwait's foreign
policy has encouraged peace and cooperation between our partners in the
region. Kuwait has worked to develop stronger economic ties across its
border with Iraq, as evidenced by its effort to normalize trade
relations and modernize the primary border crossing at Safwan. Kuwait
is a key member in the Coalition to Defeat ISIS. Together with the
United States, Kuwait has demonstrated sustained leadership in calling
for unity among Gulf Cooperation Council countries and to set aside the
divisions between its members that only benefit the regime in
Iran.While our history with Kuwait is the foundation of the lasting
friendship that we have today, our relations must not depend on what we
have achieved in the past. Together, we must build a foundation for the
future. The influence of younger generations of Kuwaitis, born after
the liberation in 1990, grows every day.Our relationship must continue
to be rooted in our shared values, interests, and vision for the
future. Since 2016, the U.S.-Kuwait Strategic Dialogue has served as
the framework to expand the strategic partnership between our countries
and strengthen our political, economic, cultural, and military ties. We
will continue to strengthen cooperation across our governments in
education, healthcare, transportation, and cybersecurity. If confirmed,
I will ensure the United States continues to plan for what we can
accomplish together in the years to come.The United States and Kuwait
enjoy an important strategic partnership that has withstood the test of
time. We must continue to work together to confront the very real
threats to the region from the Iranian regime and terrorist groups. If
confirmed, I will work tirelessly to ensure the next generation of
Americans and Kuwaitis can be proud of our cooperation and shared
values.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and distinguished members of the
committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I
look forward to taking your questions.
Senator Rubio. Thank you.
Finally, Ms. Tsou.
STATEMENT OF LESLIE MEREDITH TSOU, OF VIRGINIA, A CAREER MEMBER
OF THE SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE, CLASS OF MINISTER-COUNSELOR, TO
BE AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA TO THE SULTANATE OF OMAN
Ms. Tsou. Chairman Rubio, Ranking Member Cardin, and
distinguished members of the committee, I am honored to appear
before you today as President Trump's nominee to serve as U.S.
Ambassador to the Sultanate of Oman.
I thank the President and the Secretary for the trust they
have placed in me and I am grateful for their confidence. If
confirmed, I pledge to work closely with you to advance U.S.
national security interests and values in Oman.
Here with me today are my father, Edward Tsou, a physician
and first generation American, also a retired U.S. Air Force
office who served with the 101st Airborne Division in Vietnam,
and my mother Carol Tsou, a former registered nurse who holds
master's degrees in liberal studies and theological studies. My
sister Wendy Berg is here today, as well as my nieces, Alexa
and Haley Strunk. I value their love and support more than they
know.
If confirmed as Ambassador to Oman, I will focus on three
core priorities.
My first priority will be the safety and security of all
Americans in Oman, those at the embassy, as well as the many
U.S. citizens living, working, studying, and traveling there.
My second priority will be to build on our already strong
cooperation with Oman to confront threats to regional security
and to U.S. national interests. I will focus intensively on
countering the threat from Iran, promoting safety and security
of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, pushing for a
political solution to the conflict in Yemen, and combating
terrorism in all its forms.
As we have recently seen in Saudi Arabia, Iran's malign
activities throughout the region pose a threat to international
stability. Oman has a policy of open communications with is
neighbors, including Iran, with which it borders the Strait of
Hormuz. Approximately 40 percent of the world's exported oil
and gas passes through the Strait of Hormuz, most through
internationally approved shipping lanes in Oman's territorial
sea. Unlike Iran, Oman is committed to the safety and security
of navigation through the strait. It shares our concern about
Iranian behavior. We hold regular discussions with the
government of Oman on our Iran sanctions policy, and Oman is
committed to ensuring that its banks and companies fully comply
with U.S. sanctions. If confirmed, I will prioritize in my
consultations with Omani leaders our government's work to
counter Iran's destabilizing activity in the region.
Across Oman's southwestern border, the conflict in Yemen
has entered its fifth year. Oman is deeply concerned about it
and has continuously called for a political solution. It fully
supports the U.N. process led by Special Envoy Martin Griffiths
to bring the conflict to an end. The U.S. government is working
with Oman to secure its border with Yemen and specifically to
prevent Iran from shipping weapons, advisors, and dual-use
technology to the Houthis. Our comprehensive border security
assistance program with Oman aims to deepen our engagement with
Omani defense and law enforcement and to strengthen Oman's
capacity to effectively protect its borders.
If confirmed, I will commit myself to continuing and
strengthening these efforts. Iran has zero legitimate national
interests inside Yemen apart from inflaming regional tensions,
prolonging the conflict, inflicting damage on the Yemeni
population and precluding meaningful political negotiation.
Secretary Pompeo visited Oman most recently in January,
during which he praised what he called ?Oman's unique capacity
to create opportunities for dialogue on difficult issues at
challenging times, including by separately hosting both
Palestinian Authority President Abbas and Israeli Prime
Minister Netanyahu in Oman in October 2018.? Oman made history
in October 2018 when the Sultan invited Israeli Prime Minister
Bibi Netanyahu to Muscat, the first time an Israeli prime
minister has visited a Gulf country in over 2 decades. Through
its unique role, Oman has also helped bring the Houthis into
the U.N. peace process. In the past few years, it has played a
pivotal role in securing the safe release and return of about a
dozen U.S. citizens held in Yemen and continues to offer its
good offices to secure the release of other Americans unjustly
held in Yemen, Iran, and Syria.
Ultimately, safety and stability in Oman and Oman's ability
to play a productive role in regional stability will depend on
its ability to transform its economy and bring prosperity to
the Omani people.
That is why, if confirmed, my third priority will be to
expand our economic partnership with Oman. The United States
and Oman signed a Free Trade Agreement in 2009. In the 10 years
since, the value of American exports to Oman has tripled and
the value of Omani exports to the United States has doubled.
This is a solid basis from which to expand trade even further.
Chairman Rubio, Ranking Member Cardin, members of the
committee, you have my commitment that, if confirmed, I will
promote American values and U.S. national security interests in
every engagement that the U.S. embassy has with the government
of Oman and its people.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you, and I
look forward to taking your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Tsou follows:]
Prepared Statement of Leslie Meredith Tsou
Chairman Rubio, Ranking Member, distinguished members of the
committee, I am honored to appear before you today as President Trump's
nominee to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the Sultanate of Oman. I thank
the President and the Secretary for the trust they have placed in me
and am grateful for their confidence. If confirmed, I pledge to work
closely with you to advance U.S. national security interests and values
in Oman.
Here with me today are my father, Edward Tsou, a first-generation
American and retired U.S. Air Force officer who served with the 101st
Airborne Division in Vietnam, and my mother, Carol Tsou, a former
registered nurse who holds Masters Degrees in Liberal Studies and
Theological Studies. My sister Wendy Berg is here, as well as my nieces
Alexa and Haley Strunk. I value their love and support more than they
know.
If confirmed as Ambassador to Oman, I will focus on three core
priorities.
My first priority will be the safety and security of all Americans
in Oman--those at the Embassy as well as the many U.S. citizens living,
working, and traveling there.
My second priority will be to build on our already strong
cooperation with Oman to confront threats to regional security and to
U.S. national interests. I will focus intensively on countering the
threat from Iran, promoting safety and security of navigation through
the Strait of Hormuz, pushing for a political solution to the conflict
in Yemen, and combatting terrorism in all its forms.
As we have recently seen in Saudi Arabia, Iran's malign activities
throughout the region pose a threat to international stability. Oman
has a policy of open communication with its neighbors, including Iran,
with which it borders the Strait of Hormuz. Approximately 40 percent of
the world's exported oil and gas passes through the Strait of Hormuz,
most through internationally-approved shipping lanes in Oman's
territorial sea. Unlike Iran, Oman is committed to the safety and
security of navigation through the Strait. It shares our concern about
Iranian behavior. We hold regular discussions with the government of
Oman on our Iran sanctions policy, and Oman is committed to ensuring
that its banks and companies fully comply with U.S. sanctions. If
confirmed, I will prioritize in my consultations with Omani leaders our
government's work to counter Iran's destabilizing activity in the
region.
Across Oman's southwest border, the conflict in Yemen has entered
its fifth year. Oman is deeply concerned about it and has continuously
called for a political solution. It fully supports the U.N. process led
by Special Envoy Martin Griffiths to bring the conflict to an end. The
U.S. government is working with Oman to secure its border with Yemen,
and specifically to prevent Iran from shipping weapons, advisers, and
dual-use technology to the Houthis. Our comprehensive border security
assistance program with Oman aims to deepen our engagement with Omani
defense and law enforcement, and to strengthen Oman's capacity to
effectively protect its borders. Recent border security assistance
efforts include provision of equipment and training to expand Oman's
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities along the
Oman-Yemen border; training sessions for Omani law enforcement
personnel on management of border security checkpoints, rural border
patrol operations, and response plans to counter crossborder threats;
and training to improve Oman's ability to detect and interdict weapons,
explosives, WMD materials, and dual-use technology.
If confirmed, I will commit myself to continuing and strengthening
these efforts. Iran has zero legitimate national interests inside
Yemen, apart from inflaming regional tensions, prolonging the conflict,
inflicting damage on the Yemeni population, and precluding meaningful
political negotiation.
Secretary Pompeo visited Oman most recently in January, during
which he praised what he called ``Oman's unique capacity to create
opportunities for dialogue on difficult issues at challenging times,
including by separately hosting both Palestinian Authority President
Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu in Oman in October[2018].''
Oman made history in October 2018 when the Sultan invited Israeli Prime
Minister Bibi Netanyahu to Muscat, the first time an Israeli Prime
Minister has visited a Gulf country in over two decades. Through its
unique role, Oman has also helped bring the Houthis into the U.N. peace
process. In the past few years, it has played a pivotal role in
securing the safe release and return of about a dozen U.S. citizens
held in Yemen, and continues to offer its good offices to secure the
release of other Americans unjustly held in Yemen, Iran and Syria.
Ultimately, safety and stability in Oman, and Oman's ability to
play a productive role in regional stability, will depend on its
ability to transform its economy and bring prosperity to the Omani
people.
This is why, if confirmed, my third priority will be to expand our
economic partnership with Oman. The United States and Oman signed a
Free Trade Agreement in 2009. In the 10 years since, the value of
American exports to Oman has tripled, and the value of Omani exports to
the United States has doubled. This is a solid basis from which to
expand trade even further. U.S. and Omani companies have only scratched
the surface on potential benefits from our Free Trade Agreement and our
Science and Technology Cooperation Agreement, which we signed in 2016.
Oman is already taking steps to diversify its economy. The
ambitious Port of Duqm project is creating a new logistical and
shipping hub in the region to link Asia, the Middle East, and Africa.
U.S. companies can be a part of this, and, if confirmed, I will make
sure American firms understand the opportunities available to them at
Duqm Port and the surrounding Special Economic Zone.
Chairman Rubio, Ranking Member, members of the committee, you have
my commitment that if confirmed, I will promote American values and
U.S. national security interests in every engagement that the U.S.
Embassy has with the government of Oman and its people.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you. I look forward
to taking your questions.
Senator Rubio. Okay, great. We will begin with Senator
Shaheen.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
Senator Cardin.
And congratulations to each of you on your nominations. Mr.
Haymond, Ms. Romanowski, and Ms. Tsou, we especially appreciate
all of the career Foreign Service officers and thank you all
very much for your service. Dr. Golden and Ms. Castillo, we
very much appreciate your willingness to consider coming in and
doing public service, Dr. Golden again and Ms. Castillo again,
and taking on these challenging assignments.
Dr. Golden, I especially appreciated our conversation
yesterday, and I wanted to go back to a couple of things that
we talked about. As I said to you, I am very concerned about
the way this administration has implemented and expanded the
Mexico City policy. And I have heard from representatives of
organizations that it is having a chilling effect on family
planning programs, as well as the broader the Global Health
program from HIV and the PEPFAR program to other areas where I
think we would all agree that it is important that we support
what organizations are doing around the world and encourage
them to address global health issues.
And I know that you talked to me about the work that you
have done in Texas especially with those who are most at risk.
So I especially appreciate your interest in ensuring that
people get the support they need.
But will you commit to ensuring that USAID provides
unbiased and apolitical information to prime and sub-
recipients of U.S. foreign assistance who are not clear about
how to best comply with the expanded Mexico City policy?
Dr. Golden. Thank you. I enjoyed very much our visit
yesterday, and I thank you for the opportunity to get together.
I think you know from our discussion that I am genuinely
committed to access to care for people around the world.
As you know, the United States has the largest bilateral
support of family planning in the world, and we are grateful
that we have an opportunity where we work with not only large
organizations, but local organizations as well to address the
needs that are there. As you are aware, there has been no
reduction, not even a single dollar, of our support for foreign
assistance for family planning, whether Mexico City is in force
or not.
So consequently, even though the vast majority of our
organizations, our NGOs, that we work with have agreed to the
policy, those few that have not signed up to continue under the
PLGHA, the dollars and the services have been transitioned to
other partners. So we are monitoring that carefully. USAID is
an experienced transitioner of contracts and partners, and we
have everything fully in place right now so that we can assure
that the money and the services can continue.
We are working with the interagency. Because this is an
all-of-government activity, we are working with the interagency
to finalize reviews and to monitor in an ongoing manner.
Senator Shaheen. Dr. Golden, I am going to interrupt you
and ask that maybe--we will submit a question for the record
and hopefully you could delineate some of those other areas. I
am running out of time and I have some other questions.
Dr. Golden. Sorry. Thank you so much.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much.
Dr. Golden. I commit to doing that. Thank you.
Senator Shaheen. Ms. Castillo, I appreciate that in your
testimony you highlighted the importance of the Inter- American
Development Bank to better the lives particularly of women in
Latin America and the Caribbean. And if confirmed, how would
you use the weight of the U.S. and our role at the IDB to
promote loans directed at women's rights and empowerment?
Ms. Castillo. Thank you, Senator, for the question.
As you said and I mentioned in my opening statement, it
would be a priority of mine. If I am fortunate to be confirmed,
I would be extremely supportive of loans that would provide
access for vocational training, for instance, or for those
women who are entrepreneurs, also reducing the gender gap. I
would be extremely supportive of those.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Mr. Haymond, since 1982, the Laos government has been
largely supportive of accounting for U.S. personnel who have
gone missing in Laos. These are very important efforts to
address the uncertainty and end the lack of information that so
many American families have. There are 268 unaccounted for
Americans who were lost during the Vietnam War in Laos. We
think they are in Laos.
Can you talk about whether there is any way we can help
improve our ability to work with the Lao government to get the
return of those remains and find out what happened to those
service members?
Mr. Haymond. Thank you, Senator.
As I mentioned, this will be my third time working in Laos.
In each of those assignments, the search for the POW/MIA
remaining personnel was one of our key goals in the embassy. It
would certainly be so, if I am confirmed and if I were to go to
Vientiane again.
The Lao government in recent years has shown some
increasing flexibility in allowing larger teams to come in and
search, in allowing more flexibility in where those teams are
based. I would continue to press the Lao government to increase
that flexibility and help us gain access to any remaining
witnesses from that period. This has been, as I say, a lead
issue in our relationship for many years, and I am very much
committed to pushing that forward towards the most successful
conclusion possible.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
And finally, Ms. Tsou and Ms. Romanowski, you are both, if
confirmed, going to countries in the Middle East that have been
relatively stable, at least for the last several decades, and
are in very strategic locations to be more engaged in helping
to address some of the conflicts in that part of the world.
Are there ways in which you see that we can encourage that?
I very much appreciate what you said about Oman and their
interest in addressing the war in Yemen, but are there other
things that we can do to encourage them to get more engaged in
helping to resolve some of these conflicts? I would ask either
or both of you to respond.
Ms. Tsou. Thank you, Senator. I will go first.
Oman has this knack of being able to find a way to straddle
some of the divides in the area, religious and otherwise, and
to play a positive role. We work with them on a range of
issues, as you know. We have for years. I think Yemen is a
place where they have been particularly helpful.
Since my last post was in Israel, I was very heartened by
their stance towards the Israelis and the Palestinians. I
thought that that was a great move that they did and maybe we
can build on that as well.
They have been very responsive to what we have asked. So I
would be happy to work with any of you on the committee to
think of ways perhaps that can be helpful. And if I am
confirmed and I am out there, I will be looking for ways to
utilize that.
So thank you for that question.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Ms. Romanowski?
Ms. Romanowski. Thank you, Senator, for the question.
Kuwait has been, as I mentioned, a strategic partner for a
long time for us and provides us some incredible access for us
to achieve our objectives in trying to resolve the conflict,
but also it has been a really solid counterterrorism partner
with us.
The Emir has been an early mediator in the Gulf rift and
works with us very closely on trying to find new and creative
ways to bring the GCC members together. We are continuously
talking and speaking with the Kuwaitis on responding to the
ever-changing environment with terrorists in the region. We do
have a very close dialogue with them. The strategic partnership
dialogue that we do have affords us an incredible platform to
talk about ways in which we can advance and broaden the work
that we do together.
So if I am confirmed, I have many opportunities and
platforms to ensure that the Kuwaitis remain really good
partners with us on seeking resolution and solutions and
advancing our challenges in the region. Thank you.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you all.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Rubio. Senator Kaine?
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And congratulations to each of you.
So I have a question for Ms. Romanowski and Ms. Tsou about
Kuwait because I understand you were in Kuwait at an earlier
point in your career. And this is really to educate us about
why sectarian conflict has traditionally been so low in Kuwait.
In June of 2015, ISIS carried out a set of attacks on the
same day in Kuwait, Tunisia, Sudan, and France. And the attack
in Kuwait that ISIS carried out was the bombing of a Shia
mosque in the heart of town. And in response to that bombing,
the country's Sunni leaders came to the mosque immediately, and
then the funeral for the Shia who had been killed at Friday
prayers was held in the primary Sunni mosque in Kuwait City.
I happened to be leading a CODEL to the region, and we were
there the day of the funeral by coincidence and we went to pay
our respects. But it was a very notable statement that Sunni
leadership and clerical leadership opened up the Sunni Mosque
for the funeral for these 27 Shia victims of the ISIS bombing.
And Kuwait has had that as part of its DNA for some time,
whereas other nations, Bahrain, Yemen, Syria, you see very
significant tensions between Sunni, Shia or between groups like
the Alawites that have had a traditional connection to the Shia
or the Houthis have had a traditional connection to the Shia.
So what is it about Kuwait that has enabled them to deal
with the sectarian divide which is so corrosive in other nearby
countries? And what can we learn from it, and how might we
promote it more broadly?
Ms. Romanowski. Senator, let me take that question first
and I will turn to my colleague, Leslie.
I think there are a number of reasons why the Kuwaitis have
been more successful. They have, I think early on, integrated
the 30 percent of Shia population into the political life and
the social and cultural life of Kuwait. They also have a
national assembly that is much more active in encouraging
public debate in dealing with these issues. And I think it is
the leadership in Kuwait that has demonstrated that there is a
way to integrate minorities and other streams and ideas in
their country. And I think the Kuwaitis continue to do that,
and I think as you pointed out, the response in 2015 of that
terrorist incident is an indication of exactly how they go
about making sure that they minimize or at least manage
whatever sectarian problems they have.
Senator Kaine. Ms. Tsou?
Ms. Tsou. Thank you, Senator. It has been a long time since
I have been in Kuwait.
But I remember that Shia mosque very well. It was quite
prominent and the Kuwaitis seemed to have no problem with that,
unlike other countries I have served in.
Oman is also an example of a place where different sects
live side by side. The government does not keep statistics, but
some NGOs speculate that a little under half of the population
of Oman is Ibadi, which is a different type of religion--sect
of Islam, which you do not see in very many places in the
world. But there is also the same number of Sunni muslims who
live there and they live side by side. Inside the government,
they have representatives from each.
I think that comes from Oman's commitment to have
communication with all of its neighbors regardless of religion,
regardless of political affiliation. It is part of the
country's ethos, if you will.
Senator Kaine. Well, I encourage you both to do all you can
to promote that example, should you be confirmed. I believe you
both will be confirmed.
I think one of the tragedies of the region is the horrible
proxy war throughout the region between Saudi Arabia and Iran.
I have voted for Iran sanctions many times and do not like many
of the things they are doing. I also am very disturbed at Saudi
behavior, the sort of kidnapping of the Lebanese Prime Minister
a couple years ago and now that government has fallen. There is
an effort by both of these countries to engage in proxy
activity across the region, and as I travel there, people talk
about feeling crushed by a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and
Iran. Now, that is not purely Sunni/Shia. It is sort of Sunni/
Shia and Arab/Persian and revolutionary guard and monarchy and
economic competitors.
Neither of these nations are going anywhere. They are going
to be dozens of miles apart forever, and unless or until they
figure out a path to, over time, deescalate the tensions
between themselves--we could solve every other problem in the
region and there would still be significant problems there.
So both Oman and Kuwait have the ability I think to hold
themselves as an example, but also be part of dialogue that
might bring down the proxy war and I would encourage you in
that.
Dr. Golden, I was interested in one aspect of your
testimony. You talked about one great agent of change in health
outcomes is men, and I think that that is very true, support of
men. And you used a phrase that kind of struck me when you said
it, greater use of modern forms of voluntary family planning.
The word ?voluntary? I guess I did not expect to hear. I would
have probably not even registered had you said ?family
planning.? Why the word ?voluntary??
Dr. Golden. I think the term ?voluntary? has actually been
in place for most of the government programs for the last 50 or
more years because we recognize that we do not want compulsory
environments where people feel constrained or forced into doing
something that is against their conscience or their belief or
against the needs of their family themselves. So, yes, it has
been a definite part of family planning throughout the USAID
history, as well as the other parts of the government.
Senator Kaine. I think that is really important. One of the
reasons why there is such strong objection by members of the
committee to the gag rule, to the Mexico City policy, is we
feel like it is a violation of that very principle, the
voluntary principle, just as we would oppose governments that
have a one-child policy or things like that because, as you
say, you do not want to have people feel coerced or constrained
in making their own family planning choices. And I think you
just said it so well. We should not allow governments,
including our own, to coerce people, nor should we allow
governments, including our own, to constrain people in making
the decisions that is best for them.
So I hope you true to that longstanding mission. And I
think that you are going to have members of this committee
continue to advocate against policies that we think actually
violate that principle of voluntariness by constraining people
or coercing their choices.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Rubio. The ranking member.
Senator Cardin. Once again, let me thank all of our
nominees.
Ms. Golden, I want to follow up on Senator Shaheen and
Senator Kaine. I strongly disagree with the administration's
expansion of the Mexico City policy and the gag rule and
recognize that is not your decision. I recognize it, but it
affects you carrying out your mission. And the impact on global
health--you mentioned that the funding is the same although
there are organizations that are now not participating. And we
have had a policy for a long time on the use of federal funds
for abortion. That is a policy that is not really in debate
right now. It is the expansion of the Mexico City policies that
have caused angst among health care organizations globally.
And the issue I really want to talk about is that we want
to be prepared for pandemics. We have to respond. We recognize
that, but our best line of defense is adequate preparation. My
concern, I think a concern of many people, is that the gag
rule, the expanded gag rule, is going to affect our ability to
be prepared, to have in place the health care facilities and
infrastructure globally.
The last 6-month review report that was prepared by this
administration on the impact of the expanded Mexico City policy
was February 2018. We have not had any further review by the
administration.
So can you share with us what you believe the impact of the
expanded Mexico City policy will have on your ability to carry
out your mission to protect global health?
Dr. Golden. Thank you, Senator Cardin. I am glad to
respond.
First of all, I think it is important to note that there
are many people with many different perspectives on what is
part of family planning and what is not. I will have to go back
to my roots. I am a pediatrician. I have been an advocate for
children whether they were born or not for a very long time.
Abortion as a form of family planning has never been something
that I could be comfortable with personally. That is why it has
been comfortable for me to advocate for the protecting life and
global health assistance. I am a strong advocate and always
have been of voluntary family planning, working alongside
family planning progress for over 20 years--30 years I guess
now.
But I do believe, considering the vast majority of the
organizations that sign on and are more than happy to not only
provide family planning but also other coordinated services and
also promote prevention techniques toward strengthening health
systems, I think we can still certainly meet our goals without
using U.S. tax dollars to support the NGOs that provide or
promote abortion. So I thank you for your question.
You also asked about the review. I have not been in the
Bureau for Global Health for the last 7 months, but I can tell
you that there have been active activities to monitor all of
our family planning, as well as our other activities, and that
we are following not only what our partners are doing but we
are sharing that information with the interagency. And I am
confident that when I get back to Global Health, I will have an
opportunity to check on what the status of the review is, and I
will be glad to get back to you at that time.
Senator Cardin. I appreciate that.
Also as to the balance, as to how we use resources to deal
with pandemic preparation. We have to respond. I recognize
that. But preparation is a key ingredient sometimes that we
overlook that could prevent the next pandemic from being out of
control.
Dr. Golden. I agree. I have been in the northeast part of
the DRC now twice, and one of the impressions I had was that if
we had stronger systems of health whereby you could do more
active prevention or even introduce more things like just
preventive hand washing or immunizations or building up a
communication framework that is in the community, that we could
actually address and respond much more quickly.
I think that the framework that we have with the Global
Health Security Agenda of prevention, detection, and response
is one that I am very excited about working with.
Thank you very much.
Senator Cardin. Thank you.
Ms. Castillo, the challenges we have talked about--we have
in Central America the challenge of migration. Good governance
is critically important. You mentioned the anti- gang activity
is very important in that part in order to provide stability in
those countries, and also, by the way, to deal with the
migration issue.
Plan Colombia. We have a lot of hope in Plan Colombia.
There are challenges in getting that plan implemented. But now
we have an additional crisis in the region with Venezuela,
which puts tremendous pressure on Colombia with migrants coming
into that country.
How do you see the role of the Bank in helping us to deal
with stability in Colombia, dealing with the crisis in
Venezuela, and dealing with Central America?
Ms. Castillo. Thank you, Senator, for the question.
I share, obviously, your concerns with what is happening in
Venezuela. A country that was once the richest country in Latin
America has seen its economy collapse and fall into dictatorial
rule.
With regards to supporting the neighboring countries that
have received over 4 million Venezuelan migrants--actually that
is globally--it is my understanding that the bank has set up a
fund to try to help offset the financial impact of those
migrants.
If I am fortunate to be confirmed, I look forward to
continuing to support a fund like that, as well as being part
of the reconstruction and rebuilding of Venezuela when Maduro
is no longer in power and working with Juan Guaido's
administration as well.
Senator Cardin. I would hope that would be a high priority.
We have invested so much in that region in Plan Colombia and
now Peace Colombia. We got to make sure it succeeds. And in
Central America, again we have invested a great deal, and there
are still challenges. And investment is going to be critically
important.
I want to get to the three career ambassadors and the
posts, if I might. I always ask questions of every ambassador,
even if it is to a very, very friendly developed democratic
state, what they are going to do to advance American values on
human rights of its citizens.
But the three countries here do have challenges. You have
all addressed it in your statements before us, the human rights
issues. And you talk with pride about the progress that has
been made in all of the countries. And that is true. There has
been progress made.
So Laos. Yes, they have improved their trafficking and they
are no longer Tier 3, but they are Tier 2 Watch, which is
nothing to brag about. They still have a way to go. And
protection for civil society is still a challenge in that
country.
That is also true in regards to Kuwait. Civil society does
not have the freedoms that we would like to see in democratic
states. Yes, they are better than their neighbors, but there is
still a way that they need to advance in order to protect their
human rights.
In regards to Oman, yes, they have made some advances on
dealing with Iran, but there is still trafficking of weapons in
to the Houthis in Yemen which is creating one of the most
serious humanitarian crises of our time.
So I would like to hear your commitment to make American
values and basic rights a top priority, if you are confirmed,
and how you will work with this committee and work with this
Senator as to how we can advance the rights of civil society,
of the people of their country to be able to speak out, the
freedom of the press, those types of protections, and certainly
to make further advancements on trafficking in persons in each
of the countries involved. So I will give you each a chance.
Mr. Haymond. Thank you, Senator.
To say a tier 2 watch list is nothing to brag about, we are
looking at a positive trend line, and my commitment would be to
do my best to assist the Lao, urge the Lao to continue that
trend line to increase. It is not satisfactory at this point.
It is better than it was. We will look forward to helping them
make it better further.
As you note correctly, there are many challenges for civil
society and basic human rights in Laos. I am happy to commit to
prioritizing pushing forward American values and support for
human rights both because it is the right thing and because I
would look forward to making the case to the Lao government
that working with civil society is the best way to build trust
between a people and its government, and that is going to be
the best way to help Laos maintain its sovereignty as a
stronger nation in the face of influence growing from some of
its larger neighbors.
So I would look forward to working with your office and
with the committee on both of those issues and the broader
question of human rights support.
Ms. Romanowski. Senator, I will say in Kuwait, I think we
have been engaging the Kuwaiti leadership and its own people
and its small, nascent civil society organizations on human
rights. We have made progress with the upgrade to tier 2, and
that was really a result of sustained engagement on the U.S.
embassy's part and our part on that. It is a positive trend
line. There is a lot more to do, and we can do more to do that.
Engaging with Kuwaiti citizens on American values is
important. We have a good foundation to build on the student
program that comes here, which I am committed to ensure that it
continues and grows with the Kuwaitis.
When we learn of problems in human rights or allegations,
we engage again the Kuwaiti leadership and their justice system
and the law enforcement system.
So I think we can make progress, but it needs sustained
engagement, and if confirmed, I commit that I will be working
very hard to keep that forward trend going.
Ms. Tsou. Senator, Oman's human rights record is better
than many in the region, but there is obviously work to be done
there. Trafficking in persons is one area where I think we can
make some concrete progress. Oman is also on the tier 2 watch
list, but they understand what they need to do. A lot of the
problems that they have is that they have made oral commitments
to abiding by the trafficking in persons standards that we have
laid out with them and discussed with them, but they have not
actually done anything through their parliament, and I think
that that is something that we can help them with and we will
work very extensively towards so that we can hopefully get them
off of the tier 2 watch list and even into tier 1. Bahrain is
an example of a country in the Gulf that is on tier 1, and I
know the Omanis are interested in that as well.
You raised a real concern about Oman's possible role in
allowing the Iranians to provide military assistance, advisors,
weapons across their border to the Houthi in Yemen. We have
been very clear with Omani government that they cannot permit
Iran to use Omani territory to do this. They said they are
doing the best they can not to, but that is probably not good
enough. We are providing them border security assistance,
concrete training so that they can recognize, for example, if
some kind of cargo is being transported across the border, what
is it, how do you detect whether it is what it says it is or
whether it is actually a weapon of some sort, strengthening
their border guard, et cetera. But that is a real concern of
mine. It is a concern of our entire government and something
that I will really commit myself to.
Also, I want to say I am very happy to talk to you or any
of the rest of the committee about ideas you might have in this
regard and also on the human rights so that we can work on this
together.
Senator Cardin. Thank you all. I appreciate your response.
Senator Rubio. Senator Gardner?
Senator Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to the nominees before us today. Thank you for
your service.
Mr. Haymond, we had the opportunity to visit in the office
here last week. We talked about your experiences in Thailand.
How do you think the experiences that you have gained in
Thailand, your previous service as well in the Foreign
Service--how can you apply that to your new position in Laos,
particularly as it relates to China and the developments in
those relationships?
Mr. Haymond. Thank you, Senator. I did enjoy the
conversation we had last week.
The Indo-Pacific strategy under the administration, free
and open Indo-Pacific strategy, is based on ASEAN as a core, as
a centerpiece. And so the strength of ASEAN is going to be an
important part of having that be a successful strategy. Laos is
one of the weakest members in ASEAN, but it is also a country
that is not looking to be a satellite of any country, China or
any other.
I have spent the last 3 years in Thailand working with the
Thai on initiatives to help bring together the five countries
of the Lower Mekong to strengthen themselves as a unit and as
half of ASEAN so as to make the best deals possible for
infrastructure, other proposals that come through, to support
each other as a greater unit managing the resources of the
Lower Mekong, which our Lower Mekong Initiative has been
working on for these last 10 years. Going across the river to
Laos, I would look to work with the Lao government and
encourage the Lao government to work with their ASEAN
neighbors, particularly Thailand and Vietnam, the stronger
economies, as well as with other like- minded countries that
are looking to help Laos maintain its sovereignty, maintain its
independence, and grow and strengthen integration within the
ASEAN community.
Senator Gardner. We had the opportunity as well to talk
about the Asia Reassurance Initiative Act, which states that
human rights and democracy promotion are key to U.S. national
security interests. You are committed to these values, and I
want to make sure that we are doing everything we can to help
further advocate for those values in Laos.
What are your impressions of the treatment of the Hmong
people and other minorities in Laos?
Mr. Haymond. Laos--it has been some years since I have been
there. There have been challenges in the past with the Lao
government, its relationship with the Hmong, particularly those
who were still mounting some resistance to the government
dating back to the war and suspicions between the Lao
government and the Lao Hmong diaspora. My understanding is that
that situation has improved somewhat in the recent years. If
confirmed, I would commit to work with the Lao government to
make sure that all of its ethnic minorities, certainly the
Hmong, are treated equally along with other Lao citizens and
would look to build stronger ties and positive relations
between Laos and the Lao diaspora in the United States.
Senator Gardner. And following up on that question, same
line of question really, does U.S. assistance help create space
for civil society within Laos, perhaps a greater role? Does it
create room for dialogue and improvements in human rights
discussions and efforts?
Mr. Haymond. The civil society is also nascent in Laos, but
the assistance we are providing, particularly that through our
USAID office, which we hope next year will become a new
mission, is aimed at helping the Lao with health, education,
counter-trafficking in persons, other issues and prefers,
wherever possible, to work with civil society groups within
Laos. And as I mentioned to Senator Cardin, if confirmed, I
would look to make the case to the Lao government that civil
society can be a strength for Laos going forward and help it to
maintain that sovereignty that it certainly wants.
Senator Gardner. Well, very good. And as I have talked to
every nominee going into the Indo-Pacific region, talking about
the tools that ARIA provides, the funding that has been
provided by this Congress, should that be signed into law, is
significant. And so I hope that we can continue to count on
implementation of the goals of that legislation. I look forward
to you doing just that. Congratulations on the nomination.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Rubio. Thank you.
So I do not ask you a question that somebody has already
asked, the question I was going to ask you, particularly you,
Ms. Tsou--I think almost all the questions I was going to ask
have been asked and answered.
So I always tell people when they are nominated, the less
people who show up the hearing and the shorter it is, the
better the news is. Like if I am ever nominated for something
and I have to appear in front of these guys, I do not want
anybody showing up and I want it to be like 5 minutes long.
That is a very good sign.
[Laughter.]
Senator Rubio. It is always a good sign. You feel bad, then
you realize.
Ms. Castillo, I think we are all really concerned about
predatory lending practices of the Chinese all over the world,
but we are starting to see it in the western hemisphere. One
really good example is the Coca Coda Sinclair Dam in Ecuador.
According to press reports, only 2 years after opening, there
are thousands of cracks. They are splintering the dam's
machinery. Its reservoir is clogged with silt, sand, and trees,
and the only time engineers tried to throttle up the facility
completely, it shook violently and shorted out the national
electricity grid. That is like a bad dam. Right? But again
financing this sort of method.
So how can the Inter-American Development Bank help? I
mean, is there a concerted effort to help members of the
community avoid these predatory lending practices where they
owe all this money, the leverage that is created, and they are
stuck with a dam that you cannot operate because--I have never
heard of a dam shaking. I am not an engineer, but my sense is
that is not good engineering. But how can we help nations avoid
falling into that trap? What can the Inter-American Development
Bank do and what is it doing now?
Ms. Castillo. Sure. Thank you for the question, Senator.
As you mentioned, that is an example of a result of working
with the Chinese. And we have seen them in other countries as
well like Venezuela. Working with the Chinese may include a
short-term gain, but at the end of the day, it is in exchange
for long-term dependency.
And if I am fortunate to be confirmed at the bank, I would
work closely with the U.S. executive team to work with our
counterparts on education and informing them on how an Inter-
American Development Bank goes through a robust process,
working with civil society groups and state and local elected
officials, taking in consideration environmental and social
impacts on the approval loan process. But at the end of the
day, loans from the bank lead towards long-term sustainability.
Senator Rubio. My only point on that is these are
developing countries for the most part or countries whose
leaders are under tremendous pressure to deliver. A case in
point, El Salvador. The new president really formed his own
party to win. He does not really have a governing majority in
the legislative branch. So he needs some victories. Other
places--you know, the Bahamas now have some significant needs
on two of the islands for rebuilding. They have to deliver.
This happens all over the world.
And then here come the Chinese with the promise of easy
money in exchange for some project they cut a ribbon on. It
looks good. And from time to time, by the way, some people get
bribed along the way to land some of these deals.
And my only hope is that the Inter-American Development
Bank will make it a priority to sort of identify countries that
have legitimate needs, political leaders that need to deliver
for purposes of the expectations that are upon them, and whose
only option appears to be--we cannot do anything about the
bribe part, but the only option appears to be a financing deal
for something that is not going to work. Jamaica got stuck with
a crazy highway that they owe money to. Argentina. There are
multiple countries. And I hope that becomes a priority.
Something that is a priority for me, Dr. Golden, is
maternal mortality. I am actually startled at the numbers in
the U.S. are as high as they are. One of the reasons I am
really sensitive to it my father's mother did not die in child
birth, but she died when he was 9 years old. And it basically
defined so many of the challenges he faced the rest of his
life.
Now, according to USAID, in the last 20 years, the number
of maternal deaths per 100,000 live births decreased by more
than 50 percent in the 25 priority countries that it had
identified. Yet and still, the World Health Organization
reports that 830 women die every day from preventable causes
related to pregnancy, and 99 percent of these deaths, of
course, are happening in developing countries. And I imagine
that is a combination of postpartum hemorrhage. I would imagine
it also includes preeclampsia that is not treated or not
monitored and so forth.
I guess I do not think I have to ask you about your
commitment to that cause because I know it is significant. What
I do think is important is for always to justify what it means
to a country societally, what happens to a society and to a
country and to a nation where so many women are dying in child
birth, what it means for their children. In many cases, they
already have other children who are left without a mother. What
happens to a country? Because that tells us how important
prioritizing maternal mortality prevention programs are.
Dr. Golden. Senator Rubio, thank you for that question, and
it does go to the core of who I am and what I have done for
several decades now.
I think that one of the things that I am grateful for is
that we have made progress in identifying high impact,
efficient systems to help countries and organizations and even
individual communities to approach maternal-child health more
holistically.
However, I think that the next step, in terms of really
building the journey to self-reliance, as we often use in
USAID, is to really equip each country to have the capacity to
set up the systems that are necessary, back to Senator Cardin's
concept too, that we have coordination and collaboration so
that when we have maternal-child health, we also can relate to
our malaria, our TB, our family planning, our HIV programs so
that we do treat people more holistically since malaria also is
another significant cause of infant death.
So we want to be sure that we are doing collaborative
programs, that we support directly the maternal-child health,
but we have the surrounding health services that also help
bring to the forefront the possibility of preventing maternal-
child death.
I think by analysis of some of the monitoring and
evaluation that we have now, we have a clearer view of how to
do that, and we also anticipate that we are going to be able to
use some more high impact practices, including secure
technology.
We also believe that women's empowerment is a very
important part of this so that women not only know that they
have health care but they have the freedom to go. They also
have the education they need, and we can delay the exploitation
or early childhood marriage that complicates the situation for
so many of these women.
I look forward to working with you on that, if confirmed.
Senator Rubio. Just on this question, when you look at the
countries where this progress has been made, what in particular
has been--I mean, I know that there is a holistic need and all
the other associated ailments that someone may have going into
child birth. But is there one, two, or three things that have
been highly effective? For example, the availability of blood
or blood products in case there is hemorrhage; the prenatal
treatment where someone--preeclampsia, the high blood pressure
and all the associated risks that come with that--is actually
identified, monitored, and treated at the front end. Are there
one or two strategies that have yielded the most results in
your opinion?
Dr. Golden. I think there are several that you mentioned.
First of all, I think the availability of prenatal care and
some development of several different systems to offer that is
helpful. The second thing is to have the delivery at a health
care site rather than in the village. That actually has shown
to be consistently helpful in reducing maternal mortality
partly because of things like prevention of hemorrhage or
identification of the need of a cesarean section. And there are
some advantages coming out even like some inhaled oxytocin to
reduce hemorrhaging. So things along those lines are also
helpful.
And the other component that I mentioned in my testimony is
that we recognize that women who are well supported and cared
for by their families, including their husbands, actually tend
to utilize the services more and also have better timing and
spacing to their pregnancies.
So I think the prenatal, the delivery in a safe
environment, the availability of appropriate treatment as
necessary, and supportive families and communities are places
where we can really make continued inroads to improve maternal
and child mortality.
Senator Rubio. And my final question, because my question
for you, Ms. Romanowski, was also asked and answered. So it is
not because of the way you guys are lined up. It just worked
out that way.
But, Mr. Haymond, I wanted to ask you related to the same
issue regarding China, the same sort of predatory investment.
So we know Laos has reportedly taken--this is what I read
anyway--$480 million in loans from a Chinese Exim Bank, and the
IMF has classified Laos as high risk for debt distress.
So are there areas in this relationship where you think the
U.S. or our partners and different entities that we can
leverage can provide viable alternatives to the sort of
predatory Chinese investment that we have seen offered in
different parts of the world and potentially even in Laos?
Mr. Haymond. Thank you, Senator.
I do believe there are alternatives that the administration
is working to provide with other partners. I neglected to
mention when Senator Gardner was here out in the field, it is
great to see the bipartisan support for the goals we have under
the free and open Indo-Pacific strategy represented by the Asia
Reassurance Initiative Act.
It is very true that Laos is debt distressed, and that
China is by far its largest creditor. It is also true that as
China is its largest investor, many of those investments have
not been to the labor standards or environmental standards or
law enforcement standards one would hope for, whether it is one
of those special economic zones notoriously being sanctioned by
our Treasury for its involvement in human trafficking, drug
trafficking, and other forms of corruption and crime.
Under the free and open Indo-Pacific strategy, new tools we
are hoping to use, including the increased capital that is
being projected for OPIC as a new development finance
corporation, if that appropriation goes through, with technical
assistance under the ITAN, the Infrastructure Transaction and
Assistance Network, to provide technical assistance to the Lao
so that they can work to improve their own investment
environment, right now they only have access to or they largely
have access to companies that are heavily subsidized by the
state, and when there are corruption issues, countries that are
willing to take advantage of that situation in order to bring
in more top quality U.S. companies and find companies from
other countries in the world that are not predatory. We want to
work with the Lao government to help them improve the
environment there that makes it more attractive for those
private sector companies to come in. We will have assistance
through the U.S. Agency for International Development.
We have assistance on the law enforcement side through the
International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Bureau out of State
to help the Lao raise their standards for governance that
includes investment and help them make the best deals possible,
that is, some of the technical assistance to help them when
they are brought a proposal for financing or for any type of
new infrastructure, that they can apply the best standards
possible both because we have helped them learn what those
standards are, both because we as a development partner are
supporting a five-country initiative put forward by Thailand to
help all five of those countries improve the quality of their
infrastructure, and because we and the Lao are coordinating
with other countries, other interested countries in Southeast
Asia, the neighbors and countries like Australia and Japan and
Korea who are also very much interested in maintaining a strong
sovereign Laos not dominated by China or any other country.
Senator Rubio. All right. Well, I know all of you will be
deeply disappointed that we are not going to go another hour
here. But all good things must come to an end, even today's
hearing. All kidding aside, you all have done a phenomenal job,
and we look forward to the work you will do on behalf of our
country. I know you are supposed to say ?if confirmed? but I
hope I can be saying ?when confirmed.? You have all done very
well today, and I appreciate all you being here.
The record for this hearing is going to remain open for 24
hours, which means members that may not have been able to
attend may submit questions, as well as each of you may submit
additional answers if necessary.
So again, I want to thank you all for being here and for
your patience.
It ended perfectly on time. We have a vote at 11:30. So now
I got to sprint down there and get that done.
But anyway, I appreciate all of you for being here and you
have done great. And we look forward--at least I personally
look forward to supporting each of you and your nomination.
So with that, the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted to Andeliz N. Castillo by Senator Robert Menendez
Democracy
Question. What are the most important actions you have taken in
your career to date to support democracy and human rights? What has
been the impact of your actions?
Answer. In my current role in the Office of the Vice President, I
organized listening sessions for Vice President Pence with Venezuelan
migrants and Venezuelan-Americans. The roundtable participants shared
their personal experiences of human rights violations and/or shared
stories of their loved ones and friends, including some who were
murdered or wrongly imprisoned in Venezuela. It provided an opportunity
for the Vice President to hear on more than one occasion first-hand
accounts on the subversion of democracy and human rights in Venezuela.
Also, I coordinated a meeting between Vice President Pence and Cuban-
American exile leaders, in which the Vice President could hear directly
from individuals who lived under the oppression of the Castro regime or
have loved ones who were harmed by the Castro regime. Following the
aforementioned roundtables/meetings, I organized larger speaking
engagements in which the Vice President recognized the Venezuelan's
people right to be free, as well as the people of Cuba and Nicaragua,
and reinforced the United States' unequivocal support for democracy and
human rights.
I helped arrange Vice President Pence's address to the Organization
of American States in order to continue the attention on the Venezuelan
crisis and fortify multilateral support among our allies across Latin
America. Lastly, I assisted in the production of a video message by
Vice President Pence directed to the people of Venezuela encouraging
them to exercise their freedom of speech prior to the January 23, 2019
demonstrations. As a result, my actions played a part in offering a
voice to those who yearn for freedom in Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua
and for those individuals to receive reassurance that the United States
condemns the regimes in Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua.
While at the House Committee of Foreign Affairs, Chairman Ileana
Ros-Lehtinen was very passionate about bringing awareness on human
rights and democracy in the Western Hemisphere; I drafted many
statements and several editorials in an effort to expose actions that
threatened democratic principles and demonstrated a lack of respect for
human rights by Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia and other bad actors
in Latin America and the Caribbean. When I served in the office of
South Florida Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart, I helped organize Cuba
Awareness Day events on Capitol Hill, featuring former political
prisoners and other Cuban exiles who were victims of the Cuban regime.
Responsiveness
Question. Do you commit to respond promptly to all requests for
information by members of this committee?
Answer. If confirmed, I commit to respond promptly to all requests
for information by members of this committee, in accordance with U.S.
laws and regulations.
Question. Do you commit to appear before this committee upon
request?
Answer. If confirmed, I commit to appear before this committee upon
request, in accordance with U.S. laws and regulations.
Question. If you become aware of any suspected waste, fraud, or
abuse, do you commit to report it?
Answer. If confirmed, I commit to comply with all relevant laws,
regulations, and rules, and to raise concerns that I may have through
appropriate channels.
Administrative
Question. Has anyone ever made a formal or informal complaint or
allegation of sexual harassment, discrimination (e.g., racial, ethnic,
religious, etc.), or inappropriate conduct against you, in a workplace
or any other setting? If so, please describe the nature of the
complaint or allegation, your response, and any resolution, including
any settlements.
Answer. I am not aware of any allegations or complaints that have
been made against me.
Question. Have you ever addressed concerns or allegations of sexual
harassment, discrimination (e.g., racial, ethnic, religious, etc.), or
inappropriate conduct made against any employee over whom you had
supervisory authority? If so, please describe the outcome and actions
taken.
Answer. I do not recall receiving any complaints or allegations of
this nature against an employee over whom I supervised.
Question. Do you agree that any targeting of or retaliation against
career employees based on their perceived political beliefs, prior work
on policy, or affiliation with a previous administration, is wholly
inappropriate and has no place in the federal government? If confirmed,
what will you do to ensure that all employees under your leadership
understand that any retaliation, blacklisting, or other prohibited
personnel practices will not be tolerated?
Answer. I have always conducted myself in a respectful and ethical
manner and I intend to continue to do so if confirmed. I will work to
ensure that all employees under my supervision are fully trained in all
applicable policies as well as legal and ethical rules so that
employees adhere and put into practice those policies and rules.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted to Andeliz N. Castillo by Senator Benjamin L. Cardin
Human Rights
Question. What are the most important actions you have taken in
your career to date to promote human rights and democracy? What has
been the impact of your actions?
Answer. In my current role in the Office of the Vice President, I
organized listening sessions for Vice President Pence with Venezuelan
migrants and Venezuelan-Americans. The roundtable participants shared
their personal experiences of human rights violations and/or shared
stories of their loved ones and friends, including some who were
murdered or wrongly imprisoned in Venezuela. It provided an opportunity
for the Vice President to hear on more than one occasion first-hand
accounts on the subversion of democracy and human rights in Venezuela.
Also, I coordinated a meeting between Vice President Pence and Cuban-
American exile leaders, in which the Vice President could hear directly
from individuals who lived under the oppression of the Castro regime or
have loved ones who were harmed by the Castro regime. Following the
aforementioned roundtables/meetings, I organized larger speaking
engagements in which the Vice President recognized the Venezuelan's
people right to be free, as well as the people of Cuba and Nicaragua,
and reinforced the United States' unequivocal support for democracy and
human rights.
I helped arrange Vice President Pence's address to the Organization
of American States in order to continue the attention on the Venezuelan
crisis and fortify multilateral support among our allies across Latin
America. Lastly, I assisted in the production of a video message by
Vice President Pence directed to the people of Venezuela encouraging
them to exercise their freedom of speech prior to the January 23, 2019
demonstrations. As a result, my actions played a part in offering a
voice to those who yearn for freedom in Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua
and for those individuals to receive reassurance that the United States
condemns the regimes in Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua.
While at the House Committee of Foreign Affairs, Chairman Ileana
Ros-Lehtinen was very passionate about bringing awareness on human
rights and democracy in the Western Hemisphere; I drafted many
statements and several editorials in an effort to expose actions that
threatened democratic principles and demonstrated a lack of respect for
human rights by Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia and other bad actors
in Latin America and the Caribbean. When I served in the office of
South Florida Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart, I helped organize Cuba
Awareness Day events on Capitol Hill, featuring former political
prisoners and other Cuban exiles who were victims of the Cuban regime.
Diversity
Question. What will you do to promote, mentor and support your
staff that come from diverse backgrounds and underrepresented groups in
the Inter-American Development Bank?
Answer. If I am fortunate to be confirmed as Alternate Executive
Director, I will work closely with the U.S. Executive Director to
promote, mentor and support personnel who are from diverse backgrounds
and underrepresented groups, consistent with fair management practices
and applicable U.S. government and IDB policies.
Question. What steps will you take to ensure each of the
supervisors in the U.S. Inter-American Development Bank are fostering
an environment that is diverse and inclusive?
Answer. If confirmed as Alternate Executive Director, I will work
with the U.S. Executive Director to try to ensure that IDB management
promotes an environment that is diverse and inclusive. I will
proactively support that these issues are included, as appropriate, in
the implementation and execution of IDB's human resources policies.
Conflicts of Interest
Question. Do you commit to bring to the committee's attention (and
the Inspector General of the U.S. Inter-American Development Bank) any
change in policy or U.S. actions that you suspect may be influenced by
any of the President's business or financial interests, or the business
or financial interests of any senior White House staff?
Answer. If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Alternate
Executive Director, I commit to carry out my duties consistent with
applicable conflict of interest laws and policies, and to reporting any
potential misconduct of which I become aware to the appropriate
authorities.
Question. Do you commit to inform the committee if you have any
reason to suspect that a foreign government, head of state, or foreign-
controlled entity is taking any action in order to benefit any of the
President's business or financial interests, or the interests of senior
White House staff?
Answer. If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Alternate
Executive Director, I commit to carry out my duties consistent with
applicable conflict of interest laws and policies, and to reporting any
potential misconduct of which I become aware to the appropriate
authorities.
Question. Do you or do any members of your immediate family have
any financial interests in any country abroad?
Answer. No.
China in Latin America
Question. Latin America and the Caribbean's economic relationship
with China is increasing quickly, with exports to China increasing by
30% in 2017 according to IDB data. As China-Latin America trade has
increased over the past several years, China has increased its
financial contributions to various IDB financing mechanisms and China
was chosen as the site for the 2019 IDB annual meetings.
How can the U.S. respond to China's increasing influence in the
Western Hemisphere, especially in light of the U.S. decision to
scale back contributions to the IDB?
Answer. While I am not currently serving at the bank, it is my
understanding that the United States is the preeminent shareholder of
the IDB and is committed to ensuring that the institution responsibly
supports economic growth and prosperity in the region.
While China was originally chosen as the site for the 2019 IDB
Annual Meetings, China did not end up hosting the meetings as the
bank's membership overwhelmingly rejected China's attempt to bend the
institution to its foreign policy goals in Venezuela. Instead, the
United States hosted a successful celebration by Leaders of the IDB's
60th Anniversary and Ecuador hosted a productive session of the Board's
Annual Meeting.
The United States will continue to work with multilateral
development banks, including the IDB, to build best practice
development standards that support high quality infrastructure, provide
technical assistance to improve governance performance, promote robust
safeguards that respect human rights and protect vulnerable
populations, and deliver aid within a sustainable debt framework. A
benefit of U.S. engagement and leadership in the IDB over the years has
been that the IDB has adopted policies that allow it to support efforts
in these areas with decreased reliance on new financial contributions
from the United States and increased contributions from the countries
in the region. If confirmed, I would look forward to helping the IDB
marshal development assistance to countries using established best
practices.
BUILD Act
Question. As you know, The BUILD Act is part of the U.S. policy
response to China's growing economic influence in developing countries.
It aims to provide an alternative to China's state-directed investment
financing model-which many U.S. policymakers view as lacking
transparency, operating under inadequate environmental and social
safeguards for projects, and employing questionable lending practices
that may lead to unsustainable debt burdens in some poorer countries
(``debt diplomacy'').
What can you do to make multilateral development bank financing
more attractive to developing countries relative to bilateral
financing by China?
Answer. I believe that financing from the MDBs, including the IDB,
represents an advantageous alternative to bilateral Chinese financing
for the following reasons:
The MDBs have well-established relationships with developing
countries.
The MDBs possess technical expertise and high quality standards
that the Chinese and many other bilateral donors often do not
possess.
The MDBs have fair and transparent, untied procurement standards,
meaning they offer the greater value per dollar invested.
Strong procurement standards guard against corruption and
related political scandals.
The MDBs have established programs to advise developing countries
about the economic viability of potential infrastructure
projects and the impact on the recipient country's debt
sustainability of engaging in these projects, and to require
them to provide data to the MDBs about the terms of existing
debt obligations. The MDBs' efforts to help countries avoid
unsustainable debt traps enhances the developing countries'
degree of independence and sovereignty.
The MDBs also have independent accountability mechanisms, which the
Chinese and most bilateral donors do not have.
Strong engagement by the United States in these institutions is
critical to ensuring the ability of MDBs to continue to serve as an
effective alternative to Chinese financing. If confirmed to this role
at the IDB, I look forward to putting my experience in coalition
building to work to ensure that the IDB offers appealing alternatives
to bilateral Chinese financing along the lines outlined above.
Question. What are opportunities for synergies between the new DFC
and the IDB in collaborating on infrastructure and other projects in
countries along China's Belt and Road Initiative?The IDB often pursues
opportunities for co-financing with bilateral agencies. It is my
understanding that the new DFC will be well positioned to collaborate
with the IDB in this way. The DFC's precursor, OPIC, and IDB Invest
recently signed an MOU to launch a strategic co-investment framework
that will seek to better leverage each institution's capabilities and
should enhance OPIC and DFC's collaboration with the IDB Group.
Northern Triangle of Central America
Question. The IDB has worked extensively in Central America's
Northern Triangle.
How would you gauge the effectiveness at these efforts in
increasing security, good governance, and prosperity to address
the root causes of migration?
Answer. I understand that the root causes of migration are
multifaceted and stem from a lack of economic opportunities, citizen
insecurity and violence in the region. To address the region's outward
migration trends, the northern Central American countries established
the Alliance for Prosperity with the technical and financial support
from the U.S. government and with the IDB as the Secretariat. This
effort has produced clear progress in addressing the level of violence
in the region. In addition, there has been an increase in the
detention, prosecution, andarraignment of public officials involved in
corruption.
Question. What more can the IDB do to address the root causes of
migration?
Answer. The IDB can continue to strengthen its engagements with the
northern Central American countries in the IDB's areas of competence
with the goal of creating employment and educational opportunities as
well as increasing private investment.
Question. If confirmed, how would you work to ensure the IDB
effectively channels resources and technical assistance to the region?
Answer. As the Secretariat of the Alliance for Prosperity, the IDB
has a unique role in supporting the governments of the northern Central
America countries in their own efforts to foster growth, develop human
capital, improve security and strengthen institutions. If confirmed, I
would work to ensure that the IDB facilitates coordination between the
major donors and governments to support these goals.
Venezuela Crisis
Question. What role does the IDB have in ensuring the region is
equipped to handle the effects of the Venezuela crisis, including the
influx of millions of fleeing Venezuelans?
Answer. It is my understanding that the IDB expanded its Grant
Facility in 2019 so that it may provide grant resources to support
countries facing intraregional migration inflows. At the outset, the
Grant Facility will be primarily used to address the Venezuelan
migration crisis, as well as smaller migration flows resulting from
Nicaragua's deterioration that are having a significant local effect in
Costa Rica. This effort is critically important for both the well-being
of Venezuelans who have fled their home country due to economic
collapse and oppression, and for the countries in the region that are
doing admirable work to support these refugees.
Question. Do you believe the IDB has the resources it needs to
respond to the Venezuela crisis?
Answer. The IDB has sufficient resources so that when a transition
happens in Venezuela and the government clears its arrears, the IDB can
support economic recovery. In addition, IDB Invest has sufficient
capacity to enable private sector transactional support. As the only
one of the international financial institutions to recognize the
government of Interim President Juan Guaid", the IDB is leading
coordination efforts to ensure that a constitutional government can act
quickly to rebuild an economy devastated by decades of corruption and
mismanagement. An important part of this effort will be providing the
environment necessary for private sector investment to supplement
public sector resources. If confirmed, I will look forward to
supporting these important efforts.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted to Andeliz N. Castillo by Senator Jeanne Shaheen
Question. If confirmed, how will you work with and support the
efforts of the Gender and Diversity Division at the IDB?
Answer. If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Alternate
Executive Director, I will work closely with the U.S. Executive
Director to support efforts of the Gender and Diversity Division at the
IDB, consistent with fair management practices and applicable U.S.
government and IDB policies. In addition, I will try to ensure that IDB
management, including the Board of Directors, supports an environment
that is diverse and inclusive. I will advocate that the efforts of the
Division be considered, as appropriate, in the implementation and
execution of IDB's policies.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted to Dr. Alma Golden by Senator Robert Menendez
Management & Leadership
If confirmed, you will have leadership and management
responsibility for a significant portfolio of financial and human
resources extending nearly everywhere USAID works.
Motivation and Morale
Question. Given the ongoing impact of last year's hiring freeze,
budget constraints, and pressure from externalities such as State
Department-run programs and financials, the Global Health bureau's
staff has been under high degrees of prolonged stress. Please share
your current staffing levels, vacancies, and attrition/departures by
Office. If confirmed, what steps will you take to improve morale?
Answer. Although I do not currently have access to the specific
data requested as I am not currently working in the Bureau for Global
Health (GH), if confirmed, I commit to working with you and your staff
to share information on GH's staffing and vacancies, in accordance with
longstanding Executive Branch practice. I will note that during my time
with GH, I saw attrition from normal factors such as retirement,
departures for advanced graduate study, and other life circumstances.
Working in international development and relief environments often
means dealing with unusually stressful and challenging situations.
Given these factors, the motivation and morale of our staff is of
utmost importance.
I am committed to fostering a work environment in which all of our
employees feel valued. Ensuring the resilience, wellness and work-life
balance of our employees are integral parts of the culture of the U.S.
Agency for International Development (USAID) and something I strongly
support. If confirmed as Assistant Administrator, I would remain
committed to our Agency's Leadership Philosophy and other practices and
behaviors that lead to a more empowered and adaptable workforce, able
to thrive in our increasingly complex and changing world. If confirmed,
I will support our staff to identify key issues of concern, create
teams to execute action plans to address these matters, and implement
changes to advance the Agency's values of passion for mission,
excellence, integrity, respect, empowerment and inclusion. I will also
continue my past practice of conducting regular ``All Hands'' meetings
in the Bureau; maintain an open-door policy; and incorporate our
Agency's wellness resource, Staff Care, as a regular part of our
Bureau's wellness practices, if confirmed.
Staffing and Attrition
Question. Does USAID have a workforce and leadership succession
plan? If so, what will you do as Assistant Administrator for Global
Health to ensure that USAID improves the hiring and retention of a
skilled and adequately sized workforce of Foreign Service Officers and
civil servants to implement USAID's mission, both at headquarters and
across the globe? If not, how can you address hiring and retention of a
skilled and adequately sized workforce of foreign service officers and
civil servants to implement USAID's vast global health mission, both
here at headquarters and abroad?
Answer. The globally dispersed workforce of the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) has continually adapted to support
the Journey to Self-Reliance in our partner countries throughout the
world. Over 68 percent of our staff work overseas; the Agency has an
official presence in 87 countries, and funds programs in 19
others.Workforce-planning is the lynchpin that will help the Agency
determine whether it can meet its new mission needs successfully in the
future, by defining them against existing capacity and finding
effective ways to fill the gaps adequately. As such, USAID's emphasis
is on strengthening its workforce-planning capability to support the
identification, deployment, and management of the optimal personnel mix
for the Agency.
USAID is working to establish a workforce-planning process that-
through an integrated cycle of activities-links human-capital resources
with the Agency's vision, enables a more-robust understanding of the
current and projected workforce, and inform the development and
implementation of a workforce strategy to close identified gaps in
personnel. Overall, this process will help USAID track progress against
its workforce goals, improve transparency and accountability, as well
as instill a culture of continuous improvement.
I fully support all the Agency personnel who make achieving the
critical work of USAID possible and, if confirmed, I will be strongly
committed to working with USAID's Office of Human Capital and Talent
Management to ensure that the Bureau for Global Health and our Missions
in the field have the necessary Foreign Service Officers, Civil
Servants, and other employees to execute their mission.
GH Bureau Transformation
Question. What are the top three organizational priorities and
intended outcomes/changes you intend to implement in the GH bureau
through the Agency's Transformation initiative?
Answer. I am aware that the Bureau for Global Health (GH) is
preparing for a process of Transformation, but I have not been involved
in the deliberations since my nomination. It is my intention, if
confirmed, to understand fully where the GH Transformation process is
before making any assessments of my top organizational priorities. I
intend to work closely with the GH Bureau, the Restructuring Management
Unit, and the Agency's leadership to identify what changes we should
prioritize.
Question. How will any of these priorities and/or changes impact
the bureau's Office of Family Planning and Reproductive Health?
Answer. If confirmed, I commit to work with the Agency's leadership
to champion appropriate priorities and support decisions regarding the
structure and functions of the Bureau for Global Health.
Question. Will you commit to consulting with my staff prior to
finalizing changes under the Transformation Initiative?
Answer. Yes, if confirmed, I commit to consulting with Congress on
any changes to the structure of the Bureau for Global Health in
accordance with law and the rules and regulations of the U.S. Agency
for International Development (USAID).
Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Violations and Sexual
Harassment
Question. How many EEO and sexual harassment lawsuits against
Global Health bureau officials have been settled by the agency over the
past three calendar years? How many EEO and sexual harassment lawsuits
are currently pending against officials in the Global Health bureau? If
confirmed, what steps would you take to determine that EEO violations
and sexual harassment matters are being dealt with appropriately in the
Global Health bureau, both at headquarters and overseas?
Answer. Although I do not have access currently to the specific
information requested, if confirmed, I will commit to working with you
and your staff to share information on the Equal Employment Opportunity
(EEO) data of the Bureau for Global Health (GH) in compliance with law
and the rules and regulations of the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID). I would also note that, if confirmed, as the
Assistant Administrator for Global Health, I would not necessarily be
aware of every EEO case, given confidentiality requirements.
I fully support USAID Administrator Mark Green's Action Alliance
for Preventing Sexual Misconduct (AAPSM), which has underscored our
commitment to prevent such practices, for our staff as well as our
beneficiaries. I commit to preventing and addressing sexual
exploitation and abuse, as well as to preventing and addressing sexual
harassment in the workplace. Sexual misconduct of any kind among staff,
implementing partners, or program beneficiaries is wholly inappropriate
and counter to our Agency's core values. I am committed personally to
fostering a respectful culture at USAID that demonstrates
accountability and elevates the voice of survivors by putting their
needs and well-being at the forefront of our efforts.
I am equally committed to ensuring that GH follows the critically
important tenets and principles of EEO, and will work with USAID's
Office of Civil Rights and Diversity (OCRD) to make sure OCRD may
investigate and respond to any EEO or sexual-harassment allegations
promptly. If confirmed, I also commit to working with OCRD to ensure GH
staff have the information and training they need on these critically
important issues.
GH Financial Management & Budget
GH Programming, Planning, and Policy
Question. Given the shake-up caused in the GH bureau's Policy,
Planning, and Programming Office from the untimely departure of the
experienced civil servant Director, followed by the short tenure of a
political appointee, what is the current status of that Office's
management, staffing/morale, and financial management functions, and If
confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure that the Office's
staffing and leadership circumstances are well situated to achieve
those critical financial management functions, which directly affect
the GH missions, bureau, and other Offices across the Agency?
Answer. I understand a career civil servant has filled the position
of Director of the Office of Policy, Planning, and Programming in the
Bureau for Global Health. If confirmed, I look forward to supporting
the staff and important work of this office, as well as staff
throughout the Bureau.
PEPFAR
Question. We have heard from multiple sources of the planning,
programming, and implementation difficulties experienced by USAID and
its implementing partners due to the Office of the Global AIDS
Coordinator's delays in transferring apportioned funds to the Agency.
If confirmed, what steps would you take to ensure that the FY19 funds
approved through this year's COP processes, and those of upcoming
approval processes are made available from OGAC to USAID and
implementing partners in a timely manner?
Answer. As one of several Departments and Agencies that contribute
to the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), the U.S.
Agency for International Development (USAID) respects the program's
commitment to ending the HIV/AIDS epidemic abroad.
I also fully appreciate the importance of thoughtful strategic
planning and meticulous monitoring and oversight of PEPFAR resources by
the Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator (OGAC), USAID, and our other
interagency partners to manage the American taxpayers' generous
investment in this cause effectively and responsibly. If confirmed, I
commit to maintain the positive and productive relationship between
OGAC, USAID, and the PEPFAR Interagency Budget and Management Group-
which has streamlined communications and helped to clarify approval
processes and timelines--as we continue to ensure the effective and
responsible investment of PEPFAR resources and the critical work of our
Mission teams in the field and their bilateral, multilateral, and other
implementing partners.
Family Planning
Question. The administration proposed an over 60 percent cut to
international family planning and reproductive health in the FY 2020
budget request. The budget justification also deletes references to the
role of family planning in preventing unintended pregnancy and
``enhanc[ing] the ability of couples to decide the number, timing, and
spacing of births'' and ``reducing abortion.'' Women's access to health
care, including sexual and reproductive health care like modern
contraceptives, plays a significant role in their ability to advance
their education, participate in the economy, and support their families
and communities. Ensuring women utilize modern contraception methods
dramatically reduces maternal and newborn deaths. When women are able
to space their pregnancies at least three years apart, they are more
likely to survive pregnancy and childbirth and their children are more
than twice as likely to survive infancy.
Do you think that providing women the tools and accurate
information about preventing unintended pregnancies is a worthy
public health goal?
What are the most important actions you have taken in your career
to date to support women's rights to determine their own
reproductive outcomes, and/or empower them to space their
pregnancies? What has been the impact of your actions?
Answer. As the world's largest bilateral donor of family planning
assistance, the United States remains committed to helping women and
their children thrive. Preventing child and maternal deaths remains a
priority for this administration. Access to voluntary family planning
is a key intervention for achieving the healthy timing and spacing of
pregnancy, preventing child and maternal deaths, and for helping
communities progress along the Journey to Self-Reliance.
We know that women need access to a range of contraceptive options
over their reproductive years as their fertility intentions change over
time. We serve women and men best when we provide them with access to a
range of modern contraceptive options--from fertility-awareness
methods, to short- and long-acting reversible methods, to voluntary
permanent methods--as well as to high-quality counseling so women and
their partners can make their own informed choices. We are also
committed to supporting the development, introduction, and scale-up of
a wide range of contraceptive methods to meet the needs of women and
couples for voluntary family-planning to promote the healthy timing and
spacing of pregnancy.
If confirmed, I will continue to support a full range of modern
contraceptive methods to ensure that women and couples have access to
the information, counseling, and methods best suited to their needs.
Question. If confirmed, will you commit to see to it that U.S.
funded programs continue to support and supply a full range of (modern)
contraceptive methods in order to ensure that women have access to the
information, counseling, and methods best suited to their needs?
Answer. The children's health clinics I helped set up, staffed, and
managed for over a decade in rural South and East Texas were co-located
with clinics focused on voluntary family planning and maternity care.
I worked closely with our providers of women's health care to
promote the healthy timing and spacing of pregnancy. Co-locating our
clinics for children's health with these clinics ensured that mothers
and their children had access to a one-stop model that could meet their
health needs holistically.
The decade during which I managed these clinics helped inform my
four years directing the Office of Population Affairs in the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). At HHS, I continued to
support programs focused on the healthy timing and spacing of
pregnancy, through education and voluntary, informed family planning,
including modern methods of contraception, and helping adolescents
delay sexual involvement and pregnancy. These programs also worked to
help reduce the risk of complications from high-risk pregnancies for
both mothers and babies, and reduced rates of pregnancy among early
adolescents.
Youth
Question. The world currently has the largest generation of young
people ever. This presents tremendous opportunity for global
development but also means that we have to take action to promote the
health and well-being of adolescents and youth everywhere. Yet
complications during pregnancy and childbirth are the leading cause of
death for adolescent girls (ages 15-19 years). Adolescents, both
married and unmarried, face a range of barriers to accessing
reproductive health care, including lack of knowledge, stigma, health
worker bias and unwillingness to acknowledge young people's
reproductive health needs.
Sexual risk avoidance, also known as abstinence only until marriage
programs, have been proven ineffective in preventing pregnancy and
STIs, and have been shown to have no impact on behaviors or number of
partners.
If confirmed, how will you promote access to comprehensive health
information and services for young people as a means of
preventing maternal deaths?
If confirmed, what specific steps will you take to ensure
comprehensive, evidence based health and education programs are
supported for young people under USAID's global health
programs?
Answer. During adolescence, girls and boys establish life-long
health behaviors, which makes it a pivotal time in development.
Evidence shows that healthy timing (delaying the first pregnancy
until a woman is at least 18 years old) and spacing (at least 24 months
between giving birth and becoming pregnant again) are critical to
reducing maternal mortality and morbidity among adolescents and young
women, as well as to reducing infant mortality. In addition to
encouraging the healthy timing and spacing of pregnancies, our work
also focuses on preventing coercion, exploitation, and abuse; delaying
sexual debut; avoiding sexual, substance-abuse and other risks;
stopping female genital mutilation; reducing the acceptance of child
marriage; and keeping girls in school. These interventions support
girls and young women as individuals, help delay marriage, and avoid
early pregnancy, all of which result in lower rates of maternal and
child mortality.
Also, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is
currently funding a project dedicated to expanding the evidence base
for what works in positive youth development and applying improved
approaches across programs and sectors. Under the President's Emergency
Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), activities include reviewing existing
and piloting promising approaches for mentoring adolescent girls and
young women at increased risk of HIV/AIDS, identifying life skills most
relevant to sexual and reproductive health, preventing violence and
other cross-sectoral youth outcomes and identifying and disseminating
effective interventions that can increase the uptake of testing for HIV
and create better linkages to treatment among young people. If
confirmed, I will ensure USAID continues to support evidence-based
health and education programs for young people, especially adolescent
girls, under PEPFAR and USAID's other global health programs.
If confirmed, I will also work to ensure that USAID's programming
for young people includes the engagement of influencers who have a
vested interest in their welfare--such as parents, grandparents, and
religious and community leaders--so that young people can have access
to correct, age- and context-appropriate, high-quality health
information and care and live full, productive lives.
Question. Data tells us that Africa has the most youthful
population in the world, with more than 200-million of its 1.2-billion
people aged between 15 and 24. Africa's youth population is expected to
reach over 830 million by 2050.
What budgetary impact will the youth bulge have on USAID's global
health programming in Africa over the next three to five years
if we are to reach the same portion of the population with
health services, including services in sexual and reproductive
health? If confirmed, what steps will you take ensure that the
bureau analyzes and is prepared to respond to the increasing
need?
Answer. The youth bulge in sub-Saharan Africa is one of the biggest
challenges to our health programs. If confirmed, I will ensure the
Bureau continues its long-standing history of engagement with
innovators, the private sector, global donor partners, and recipient
governments to generate ideas and mobilize resources to meet this
challenge, including through comprehensive health programming for
youth. I commit to building new alliances and partnerships to address
the health and well-being of the growing number of adolescents and
youth in the countries where we work.
Faith-Based Organizations/Civil Society Engagement
Question. There is a strong push within global HIV/AIDS programs to
fund faith-based organizations, which have been critical partners in
the fight against HIV, but may not be best-positioned to deliver
comprehensive HIV prevention, care and treatment services to everyone
who needs it in all settings. I understand that you conducted regular
meetings with a small set of Faith-Based Organizations during your
tenure as Deputy Assistance Administrator and then as Senior Deputy
Administrator.
During your tenure as Deputy Assistance Administrator and then as
Senior Deputy Administrator, how many open town hall meetings
that included non-faith based NGO actors engaged in PEPFAR or
maternal and child health did you hold? When were each of these
meetings held?
Answer. My recollection is that during my tenure as the Deputy
Assistant Administrator and then the Senior Deputy Assistant
Administrator of the Bureau for Global Health (GH) until April 2019, I
hosted two formal, open ``town hall'' meetings with the maternal and
child health community. These meetings included a diverse array of
partners, both faith-based and secular. On at least one occasion, I,
along with GH staff, met with leaders from Jewish, Islamic, and
Christian faith-based organizations, at their request. In addition, the
other two members of GH's senior leadership and I regularly engaged
with the implementers of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief
and our programs in maternal and child health in numerous informal
group and one-on-one meetings in-person, by phone, and by email. Since
I have recused myself from GH's activities since April 2019, I am not
aware of the status of current meetings the Bureau might be holding
with external organizations on HIV/AIDS, maternal and child health, and
nutrition.
Question. If confirmed, do you commit to both evaluating which
partners are best able to achieve programmatic goals, and to engaging
with diverse civil society organizations?
Answer. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has a
long history of engaging with a diversity of partners, including small
businesses and civil-society, non-governmental, and faith-based
organizations. Diversifying USAID's partner base to reflect today's
expanded development landscape is an important component of the Journey
to Self-Reliance, because choice and competition are key to innovation
and resource-mobilization in development work, just as they are in the
private-sector economy.
USAID has no ``earmark'' for faith based organizations, and does
not give them special treatment. If confirmed, I commit to engaging
with a diverse set of partners to achieve our programmatic goals. If
confirmed, I also commit to following USAID's policy guidance regarding
assessing, evaluating and selecting potential and existing partners
through the Agency's procurement processes. These policies help ensure
USAID is engaging with the most-capable partners to assist us in
implementing high-impact, sustainable programs.
Global Gag Rule
Question. Secretary Pompeo announced in a press conference recently
that the State Department would be taking action to ``implement this
policy to the broadest extent possible.'' Under this broad
interpretation, a foreign NGO in compliance with the Global Gag Rule
would have to force compliance with the policy on foreign organizations
who they subgrant to using funding from ANY source for ANY purpose,
effectively gagging funding of other government and private donors,
which constitutes a significant expansion of the reach and impact of
the Global Gag Rule, further dividing complying and non-complying
partners, and undermining coordination and collaboration in the field.
NGOs have already reported that compliance with the Global Gag Rule
has increased their administrative costs due to adding complicated
compliance mechanisms.
Has USAID looked into how this broad interpretation will impact
programs across the health and development sector?
How much will this broad interpretation increase the administrative
costs for these NGOs? How much will this new compliance burden
affect the amount and quality of health services this funding
is intended for? How will you monitor this and other impacts if
confirmed?
Answer. As the world's largest bilateral donor to global health
programs, the United States remains committed to helping women and
their children thrive, particularly in countries where the need is
greatest. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) works
continually with our field Missions to review our programs; develop
stronger, more systematic reporting systems; and minimize any potential
disruption of the health care we fund. USAID successfully reprogrammed
all funds for voluntary family planning within each country when the
Mexico City Policy was in place, and has done the same for all affected
health assistance under the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance
(PLGHA) Policy.
USAID will continue to work closely with implementing partners to
ensure they understand what compliance with the PLGA Policy entails. We
expect our partners to comply with this new guidance, and will actively
monitor their compliance. In the event a partner chooses not to accept
the Policy, USAID takes active steps to ensure another implementer
continues the activities continue. If confirmed, I will continue to
work with USAID's staff in Washington and overseas to answer questions
and provide guidance to ensure the proper implementation of the PLGHA
policy.
Question. The State Department stated they would complete a second
review of the Mexico City Policy, also known as the Global Gag Rule, by
the end of 2018, yet we are still waiting on that report.
When do you expect the report to be delivered to Congress, and what
accounts for the delay?
Answer. The U.S. Department of State recognized that the Six-Month
Review of the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance (PLGHA)
Policy, released in February 2018, took place early in the Policy's
implementation. As a result, the Department of State, in coordination
with the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and the
Departments of Health and Human Services and Defense, undertook a
subsequent review to assess the implementation of the policy, including
any effects on the delivery of care. While I have not been involved in
this subsequent process, I have received a briefing that USAID is
working with our interagency colleagues to finalize the review, and we
expect the report to be released very soon. I would refer you to the
State Department for more information.
Question. A new study published in Lancet found that when the
Mexico City Policy was in effect between 2001-2008, abortion rates
increased about 40 percent among women in countries most affected by
the policy. It also found a symmetric reduction in the use of modern
contraception while the policy was enacted, coinciding with an increase
in pregnancies. This pattern of more frequent abortions (many of which
are unsafe in the impacted countries) and lower contraceptive use was
reversed after the policy was rescinded in 2009.
Has anyone in the bureau of Global Health met with the authors of
the report to discuss its findings and the methodology used to
produce the report?
Is decreasing access to family planning and increasing abortion in
line with USAID goals, and the goals of the administration more
broadly? If not, what actions do you intend to take in light of
these new research findings?
What actions will you take as the leader of USAID's Global Health
priorities to determine whether there are gaps in contraception
services due to the imposition of the Mexico City Policy and if
so, how these gaps are being addressed?
How will you assess and evaluate whether there have been service
disruptions and inefficiencies created by the need for USAID to
switch implementing partners in cases where implementers
refused to agree to the restrictions imposed by the Mexico City
Policy?
Answer. I am not aware that anyone from the Bureau for Global
Health (GH) has met with the authors of the Lancet study to discuss its
findings and methodology. If confirmed, I commit to continuing the
conversation with the committee on Foreign Relations regarding how the
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) will consider these
findings moving forward.
It is critical that Global Health and other Family Planning donors
and advocates continue to follow the indicators and demographic surveys
that track access to modern contraceptive care and outcomes for women
and children in order to assure that vulnerable populations are
supported. Currently, and consistent with ongoing practices, USAID
Missions monitor and track all award transitions, whether related to
PLGHA or other changes in partners or funding, to minimize disruptions
to recipients.
If confirmed, I will work with GH staff and the other U.S.
government Departments and Agencies that implement the Protecting Life
in Global Health Assistance Policy to examine the second review of the
implementation of the Policy to determine what adjustments we might
have to make if disruptions in care occurred as a result of transitions
between partners.
Siljander
Question. As you may be aware from recent State Department
announcements, a policy known as the Siljander amendment prohibits the
use of foreign assistance funds to lobby for or against abortion.
Repeatedly at the U.N., representatives of the State Department, USAID,
and U.S. Mission to the U.N. are alleged to have made statements that
``we [the United States] do not support abortion,'' spread false
information that comprehensive sex education programs ``promote
abortion as a solution to teen pregnancy,'' and are said to have stated
``the U.S. is a pro-life country'' despite the fact that for over 40
years the right to abortion has been established in this country under
Roe v. Wade.
Has the Office of Legal Counsel or the Inspector General undertaken
a review of allegations about statements such as the
aforementioned to determine whether a violation of the
Siljander amendment has occurred?
Answer. Consistent with longstanding practice, the United States
routinely describes its foreign-policy positions on issues before
multilateral bodies.
Question. What steps will you take to ensure compliance with, and
hold employees under your supervision accountable for, compliance with
the Siljander prohibition on lobbying for or against abortion, and to
ensure that officials as USAID are properly informed so as not to
spread false, misleading information about comprehensive education
concerning sexual and reproductive health?
Answer. The U.S. Agency for International Development takes
compliance with the Siljander Amendment very seriously, and I will
ensure that staff are familiar with its provisions. We would address
any specific response to an alleged compliance issue on a case-by-case
basis.
Health Systems/Workforce
Question. Frontline health workforce teams and the systems
supporting them are the bedrock of resilient countries, and U.S. global
health programs cannot succeed unless we place a high priority on
workforce and systems strengthening, as was highlighted in a report
released recently from USAID's Inspector General. The Global Health
Bureau's Office of Health Systems, by your own reporting, and a new
USAID Inspector General's report has made major inroads in maximizing
the efficiency and impact of the dollars we allocate to your bureau on
these cross-cutting issues.
What is your vision for this office, and how will you ensure the
Bureau has the leadership and cross-bureau programs,
flexibility, data and reporting the IG report recommends to
ensure partner countries have the workforce and systems needed
to deliver the global health outcomes we wish to achieve?
Answer. Annex B of the report of the Office of the Inspector
General (OIG) for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
contains a list of actions the Agency has already committed to take to
respond to the OIG's recommendations. I support these actions and, if
confirmed, will continue to support USAID's efforts to improve the
overall cohesion of systemic investments in health institutions by
providing better and updated guidance to our field Missions and
integrating cross-cutting programs within the overall quantifiable
results the Bureau for Global Health is working to achieve. I also
think these actions will help ensure Missions are accountable for
adhering to the guidelines and provide a means to better track progress
in building the capacity of public-health and medical institutions
around the world.
Question. A High-Level Commission on Health Employment and Economic
Growth in 2016 concluded that investments in health have a nine-fold
return and accounted for about one quarter of economic growth between
2000 and 2011 in low- and middle-income countries, having an outsized
impact for women, who make up about 70 percent of the health and social
workforce worldwide. Simultaneously, the World Health Organization has
projected a shortfall of 18 million health workers by 2030 without bold
and sustained action, mostly in the low- and middle-income countries
USAID operates. This projected shortfall threatens to derail the
ability to put countries on the journey to self-reliance as called for
by the administration, and the tremendous progress the United States
has spearheaded in saving lives around the world and also leaves us
more vulnerable to infectious disease threats like Ebola.
How will you prioritize USAID's programs to help spur the
investments and policies needed to strengthen the global health
workforce that can simultaneously tackle our greatest global
health challenges and drive global economic growth and women's
economic empowerment?
Answer. New, well-trained health workers are needed across the
priority countries in which the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) invests global health funding. As our partners
implement strategies to train and deploy new workers, it will also be
important for us to work with governments, civil society, and the
private sector to maximize the efficiency of existing health workers
and ensure linkages between community health workers and health
facilities, as well as between public- and private-sector health
workers, including those who work for international non-governmental
organizations and faith-based groups. We also need to leverage new
technologies to help extend the reach of health workers. While each of
our field Missions will determine the best approaches given their local
situations, I was pleased to note that earlier this year the World
Health Organization published guidelines to optimize programs that
deploy community health workers, which I think will help to formalize
this important cadre of health providers, the majority of whom are
women. If confirmed, I will work to ensure USAID implements robust
programs that maximize the number and effectiveness of health workers,
especially as a key driver of women's economic empowerment.
LGBTQ Equal Rights
Question. Will you commit to using your position, if confirmed, to
defend the human rights and dignity of all people impacted by USAID's
Global Health programs, no matter their sexual orientation or gender
identity?
Answer. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
recognizes that our strength comes from our diversity, and I am
committed to our Agency's Leadership Philosophy and values of
integrity, respect, empowerment, and inclusion. If confirmed, under my
leadership, we will value all of our employees equally, and all
employees in the Bureau for Global Health will be expected to
demonstrate professionalism and respect in their communications and
behavior.
I will foster an environment that empowers every team member to
meet his or her full potential. I will also work to advance equal
opportunity and address inequality within our Agency, and in our work
in the field.
Question. What challenges do you see remaining for LGBTQ people
across USAID global health programs and regions?
Answer. Unfortunately, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and
queer people around the world continue to face stigma, isolation, and
marginalization. The U.S. Agency for International Development is
committed to addressing inequality in our field work to ensure
beneficiaries can access health care in safe and respectful
environments, and to help improve their health and well-being.
Congressional Consultations
Question. Will you commit, if confirmed, to ensuring that you fully
brief Members of Congress and/or their staff on a regular basis?
Answer. During my tenure at the U.S. Agency for International
Development, it has been a pleasure and honor to meet, consult, and
brief Members of Congress and Congressional staff regularly. If
confirmed, I commit to continuing to do so, in accordance with law and
the rules and regulations of the U.S. Agency for International
Development.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted
to Dr. Alma L. Golden by Senator Benjamin L. Cardin
Human Rights
Question. What are the most important actions you have taken in
your career to date to promote human rights and democracy? What has
been the impact of your actions?
Answer. From the time that I first became a pediatrician, I
recognized the devastating impact of sexual abuse, coercion and
exploitation on children and young teens. In addition to caring for
these children and teens individually, I served on local and State
child-protective advisory committees, testified in court cases,
advocated with the Texas Pediatric Society, and later worked in
programs with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),
all to strengthen clinical training for providers to identify, manage,
and report on children who might have been exploited and abused.
Through initiatives during my time at HHS, in partnership with the U.S.
States Department of Justice, we were able to hold multi-disciplinary
conferences, and roll these programs out nationwide so they have had
impact across the country.
From 1991 to 2001, I developed and directed pediatric care for the
Maternal and Child Program of the University of Texas (UT) Medical
Branch at Galveston, which brings health care to poor and indigent
individuals and vulnerable populations across extremely underserved
rural counties in South and East Texas. The network of 16 pediatric
clinics supported by UT Medical Branch spanned 270 miles. I helped set
the clinics up, hired and trained staff, and served as director and
backup physician for all of the sites. I also served on State and
national committees regarding access to care for indigent people that
also delivered care for disabled populations. Through collaboration
with the School of Education at Baylor University and McLane Children's
Hospital, we developed clinical and therapeutic care for children with
autism, developmental difficulties, and physical disabilities.
During my tenure in Bureau for Global Health at the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID), I was involved in promoting programs
to benefit women and girls around the world, including on women's
empowerment, access to health care, and education. Our work has served
and supported orphans and vulnerable children; young married
adolescents; women with childbirth-related fistula; and victims of
gender-based violence, including those with traumatic fistula from
sexual assault and rape. USAID also has implemented programs to address
child and early marriage and female genital mutilation.
Diversity
Question. What will you do to promote, mentor and support your
staff that come from diverse backgrounds and underrepresented groups in
the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)?
Answer. I am committed to our Agency's Leadership Philosophy and
our values of integrity, respect, empowerment, and inclusion. Under my
leadership, we will continue to recognize that strength comes from
diversity. We will value all of our employees equally, and I will
expect all employees of the Bureau for Global Health to demonstrate
professionalism and respect in their communications and behavior. I
will foster an environment that empowers every team member to meet his
or her full potential. I will also advance equal opportunity and
address inequality within our Agency and in our work in the field.
Question. What steps will you take to ensure each of the
supervisors in your bureau at USAID are fostering an environment that
is diverse and inclusive?
Answer. I commit to ensuring that all supervisors under my purview
complete the mandatory U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID) University Supervisory Certification Course, a two-week class
designed to target competencies in both management and leadership to
equip our leaders with the skills and tools needed to perform in their
role as managers of an inclusive diverse and multicultural workforce.
Additionally, the Bureau for Global Health will engage closely with
USAID's Office of Civil Rights and Diversity to prioritize our focus on
diversity and inclusion, through explicit attention to best practices
and opportunities to execute on these issues across all levels of the
organization, including in hiring. We will create opportunities for
training on inclusiveness, diversity, and leadership at all levels.
Conflicts of Interest
Question. Do you commit to bring to the committee's attention (and
the Inspector General of the U.S. Agency for International Development)
any change in policy or U.S. actions that you suspect may be influenced
by any of the President's business or financial interests, or the
business or financial interests of any senior White House staff?
Answer. I commit to comply with all relevant Federal ethics laws,
regulations and rules, and to raise any concerns that I might have
through appropriate channels.
Question. Do you commit to inform the committee if you have any
reason to suspect that a foreign government, head of state, or foreign-
controlled entity is taking any action in order to benefit any of the
President's business or financial interests, or the interests of senior
White House staff?
Answer. I commit to comply with all relevant Federal ethics laws,
regulations and rules, and to raise any concerns that I might have
through appropriate channels.
Question. Do you or do any members of your immediate family have
any financial interests in any country abroad?
Answer. No. Neither I nor my immediate family members have any
financial interests in any country abroad.
Global Health Security
Question. Funding for preventing global pandemics through global
health security has been dwarfed by spending on disease outbreak
response. Annual appropriations for USAID global health security
programs, for example, average roughly $75 million. On the other hand,
Congress appropriated over $5 billion in emergency funds to contain the
2014-2016 Ebola outbreak in West Africa; to date, the U.S. government
has spent over $150 million in the DRC on humanitarian aid and Ebola
control.
Considering the resurgence of Ebola, as well as other diseases,
including yellow fever and dengue, what do you think about the
balance of funds spent on pandemic preparedness versus pandemic
response?
Answer. Funding for the Global Health Security Agenda allows us to
support the prevention and detection of, and response to, global
pandemics and outbreaks of infectious diseases with pandemic potential.
The U.S. government needs to support both preparedness and response.
This does not mean that we should fund each equally. Investments to
support preparedness activities (including capacity- building for local
health professionals and staff) and efforts to prevent outbreaks are
more cost-effective than focusing exclusively on responding to an
outbreak event when one occurs. However, it is also important to ensure
we have adequate funding available to respond to an outbreak, to
mitigate the risk that the outbreak will spread, which would put the
lives of the affected population at risk as well as pose a potential
threat to the U.S. homeland.
Question. What changes, if any, might the Congress, in particular,
and U.S. government, in general, consider in how resources are
allocated for pandemic preparedness and prevention?
Answer. Because risk factors for different emerging diseases change
rather quickly, preparedness and prevention activities for potential
outbreaks are challenging to predict (in terms of disease, location,
time, duration, etc.). A successful outbreak-prevention program needs
to have flexibility incorporated into it to ensure it remains nimble
and responsive to changing conditions and risk factors. Preparedness
includes many components of the Journey to Self-Reliance, including
health communication, basic prevention of infections, and surveillance
for new and emerging pathogens and antimicrobial resistance.
Question. When implementing pandemic response programs, to what
extent do U.S. assistance efforts prioritize resilience against future
threats?
Answer. Efforts to respond to outbreaks of dangerous infectious
diseases primarily focus on reducing the transmission of a disease and
mitigating the morbidity and mortality it causes, with the goal of
limiting the damage inflicted upon the affected population. In a
response effort, the U.S. Agency for International Development also
considers what systemic weaknesses exist in health institutions in the
affected country or countries, and uses that knowledge to design
interventions that will improve the ability of governments to meet
their obligations under the International Health Regulations (2005) and
build resilience against future threats, including the capacity to
share critical health information with affected communities, utilize
effective immunizations when available, and to improve the delivery of
care at the local level.
Health Systems Strengthening OIG Report Recommendations
Question. On October 21, USAID's Office of Inspector General
published a report, ``More Guidance and Tracking Would Bolster USAID's
Health System Strengthening Efforts.'' The report concluded that
USAID's health systems strengthening activities ``are not designed with
the primary focus to fully prepare health systems to address large-
scale emergencies like the Ebola epidemic.'' However, ``with the right
tools, USAID missions are well-positioned to determine the appropriate
mix of health activities primarily designed to save lives and have
immediate impact, and those focused on strengthening health systems
Would you support the creation of a whole-of-government strategy to
help clarify and improve coordination between individual
activities and missions designed to strengthen and integrate
health systems?
Answer. I concur that integrated health systems can improve
sustainable health outcomes. Generally, health activities funded by the
U.S. government at the country level are coordinated among the Federal
Departments and Agencies active in a particular country. I believe this
is critical, and if confirmed, I will continue efforts by the U.S.
Agency for International Development to improve interagency
coordination of health activities, both in Washington and in the field,
to maximize the sustainable impact of our programs.
Question. In pursuit of the third recommendation of the report (to
identify and disseminate a set of indicators for missions to track HSS
progress, such as implementation, achievement, and improvement at the
country level), would you support a U.S. government strategy that would
identify partner countries based on potential to make progress towards
self-sufficiency in building health systems capacity?
Answer. A U.S. government strategy that would prioritize partner
countries based on the potential of their governments, civil society,
and the private sector to make progress towards self-sufficiency in
building capacity in public health and the delivery of health care
could have merit. That being said, Annex B of the report published by
the Office of the Inspector General for the U.S. Agency for
International Development includes the actions the Agency has already
committed to take to measure progress in strengthening health
institutions. I support these actions and believe such approaches will
go a long way to enable us to understand where our cross-cutting health
investments are having an impact.
Question. In your assessment, what would be the most important
indicators to include for missions to track HSS progress?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to working with our experts in
the Global Health Bureau to identify such indicators and how we can
ensure progress in strengthening public and private health
institutions.
Health Systems Strengthening vs. Emergency Response Efforts
Question. The Ebola outbreak in the DRC has been spreading for more
than one year and has now infected over 3,000 people and killed over
2,000 people. Measles and cholera outbreaks that began in the beginning
of 2019 are claiming more lives than the current Ebola outbreak.
Broader health system resource constraints and diversion of health
resources for Ebola control have been cited as factors slowing response
to these outbreaks.
How does USAID balance health systems strengthening efforts with
emergency response efforts, like the Ebola response in the case
of DRC?
Answer. In the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), the U.S.
government's efforts to combat the current outbreak of Ebola also
complement a comprehensive set of programs managed by the Mission of
the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in the DRC that
target public health and the strengthening of health institutions.
These activities work with local partners to ensure hospitals, clinics,
and health workers can provide vulnerable populations access to life-
saving health interventions, including the prevention, detection, and
treatment of malaria and tuberculosis and efforts to improve the
survival of mothers and their children. Collaboration between USAID's
implementing partners and trusted community leaders is critical to
improving health communication and the appropriate use of screening and
tracking tools, treatment, and other health interventions.
Question. How can we better invest in long term sustainability
challenges to health systems, such as capacity building, training,
infrastructure, and supply chain issues, so that our partners are
better prepared to respond to and mitigate the spread of pandemics
before they become global humanitarian crises? What, if anything, can
you tell us about U.S. plans for future engagement in the GHSA?
Answer. The improved capabilities developed around the world with
U.S. government funding, including from the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID), aim to mitigate the scope and
magnitude of future outbreaks of dangerous infectious diseases by
detecting them early and mounting effective, multi-sectoral responses
to them. The administration's Global Health Security Strategy (GHSS)
outlines the U.S. government's approach to global health security, the
funding available for it, and the roles of Federal Departments and
Agencies in this collaborative effort. The GHSS emphasizes that all of
our activities should include a robust component of building and
investing in long-term, sustainable capacity among local health
professionals and staff, medical and public-health infrastructure, and
the supply-chain for medicines and commodities.
As outlined in the GHSS, these programs will continue to invest
funding appropriated by Congress and requested by the President in his
Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2020. Under the GHSS, USAID works with
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention within the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. Departments of State
and Defense, and other U.S. government Departments and Agencies to
accelerate the capability in target countries to prevent, detect, and
respond to outbreaks of infectious diseases. Under the Global Health
Security Agenda, USAID helps governments, civil society, and academia
in 16 priority countries in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia to strengthen
their capacity in areas such as zoonotic diseases, workforce-
development, disease surveillance, emergency operations, and laboratory
detection of pathogens.
Health Systems Strengthen: Workforce Issues
Question. Frontline health workforce teams and the systems
supporting them are the bedrock of resilient countries, and U.S. global
health programs cannot succeed unless we place a high priority on
workforce and systems strengthening, especially for communities with
the highest disease burden or least access to trained and supported
health workers, as was highlighted in a USAID Inspector General report.
The Global Health Bureau's Office of Health Systems and the USAID
Inspector General's report has made major inroads in maximizing the
efficiency and impact of the dollars we allocate to your bureau on
these cross-cutting issues.
What is your vision for this office, and how will you ensure the
Bureau has the leadership and cross-bureau programs,
flexibility, data and reporting the IG report recommends to
ensure partner countries have the workforce and systems needed
to deliver the global health outcomes we wish to achieve?
Answer. Annex B of the report of the Office of the Inspector
General (OIG) for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
contains a list of actions the Agency has already committed to take to
respond to the OIG's recommendations. I support these actions and, if
confirmed, will continue to support USAID's efforts to improve the
overall cohesion of systemic investments in health institutions by
providing better and updated guidance to our field Missions and
integrating cross-cutting programs within the overall quantifiable
results the Bureau for Global Health is working to achieve. I also
think these actions will help ensure Missions are accountable for
adhering to the guidelines and provide a means to better track progress
in building the capacity of public-health and medical institutions
around the world.
Question. What is your vision for this office, and how will you
ensure the Bureau has the technical leadership and critical programs
needed to assist countries in ensuring they have the workforce and
systems needed to deliver the global health outcomes we wish to
achieve?
Answer. As noted in my testimony before the committee on Foreign
Relations, global health is at the threshold of significant change. The
next ten years will likely bring us unprecedented challenges, including
new epidemics, a dramatic rise in non-communicable diseases, an
increase in antimicrobial resistance, rapidly mobile populations, and
additional man-made crises, as well as unique and promising
opportunities, including swift advances in diagnostic and curative
technologies and the expansion of options for patients. It is important
to recognize that a ``health system'' does not just mean government
facilities and Ministries of Health, but is the constellation of public
and private institutions and providers that offer public-health
interventions and preventative, curative, and rehabilitative care to a
population. My vision is that ``the Bureau for Global Health will
partner in developing nations to improve health, resilience,
opportunity, and self-reliance.'' Consequently, if confirmed, I commit
to working within the Bureau to ensure it has the technical leadership
and critical programs needed to deliver the measurable health outcomes
we wish to achieve, including to strengthen public and private health-
care and public-health institutions in a dynamic environment.
Question. USAID's Global Health Bureau and other U.S. global health
programs have recently placed a larger emphasis on deliberately working
across sectors to improve impact and efficiency of investment across
U.S. programs. How would you concretely put cross-sectoral programs
into practice at the Global Health Bureau given its current funding and
policy restrictions and deliverables?
Answer. If confirmed, consistent with my activities in prior
academic and clinical environments, and my previous work at the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Agency for
International Development, I commit to working within the Bureau for
Global Health to determine how we can put into practice effective,
concrete, cross-sectoral programs.
Budget
Question. How do you plan to work with leadership throughout the
agency to ensure timely delivery and execution of Congressionally-
mandated appropriations for the Global Health Bureau?
Answer. The Office of Policy, Programs, and Planning (P3) within
the Bureau for Global Health (GH) at the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) works closely with the Agency's central Office of
Budget and Resource Management (BRM) to follow the budgetary processes
of the Office of Foreign Assistance Resources at the U.S. Department of
State and the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) within
USAID's Bureau for Management (M) to allot funds to GH as quickly as
possible. Once allotted, the Bureau's execution team ensures the rapid
obligation of funds to meet Congressional mandated directives. If
confirmed, I will work with P3, BRM, and M/CFO to ensure we obligate
funding from the Global Health account in a timely manner.
BUILD Act and Private Sector Engagement
Question. As you know, the BUILD Act established a new U.S.
International Development Finance Corporation and doubled U.S.
development finance capacity to $60 billion. In December 2018,
Administrator Mark Green announced the USAID Private Sector Engagement
(PSE) Policy to ``signal an intentional shift towards enterprise-driven
development.''
How does the PSE policy relate to the health bureau?
Answer. The Bureau for Global Health (GH) at the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) has been working with the commercial
private sector for decades to improve the lives of women, children,
families, and communities by helping to introduce new, life-saving
products (e.g., oral-rehydration salts, zinc, the Sayana Press);
incentivize research and development; and develop appropriate financing
mechanisms and models and achieve cost-savings that make innovations
more widely available. GH has also funded efforts to reform national
policies and regulations to enable the private-sector provision of
health care to thrive while ensuring public safety, patient privacy,
and the security of records and funding. While I was in GH, I was
impressed with the work of the Center for Innovation and Impact in this
regard.
USAID's Private-Sector Engagement (PSE) Policy is a call to action
for the Agency to deepen our relationships with commercial firms and
investors as part of our support for the Journey to Self-Reliance. I am
aware that GH is currently developing its plan, due on December 31,
2019, to put the the PSE policy into practice; however, I am not
currently involved in that process. If confirmed, I intend to work
closely with GH to embrace a systematic approach that will improve
internal systems and enhance the capacity of our staff to engage more
effectively with a broad range of private-sector actors to promote the
greater adoption of innovative techniques and technologies and market-
based approaches in low- and middle-income countries.
Question. What discussions, if any, are underway at USAID to
leverage new direct foreign investment, as permitted through the BUILD
Act, to support global health system strengthening efforts worldwide?
Answer. The Bureau for Global Health (GH) within the U.S. Agency
for International Development (USAID) has a long history of mobilizing
private capital to achieve its development objectives, and of working
with the private sector. For example, the Bureau has used USAID's
Development Credit Authority to open up commercial lending to small and
medium-sized health businesses, which has enabled them to provide more
and better-quality care to our target populations. GH also explores
opportunities to use other blended and innovative financing instruments
to mobilize private capital for health, such as Development-impact
bonds. The creation of the Development Finance Corporation under the
Better Utilization of Investments Leading to Development (BUILD) Act
provides an expanded set of financing tools USAID can use to help
mobilize more private financing for health.
Global Health Security Agenda
Question. U.S. officials, including the Secretary of the Department
of Health and Human Services, have indicated support for extending the
Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA) through 2024, yet the FY 2020
administration budget request includes a 10% budget cut for USAID
global health security activities for FY 2020.
Please explain why a budget reduction is sought in this area.
Answer. The President's Budget Request for Fiscal Year (FY) 2020
aims to balance fiscal responsibility here at home with our leadership
role and national-security imperatives on the world stage. While the
Request for FY 2020 proposes to reduce funding for global health
security at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the
overall amount allocated for global health is $6.343 billion. The
President's Budget Request will ensure the United States will remain
the world's largest contributor to global health, and the Global Health
Security Agenda (GHSA) remains an administration priority. If
confirmed, I will continue to advocate for robust programming under the
GHSA that not only protects our Nation, but also strengthens capacity
and responsibility in our partner countries.
USAID implements its programs under the parameters of the
administration's Global Health Security Strategy (GHSS), which outlines
the U.S. government's approach to global health security, the funding
available for it, and the roles of Federal Departments and Agencies in
this collaborative effort. Under the GHSS, USAID works with the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention within the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, the Departments of State and Defense. and other
U.S. government Departments and Agencies to accelerate the capabilities
in target countries to prevent, detect, and respond to outbreaks of
deadly infectious diseases.
Climate Change
Question. Studies show that climate change is bringing overall
warmer, wetter, more variable and more severe weather patterns that are
exacerbating human health challenges in a number of areas,
particularly: food insecurity, heat-related deaths and ailments, and
infectious diseases.
What role does the Global Health Bureau play in addressing the
effects of climate change and supporting countries' resilience
against its impacts?
Answer. The investments of the Bureau for Global Health within the
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) are helping
governments, civil society, and the private sector in our partner
countries adapt to improve their resilience and climate-adaptation in a
variety of ways. For example:
To understand and predict how climate could influence the incidence
of malaria, some USAID Missions in sub-Saharan Africa offer
ways to connect and integrate weather information with health
and other data;
The President's Malaria Initiative has begun to include climate-
related information into its data-integration platform to
improve planning for seasonally dependent interventions and the
analysis of the transmission of malaria;
Some USAID-funded pharmaceutical and medical-supply warehouses have
begun adopting solar power to offset greenhouse-gas emissions;
USAID's program on Neglected Tropical Diseases is re-mapping the
ranges of vectors to target populations more effectively, and
is taking into account climate events when planning mass drug-
administration campaigns; and
USAID's supply-chain program is including potential extreme weather
events in its risk-mitigation strategies and efforts.
Question. What challenges, if any, does the global health bureau
face in coordinating with other bureaus on addressing the health
effects of climate change?
Answer. The Bureau for Global Health (GH) at the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) is actively involved in the monthly,
multi-Bureau meetings chaired by the Office of Global Climate Change
(GCC) within the Bureau for Economic Growth, Education, and the
Environment (E3), which provides oversight of the process to manage
climate-related risk (CRM) process throughout the Agency. E3/GCC also
provides orientation and training on CRM (both in-person and online) to
new GH staff.
Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance (PLGHA) Initiative
Question. The Trump administration reinstated and expanded the
Mexico City Policy in 2017 and called it the Protecting Life in Global
Health Assistance (PLGHA) initiative. In February 2018, the Trump
administration released a six-month review on the impact of the policy.
The administration has not issued another review, though others have,
including one published in the British Medical Journal, which found
that ``PLGHA has affected multiple health domains and populations
within the first year of implementation, including programs related to
HIV, WASH, and Zika.''
What information, if any, can you share on the impact of PLGHA on
health programs?
Answer. [The committee received no response to this question.]
Question. The six-month review conducted by the State Department
summarized some of the confusion implementing partners faced in trying
to comply with the PLGHA.
In addition to the FAQ and online training course, what resources
has USAID provided to clarify confusion around PLGHA
compliance, particularly for local implementing partners with
intermittent or limited access to internet service?
Answer. [The committee received no response to this question.]
Question. Secretary Pompeo announced in a press conference recently
that the State Department would be taking action to ``implement this
policy to the broadest extent possible.'' Under this broad
interpretation, a foreign NGO in compliance with the Protecting Life in
Global Health Assistance (Global Gag Rule) would have to force
compliance with the policy on foreign organizations who they subgrant
to using funding from any source for any purpose. This effectively gags
funding of other government and private donors, which constitutes a
significant expansion of the reach and impact of the global gag rule
and would further divide complying and non-complying partners, thus
undermining coordination and collaboration in the field.
Has USAID looked into how this broad interpretation will impact
programs across the health and development sector?
Answer. As the world's largest bilateral donor to global health
programs, the United States remains committed to helping women and
their children thrive, particularly in countries where the need is
greatest. The Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance (PLGHA)
Policy does not change funding levels by one dollar, nor does the
Secretary's announcement. The vast majority of foreign non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) to which the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) has provided global health assistance subject to
the PLGHA Policy are accepting the conditions on awards required under
it, and continue to participate in global health programs funded by
USAID. In the event a partner declines to accept terms of the Policy,
USAID takes active steps to ensure another partner takes on and
continues the activities.
The U.S. Department of State recognized that the Six-Month Review
of the PLGHA Policy, released in February 2018, took place early in the
Policy's implementation. As a result, the Department of State, in
coordination with USAID and the Departments of Health and Human
Services and Defense, has undertaken a subsequent review to assess the
implementation of the Policy, including any effects on the delivery of
care. While I have not been involved in this subsequent review, I have
received a briefing that USAID is working with our interagency
colleagues to finalize the review, and we expect the report to be
released very soon. I would refer you to the State Department for more
information.
As noted in May 2017 when the President announced the PLGHA policy,
he directed that no U.S. taxpayer money should support foreign
organizations that perform or actively promote abortion as a method of
family planning in other nations. The guidance from Secretary Pompeo
clarifies the expectation that all subgrantees under awards of U.S.
global health assistance must be consistent with that intent.
Question. NGOs have already reported that compliance with the
Global Gag Rule has increased their administrative costs due to adding
complicated compliance mechanisms. How much will this broad
interpretation increase this burden for these NGOs?
Answer. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has
developed a number of training materials and other tools to assist its
staff and implementing partners in understanding and applying the
Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance (PLGHA) Policy. We have
provided our partners and staff with publicly available answers to
frequently asked questions (FAQs) and several online training courses,
on U.S. statutory requirements on abortion, voluntarism in family
planning, and the PLGHA Policy. USAID has also translated our training
materials and the standard provision included in our grants and
cooperative agreements into several languages to facilitate greater
comprehension of the policy by a wide range of implementing partners.
In addition, if confirmed, I will support the development of new
resources, with a particular focus on supporting prime implementing
partners to communicate with sub-recipients on the PLGHA Policy.
USAID will continue to work closely with implementing partners to
ensure they understand what compliance with the policy entails. We
expect our partners to comply with Secretary Pompeo's announcement, and
will actively monitor their compliance. If confirmed, I will continue
to work with USAID's staff in Washington and overseas to answer
questions and provide guidance to ensure the proper implementation of
the PLGHA Policy.
Question. How much will this new compliance burden affect the
amount and quality of health services this funding is intended for?
Answer. I have not been in the Bureau for Global Health for over
seven months. Consequently, I have not discussed the current status of
the implementation of the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance
Policy. If confirmed, I commit to learning more about current
programmatic patterns and responding to future questions.
Question. How will you monitor this and other impact in your
leadership of the USAID Bureau of Global Health?
Answer. Access to high-quality care is a core focus for me. The
Bureau for Global Health (GH) within the U.S. Agency for International
Development has many indicators that inform the Agency and the public
regarding the effectiveness and outcomes of our investments in
improving access to health care. If confirmed, these indicators will
continue to provide insights to me and other GH leaders regarding our
programmatic priorities and implementation.
WASH, Nutrition Programs and USAID Redesign
Question. The Acting on the Call website, which provides updated
information on USAID maternal and child health (MCH) programs, cites
water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) and nutrition programs as integral
MCH priorities. A number of groups have expressed concern that USAID's
redesign diminishes the prioritization of WASH and nutrition programs.
How might the USAID redesign affect the integration of WASH and
nutrition into global health programs in general and MCH
programs in particular?
Answer. Water, sanitation, hygiene (WASH), and nutrition remain
priorities of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID),
but the Agency has not always managed its investments in these areas in
a fully coordinated way. The Agency's Transformation has elevated both
WASH and nutrition through the creation of a Leadership Councils for
Nutrition and Water, both co-chaired by a Deputy Assistant
Administrator from the Bureau for Global Health. The new Bureau for
Resilience and Food Security will also add a Center for WASH and a
Center for Nutrition, which will increase the integration of priorities
and coordination of work in these disciplines across sectors.
Question. As a key focus of the USAID redesign is self-reliance,
please describe how the metrics under development relate to health.
Answer. Of the 17 independent, third-party Self-Reliance Metrics,
the one most directly related to health is the Child Health Index,
which is a composite measure that aggregates child mortality, access to
at least basic drinking water supplies, and access to at least basic
sanitation facilities. Since malnutrition is an underlying cause of an
estimated 45 percent of child deaths, and since water and sanitation
are part of this composite measure, both nutrition and access to water,
sanitation, and hygiene contribute directly to this capacity metric.In
addition, the Bureau for Global Health within the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) worked with the metrics team in the
Bureau for Policy, Planning, and Learning to develop health-related
secondary metrics to complement the Child Health Index, which will
allow USAID's staff, especially at the Mission level to delve more into
the other ways in which progress in the health sector advances the
Journey to Self-Reliance.
Abstinence Education Promotion
Question. Beyond your current role as Deputy Assistant
Administrator at USAID, you served as a Deputy Assistant Secretary for
the Office of Population Affairs in the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) during the George W. Bush administration, where your
work centered on abstinence education promotion.
If confirmed, how would this background influence your role in the
Global Health Bureau at USAID?
Answer. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify my role as Deputy
Assistant Secretary for the Office of Population Affairs in the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). My portfolio included,
among other things, the program to prevent teen pregnancy authorized
under Title X of the Public Health Service Act, a portion of which
focused on abstinence education. It was my privilege to convene the
first conference in the United States on research into abstinence
education, which examined the outcomes of abstinence programs. This
background provided me with an awareness of the potential to develop
holistic programs that focus on increasing knowledge among adolescents
of puberty, reproduction, healthy relationships, positive decision-
making, refusal skills for exploitation and abuse, and planning for the
future.
Family Planning
Question. I was very disappointed to see the administration propose
an over 60 percent cut to international family planning and
reproductive health in this year's budget request. The budget
justification also deletes references to the role of family planning in
preventing unintended pregnancy and ``enhanc[ing] the ability of
couples to decide the number, timing, and spacing of births'' and
``reducing abortion.''
Women's access to health care, including sexual and reproductive
health care like modern contraceptives, plays a significant role in
their ability to advance their education, participate in the economy,
and support their families and communities. We know ensuring that women
can utilize the modern contraception that they want would dramatically
reduce maternal and newborn deaths--when women are able to space their
pregnancies at least three years apart, they are more likely to survive
pregnancy and childbirth and their children are more than twice as
likely to survive infancy.
Do you think that providing women the tools and information they
need to prevent unintended pregnancies is a worthy public
health goal?
Can you assure us that under your leadership as Assistant
Administrator for the Bureau of Global Health, U.S. funded
programs will continue to support and supply a full range of
(modern) contraceptive methods in order to ensure that women
have access to the information, counseling, and methods best
suited to their needs?
Can you speak to how you will work in this post to promote access
to comprehensive reproductive health care, including the full
range of safe and effective family planning methods?
Answer. As the world's largest bilateral donor of family planning
assistance, the United States remains committed to helping women and
their children thrive. Preventing child and maternal deaths remains a
priority for this administration. Access to voluntary family planning
is a key intervention for achieving the healthy timing and spacing of
pregnancy, preventing child and maternal deaths, and for helping
communities progress along the Journey to Self-Reliance.
We know that women need access to a range of contraceptive options
over their reproductive years as their fertility intentions change over
time. We serve women and men best when we provide them with access to a
range of modern contraceptive options--from fertility-awareness
methods, to short- and long-acting reversible methods, to voluntary
permanent methods--as well as to high-quality counseling so women and
their partners can make their own informed choices. We are also
committed to supporting the development, introduction, and scale-up of
a wide range of contraceptive methods to meet the needs of women and
couples for voluntary family-planning to promote the healthy timing and
spacing of pregnancy.
If confirmed, I will continue to support a full range of modern
contraceptive methods to ensure that women and couples have access to
the information, counseling, and methods best suited to their needs.
Youth
Question. The world currently has the largest generation of young
people ever. This presents tremendous opportunity for global
development but also means that we have to take action to promote the
health and well-being of adolescents and youth everywhere. Yet
complications during pregnancy and childbirth are the leading cause of
death for adolescent girls (ages 15-19 years). Adolescents, both
married and unmarried, face a range of barriers to accessing
reproductive health care including lack of knowledge, stigma, and
health worker bias and unwillingness to acknowledge young people's
reproductive health needs.
As Assistant Administrator, how will you promote access to
comprehensive health information and services for young people
as a means of preventing maternal deaths? Also, how will you
ensure comprehensive, evidence based health and education
programs are supported for young people under USAID's global
health programs?
Answer. During adolescence, girls and boys establish life-long
health behaviors, which makes it a pivotal time in development.
Evidence shows that healthy timing (delaying the first pregnancy
until a woman is at least 18 years old) and spacing (at least 24 months
between giving birth and becoming pregnant again) are critical to
reducing maternal mortality and morbidity among adolescents and young
women, as well as to reducing infant mortality. In addition to
encouraging the healthy timing and spacing of pregnancies, our work
also focuses on preventing coercion, exploitation, and abuse; delaying
sexual debut; avoiding sexual, substance-abuse and other risks;
stopping female genital mutilation; reducing the acceptance of child
marriage; and keeping girls in school. These interventions support
girls and young women as individuals, help delay marriage, and avoid
early pregnancy, all of which result in lower rates of maternal and
child mortality.
Also, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is
currently funding a project dedicated to expanding the evidence base
for what works in positive youth development and applying improved
approaches across programs and sectors. Under the President's Emergency
Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), activities include reviewing existing
and piloting promising approaches for mentoring adolescent girls and
young women at increased risk of HIV/AIDS, identifying life skills most
relevant to sexual and reproductive health, preventing violence and
other cross-sectoral youth outcomes and identifying and disseminating
effective interventions that can increase the uptake of testing for HIV
and create better linkages to treatment among young people. If
confirmed, I will ensure USAID continues to support evidence-based
health and education programs for young people, especially adolescent
girls, under PEPFAR and USAID's other global health programs.
If confirmed, I will also work to ensure that USAID's programming
for young people includes the engagement of influencers who have a
vested interest in their welfare--such as parents, grandparents, and
religious and community leaders--so that young people can have access
to correct, age- and context-appropriate, high-quality health
information and care and live full, productive lives.
Faith-Based Organizations/Civil Society Engagement
Question. There is a strong push within global HIV/AIDS programs to
fund faith-based organizations (FBOs), which have been critical
partners in the fight against HIV, but may not be best positioned to
deliver comprehensive HIV prevention, care and treatment services to
everyone who needs it in all settings. I understand that you've also
conducted regular meetings with a small set of FBOs, while up until
earlier this month have halted more open town hall meetings with a wide
set of NGO actors engaged in maternal and child health.
With scarce resources, are you still committed to evaluating which
partners are best able to achieve programmatic goals and
engaging with diverse civil society? Or is there an earmark and
special treatment for certain types of faith-based partners?
Answer. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has a
long history of engaging with a diversity of partners, including small
businesses and civil-society, non-governmental, and faith-based
organizations. Diversifying USAID's partner base to reflect today's
expanded development landscape is an important component of the Journey
to Self-Reliance, because choice and competition are key to innovation
and resource-mobilization in development work, just as they are in the
private-sector economy.
USAID has no ``earmark'' for faith based organizations, and does
not give them special treatment. If confirmed, I commit to engaging
with a diverse set of partners to achieve our programmatic goals. If
confirmed, I also commit to following USAID's policy guidance regarding
assessing, evaluating and selecting potential and existing partners
through the Agency's procurement processes. These policies help ensure
USAID is engaging with the most-capable partners to assist us in
implementing high-impact, sustainable programs.
Siljander Amendment
Question. As you may be aware from recent State Department
announcements, a policy known as the Siljander amendment prohibits the
use of foreign assistance funds to lobby for or against abortion.
Repeatedly at the U.N., representatives of the State Department, USAID,
and U.S. Mission to the U.N., including USAID Senior Advisor Bethany
Kozma, have made statements that ``we do not support abortion,''
spreading false information that comprehensive sex education programs
``promote abortion as a solution to teen pregnancy,'' and ``the U.S. is
a pro-life country'' despite that fact that for over 40 years the right
to abortion has been established in the this country under Roe v. Wade.
Do you believe these statements made by employees of the U.S. State
Department are considered to be lobbying against abortion, and
thus a direct violation of the Siljander amendment?
Answer. Consistent with longstanding practice, the United States
routinely describes its foreign-policy positions on issues before
multilateral bodies.
Question. What will you do to hold your employees accountable to
complying with the Siljander prohibition on lobbying against abortion?
Answer. The U.S. Agency for International Development takes
compliance with the Siljander Amendment very seriously, and I will
ensure that staff are familiar with its provisions. We would address
any specific response to an alleged compliance issue on a case-by-case
basis.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted
to Dr. Alma L. Golden by Senator Jeanne Shaheen
Question. As I raised during the hearing, I am concerned that the
Mexico City Policy is being implemented in such a way that it is having
a chilling effect on family planning programs as well as broader global
health programming. Independently conducted research has raised
concerns about a lack of information and communication from the U.S.
government to implementing partners. This has caused organizations to
over-police their services in order to avoid an unintentional violation
of this vaguely-written policy.
Will you commit to ensuring that USAID provides unbiased and
apolitical information to prime and sub-recipients of U.S.
foreign assistance who inquire about how best to comply with
the Mexico City Policy?
How would you ensure that the process for implementing partners to
ask and receive answers to questions on the Mexico City Policy
does not, either intentionally or unintentionally, discourage
organizations from providing services allowed for under the
policy?
Answer. Yes, I commit to ensuring that the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) provides unbiased and apolitical
information to prime and sub-recipients of U.S. foreign assistance who
inquire about how best to comply with the Protecting Life in Global
Health Assistance (PLGHA) Policy.
USAID values our relationships with our partners. The vast majority
of foreign non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to which USAID has
provided global health assistance subject to the PLGHA Policy are
accepting the conditions on awards required by it and continue to
participate in global-health programs funded by USAID. The U.S.
Department of State has recently released, in coordination with USAID
and other affected Federal Departments and Agencies, an updated version
of publicly available answers to frequently asked questions (FAQs) on
the PLGHA Policy. Additionally, USAID has developed a number of
training materials and compliance tools to assist its staff and
implementing partners in understanding and applying the PLGHA Policy,
including a publicly available online training course. USAID has also
translated training materials and the standard provision included in
our grants and cooperative agreements into several languages to
facilitate greater comprehension of the Policy by a wide range of
implementing partners. USAID continues to design additional tools to
facilitate the Policy's implementation and help ensure implementing
partners understand it fully.
If confirmed, I would continue to work with USAID's staff in
Washington and overseas to answer questions and provide guidance to our
implementing partners to ensure the proper implementation of the PLGHA
Policy.
Question. I am concerned about reports of cases where U.S. foreign
assistance implementing partners that provide family planning services
are denying services based on marital status and other factors.
What oversight exists of prime and especially sub-recipients to
ensure they are not engaging in discriminatory actions that are
explicitly prohibited under USAID guidance?
Where would a victim of discrimination go to report violations?
How do we relay information about these channels to patients and
others who seek U.S.-funded health services overseas?
I included language in the Fiscal Year 2020 State and Foreign
Operations appropriations bill that would implement a reporting
system to provide oversight of these concerns. If confirmed,
would you work with Congress to ensure that the oversight
mechanism is an effective tool for reporting abuses of U.S.
foreign assistance?
Answer. Non-discrimination is the basic foundation of the approach
to inclusive development of the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID), and all USAID's programs should ensure non-
discriminatory access for all potential beneficiaries. The Agency
ensures compliance with these requirements through the inclusion of
mandatory standard provisions on nondiscrimination in our contracts,
grants, and cooperative agreements, and implementing partners are
expected to comply with them. Implementing partners are also expected
to include the provisions in all sub-contracts and sub-awards. USAID
monitors programmatic implementation through its routine oversight
processes, which include regular site visits for programs that deliver
health care. Furthermore, any individual or organization can report
allegations of non-compliance with our award requirements to the
Agency, including to the Office of Acquisition and Assistance within
the Bureau for Management, the Bureau for Global Health, and/or the
Office of the USAID Inspector General. If confirmed, I will continue to
work with Congress to ensure the effective implementation of USAID's
non-discrimination requirements.
Question. Since 2002, the Global Fund has work in coordination with
USAID's tuberculosis and malaria programs to achieve lifesaving
results. In countries where both USAID and the Global Fund partners,
the Global Fund contributes to commodity procurement and program
financial support for malaria and TB. At the same time, USAID works to
provide in-country technical assistance to strengthen countries'
national responses and service deliveries.
Can you address how you plan to prioritize such purposeful
collaborative and complementary work of USAID and the Global
Fund on malaria and TB within your role if you are confirmed in
this role?
Answer. Since 2006, the U.S. President's Malaria Initiative (PMI)
has engaged closely with the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis,
and Malaria to ensure a coordinated, country-level response to malaria,
including by supporting National Malaria-Control Programs. PMI's in-
country staff participate in the development of Global Fund Concept
Notes, national strategic plans, and programmatic evaluations, and the
Global Fund's Portfolio Managers participate in PMI's operational
planning. Furthermore, PMI and the Global Fund have made significant
commitments to accelerate collaboration around the collection,
analysis, and sharing of malaria-related data; the procurement,
delivery, and tracking of anti-malaria drugs and commodities; and the
monitoring of global resistance to anti-malarial drugs and
insecticides.
Since the inception of the Global Fund, USAID's Tuberculosis (TB)
Program has engaged closely with the Global Fund to ensure a
coordinated, country-level response to TB to achieve the strategic
goals in our priority countries and maximize quantifiable impact. Staff
from USAID's TB Program provide technical expertise in the development
of the national strategic plans, programmatic evaluations, and
epidemiological assessments that are the basis for Global Fund Concept
Notes. Our staff also participate in the development of Global Fund
Concept Notes at the country level, and in many of the Global Fund's
working groups at the global level. Staff from USAID's TB Program
monitor the implementation of the Global Fund's TB and TB/HIV grants to
identify challenges and resolve bottlenecks in a timely fashion,
including by deploying long- and short-term technical-assistance
resources efficiently and effectively.
If confirmed, I commit to ensuring the continuation of this
collaboration between USAID and the Global Fund.
Question. The impact of HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria on vulnerable
populations such as adolescent girls and young women is significant.
Every week, roughly 6,200 young women aged 15-24 years become infected
with HIV. In addition to being a global health epidemic, TB is also a
women's issue, due to the complications that can arise when a woman
contracts TB. Pregnant women and children under age 5 are most at risk
for malaria due their weaker immune systems.
Can you speak to how you would prioritize addressing the health
needs of adolescent girls and young women as it relates to TB,
HIV and Malaria?
Answer. Adolescence establishes life-long health behaviors, which
makes it a pivotal time in development. If confirmed, I will work to
ensure that the programming for young people funded by the U.S. Agency
for International Development (USAID) strengthens a ``three
generation'' approach that recognizes the critical roles of not only
adolescents, but also caring family, faith, and community leaders,
while preparing them for future careers and families. This holistic
Positive Youth Development approach promotes access to high-quality,
age- and content-appropriate health information, skills and care so
they live full, productive lives as individuals and in community.
USAID's programming responds to the needs of those most at risk for
tuberculosis (TB) by strengthening prevention programs and ensuring the
success of TB-treatment initiatives--including for children and
adolescents. USAID focuses on a person-centered approach to improve
access to high-quality TB care and efforts to increase the correct
detection of all TB cases, especially ones that are resistant to first-
line therapies.
USAID implements the Determined, Resilient, Empowered, AIDS-Free,
Mentored, and Safe (DREAMS) program of the President's Emergency Plan
for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), a public-private partnership aimed at
addressing the disproportionately high risk adolescent girls and young
women in sub-Saharan Africa have of acquiring HIV. DREAMS has reduced
HIV diagnoses among adolescent girls and young women by over 25 percent
in the majority of its intervention regions; 85 percent of these
regions showed additional declines in 2018. Implemented in 15
countries. DREAMS interventions align with USAID's whole-of-girl
approach. DREAMS provide a layered package of care and support to an
adolescent girl or young woman based on her age and vulnerability to
HIV infection, which can include educational assistance, access to HIV
testing, and safe spaces with mentor-led sessions on the prevention of
HIV and sexual violence.
Given the dangers and the subsequent risks to families and
communities when a woman/mother is ill with malaria, USAID, through the
President's Malaria Initiative, prioritizes the prevention of malaria
during pregnancy. Key interventions include the provision of a long-
lasting insecticide treated bed net at a pregnant woman's first
prenatal-care visit; monthly preventive treatment during pregnancy,
starting early in the second trimester and continuing until delivery;
and prompt diagnosis and effective treatment for cases of malaria in
pregnancy.
If confirmed, I will continue to prioritize these critical programs
in TB, HIV, and malaria, as well as to address the health needs of
adolescent girls and young women in all USAID's global-health
programming.
Question. I was disappointed to see the administration propose an
over 60% cut to international family planning and reproductive health
in this year's budget request. The budget justification also deletes
references to the role of family planning in preventing unintended
pregnancy and ``enhanc[ing] the ability of couples to decide the
number, timing, and spacing of births'' and ``reducing abortion.''
Do you think that providing women the tools and information they
need to prevent unintended pregnancies is a worthy public
Can you assure this committee that under your leadership as
Assistant Administrator for the Bureau of Global Health, U.S.
funded programs will continue to support and supply a full
range of modern contraceptive methods in order to ensure that
women have access to the information, counseling, and methods
best suited to their needs?
Answer. As the world's largest bilateral donor of family planning
assistance, the United States remains committed to helping women and
their children thrive. Preventing child and maternal deaths remains a
priority for this administration. Access to voluntary family planning
is a key intervention for achieving the healthy timing and spacing of
pregnancy, preventing child and maternal deaths, and for helping
communities progress along the Journey to Self-Reliance.
We know that women need access to a range of contraceptive options
over their reproductive years as their fertility intentions change over
time. We serve women and men best when we provide them with access to a
range of modern contraceptive options--from fertility-awareness
methods, to short- and long-acting reversible methods, to voluntary
permanent methods--as well as to high-quality counseling so women and
their partners can make their own informed choices. We are also
committed to supporting the development, introduction, and scale-up of
a wide range of contraceptive methods to meet the needs of women and
couples for voluntary family-planning to promote the healthy timing and
spacing of pregnancy.
If confirmed, I will continue to support a full range of modern
contraceptive methods to ensure that women and couples have access to
the information, counseling, and methods best suited to their needs.
Question. Women's access to health care, including sexual and
reproductive health care like modern contraceptives, plays a
significant role in their ability to advance their education,
participate in the economy and support their families and communities.
We know ensuring that women can utilize the modern contraception that
they want would dramatically reduce maternal and newborn deaths--when
women are able to space their pregnancies at least three years apart,
they are more likely to survive pregnancy and childbirth and their
children are more than twice as likely to survive infancy. Can you
speak to how you will work in this post to promote access to
comprehensive reproductive health care, including the full range of
safe and effective family planning methods?
Answer. I agree that access to health care, including sexual and
reproductive health care like modern contraceptives, plays a
significant role in the ability of women to advance their education,
participate in the economy, and support their families and communities.
As the world's largest bilateral donor of voluntary family-planning
assistance, the United States remains committed to helping women and
their children thrive.
Access to voluntary family planning is a key intervention for
achieving the healthy timing and spacing of pregnancy, preventing child
and maternal deaths, and helping communities progress along the Journey
to Self-Reliance. We know that access to a range of contraceptive
options over their reproductive years can help women and couples as
their fertility intentions change over time. We serve women and men
best when we provide them with access to a range of modern
contraceptive options--from fertility-awareness methods, to short- and
long-acting reversible methods, to voluntary permanent methods--and
high-quality counseling. We are also committed to supporting the
development, introduction, and scale-up of a wide range of
contraceptive methods to meet the needs of women and couples for
voluntary family planning to promote the healthy timing and spacing of
pregnancy.
If confirmed, I will continue to support a full range of modern
contraceptive methods to ensure women and couples have access to the
information, counseling, and methods best suited to their needs.
Question. The world currently has the largest generation of young
people ever. This presents tremendous opportunity for global
development but also means that we have to take action to promote the
health and well-being of adolescents and youth everywhere. Yet
complications during pregnancy and childbirth are the leading cause of
death for adolescent girls (ages 15-19 years). Adolescents, both
married and unmarried, face a range of barriers to accessing
reproductive health care including lack of knowledge, stigma, and
health worker bias and unwillingness to acknowledge young people's
reproductive health needs. As Assistant Administrator, how will you
promote access to comprehensive health information and services for
young people as a means of preventing maternal deaths?
Answer. During adolescence, girls and boys establish life-long
health behaviors, which makes it a pivotal time in development.
Evidence shows that healthy timing (delaying the first pregnancy
until a woman is at least 18 years old) and spacing (at least 24 months
between giving birth and becoming pregnant again) are critical to
reducing maternal mortality and morbidity among adolescents and young
women, as well as to reducing infant mortality. In addition to
encouraging the healthy timing and spacing of pregnancies, our work
also focuses on preventing coercion, exploitation, and abuse; delaying
sexual debut; avoiding sexual, substance-abuse and other risks;
stopping female genital mutilation; reducing the acceptance of child
marriage; and keeping girls in school. These interventions support
girls and young women as individuals, help delay marriage, and avoid
early pregnancy, all of which result in lower rates of maternal and
child mortality.
Also, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is
currently funding a project dedicated to expanding the evidence base
for what works in positive youth development and applying improved
approaches across programs and sectors. Under the President's Emergency
Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), activities include reviewing existing
and piloting promising approaches for mentoring adolescent girls and
young women at increased risk of HIV/AIDS, identifying life skills most
relevant to sexual and reproductive health, preventing violence and
other cross-sectoral youth outcomes and identifying and disseminating
effective interventions that can increase the uptake of testing for HIV
and create better linkages to treatment among young people. If
confirmed, I will ensure USAID continues to support evidence-based
health and education programs for young people, especially adolescent
girls, under PEPFAR and USAID's other global health programs.
If confirmed, I will also work to ensure that USAID's programming
for young people includes the engagement of influencers who have a
vested interest in their welfare--such as parents, grandparents, and
religious and community leaders--so that young people can have access
to correct, age- and context-appropriate, high-quality health
information and care and live full, productive lives.
Question. There is a strong push within global HIV/AIDS programs to
fund faith-based organizations (FBO), which have been critical partners
in the fight against HIV, but may not be best positioned to deliver
comprehensive HIV prevention, care and treatment services to everyone
who needs it in all settings. I understand that you've also conducted
regular meetings with a small set of FBOs, while up until earlier this
month have halted more open town hall meetings with a wide set of NGO
actors engaged in maternal and child health. With scarce resources, are
you still committed to evaluating which partners are best able to
achieve programmatic goals and engaging with diverse civil society or
is there an earmark and special treatment for certain types of faith-
based partners?
Answer. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has a
long history of engaging with a diversity of partners, including small
businesses and civil-society, non-governmental, and faith-based
organizations. Diversifying USAID's partner base to reflect today's
expanded development landscape is an important component of the Journey
to Self-Reliance, because choice and competition are key to innovation
and resource-mobilization in development work, just as they are in the
private-sector economy.
USAID has no ``earmark'' for faith based organizations, and does
not give them special treatment. If confirmed, I commit to engaging
with a diverse set of partners to achieve our programmatic goals. If
confirmed, I also commit to following USAID's policy guidance regarding
assessing, evaluating and selecting potential and existing partners
through the Agency's procurement processes. These policies help ensure
USAID is engaging with the most-capable partners to assist us in
implementing high-impact, sustainable programs.
Question. The State Department stated they would complete a second
review of the Mexico City Policy by the end of 2018, yet we are still
waiting on that report. A new study published in Lancet found that when
the policy was in effect between 2001-2008, abortion rates increased
about 40% among women in countries most affected by the policy. It also
found a symmetric reduction in the use of modern contraception while
the policy was enacted, coinciding with an increase in pregnancies.
This pattern of more frequent abortions (many of which are unsafe in
the impacted countries) and lower contraceptive use was reversed after
the policy was rescinded in 2009. What actions do you intend to take in
light of these new research findings?
What actions would you take as the leader of USAID's Global Health
priorities to address these gaps in services and how are these
needs being filled?
How will you assess and evaluate these types of service disruptions
and inefficiencies created by switching partners?
Answer. As the world's largest bilateral donor to global health
programs, the United States remains committed to helping women and
their children thrive, particularly in countries where the need is
greatest.
The U.S. Department of State recognized that the Six-Month Review
of the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance (PLGHA) Policy,
released in February 2018, took place early in the Policy's
implementation. As a result, the Department of State, in coordination
with the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and the
Departments of Health and Human Services and Defense, undertook a
subsequent review to assess the implementation of the policy, including
any effects on the delivery of care. While I have not been involved in
this subsequent process, I have received a briefing that USAID is
working with our interagency colleagues to finalize the review, and we
expect the report to be released very soon. I would refer you to the
State Department for more information.
It is critical that Global Health and other Family Planning donors
and advocates continue to follow the indicators and demographic surveys
that track access to modern contraceptive care and outcomes for women
and children in order to assure that vulnerable populations are
supported. Currently, and consistent with ongoing practices, USAID
Missions monitor and track all award transitions, whether related to
PLGHA or other changes in partners or funding, to minimize disruptions
to recipients.
If confirmed, I will work with GH staff and the other U.S.
government Departments and Agencies that implement the Protecting Life
in Global Health Assistance Policy to examine the second review of the
implementation of the Policy to determine what adjustments we might
have to make if disruptions in care occurred as a result of transitions
between partners.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted to Peter M. Haymond by Senator Robert Menendez
Question. What are the most important actions you have taken in
your career to date to support democracy and human rights? What has
been the impact of your actions?
Answer. In each of my diplomatic assignments, and particularly in
senior management assignments overseas, I have striven to promote
respect for human rights and democratic values. A few examples:
As Deputy Chief of Mission in Laos, I led the Embassy's efforts to
address concerns about the welfare of over 4,000 Lao Hmong who
were forcibly repatriated from Thailand back to Laos when they
sought refugee status and third country resettlement. We worked
with Lao and Thai officials to gain access to the site where
most of the Hmong had been resettled, including visits by
Members of Congress; then secured permission to provide U.S.
humanitarian assistance to the resettled community, allowing
periodic monitoring; and finally convinced interlocutors to
allow those deemed persons of concern by UNHCR to leave Laos
for resettlement abroad.
As Principal Officer of our consulate in Chengdu, China, I spoke
frequently at universities around the five-province consulate
district on themes that included the universality of human
rights and the observed fact that China rapidly grew wealthier
and stronger after the extreme human rights constraints of the
Mao era were relaxed.
As Deputy Chief of Mission and Charge d'Affaires in Thailand, I
participated in and oversaw Embassy efforts, in close
coordination with other likeminded diplomatic missions, to urge
appropriate Thai government action on specific human rights
cases. In most instances, that coordinated approach produced
positive results.
Question. What issues are the most pressing challenges to democracy
or democratic development in Laos? These challenges might include
obstacles to participatory and accountable governance and institutions,
rule of law, authentic political competition, civil society, human
rights and press freedom. Please be as specific as possible.
Answer. The Lao People's Revolutionary Party remains the ultimate
authority in this communist one-party state, and the LPRP continues to
closely control all Lao media and political expression, including the
formation of civil society organizations. The LPRP does not permit
expressions of opposition to its rule. Weak institutions make Lao
citizens vulnerable to a host of human rights abuses and many
marginalized groups struggle to be fully included in the Lao judicial
system. Furthermore, the United States is concerned about reports of
disappearances, forced repatriation, and suspicious deaths of some
political activists in Southeast Asia.
Question. What steps will you take--if confirmed--to support
democracy in Laos? What do you hope to accomplish through these
actions? What are the potential impediments to addressing the specific
obstacles you have identified?
Answer. The administration's vision for a free and open Indo-
Pacific supports advancing democratic values, good governance, and
respect for human rights. Our sustained engagement with and support for
Laos, including increased senior official visits in recent years, has
engendered greater trust and enabled progress on these priorities. If
confirmed, I will work together with like-minded partners continue to
engage the Lao government, including engaging with the emerging reform-
minded leaders, to promote transparency, democratic values, good
governance, and respect for human rights. One challenge is that many of
the Indochina War-veteran leaders who are still in charge of the Party
and government first dealt with the United States in a very different
and difficult era in our relationship, and remain suspicious of U.S.
actions.
Question. How will you utilize U.S. government assistance resources
at your disposal, including the Democracy Commission Small Grants
program and other sources of State Department and USAID funding, to
support democracy and governance, and what will you prioritize in
processes to administer such assistance?
Answer. The United States supports democracy, human rights, and
fundamental freedoms in the Indo-Pacific as part of our Indo-Pacific
Transparency Initiative, as well as around the world, as the building
blocks of progress and the bulwarks of independence. If confirmed, I
will work closely with interagency partners to use U.S. government
assistance resources efficiently and effectively to support development
of democratic values and improved governance in Laos. I would also
continue to call on Laos to protect human rights and fundamental
freedoms.
Question. If confirmed, do you commit to meet with civil society
members, human rights and other non-governmental organizations in the
U.S. and with local human rights NGOs, and other members of civil
society in Laos? What steps will you take to pro-actively address
efforts to restrict or penalize NGOs and civil society via legal or
regulatory measures?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to meeting with human rights,
civil society, and other non-governmental organizations in the United
States and with local human rights and other NGOs in Laos. Protecting
human rights and fundamental freedoms and advancing democratic values
are among the highest priorities under the administration's vision for
a free and open Indo-Pacific and, if confirmed, I will be sure those
priorities continue to be elevated in our engagement with the Lao
government.
Question. If confirmed, do you commit to meet with democratically
oriented political opposition figures and parties? What steps will you
take to encourage genuine political competition? Will you advocate for
access and inclusivity for women, minorities and youth within political
parties?
Answer. The Lao Revolutionary People's Party is the sole political
party in Laos, but the United States continues to advocate for
increased transparency, democratic values, good governance, and respect
for human rights.
If confirmed, I will work closely with Congress and interagency
colleagues, like-minded foreign partners, the Lao government, civil
society, and private sector partners to promote these values.
Question. Will you and your embassy team actively engage with Laos
on freedom of the press and address any government efforts designed to
control or undermine press freedom through legal, regulatory or other
measures? Will you commit to meeting regularly with independent, local
press in Laos?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to meeting with members of the
press in Laos. Fundamental freedoms and human rights, including freedom
of speech, are top U.S. priorities under the Indo-Pacific Transparency
Initiative. If confirmed, I will encourage the Lao government to
respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of
expression. I would work closely with Congress and interagency
colleagues, like-minded foreign partners, the Lao government, civil
society, and private sector partners to promote freedom of expression
via internet or traditional media in Laos, both through U.S.
government-sponsored programs and in engagements with members of the
media and the Lao government.
Question. Will you and your embassy team actively engage with civil
society and government counterparts on countering disinformation and
propaganda disseminated by foreign state or non-state actors in Laos?
Answer. The United States takes a holistic approach to identifying,
tracking, and countering disinformation. It is imperative that
countries around the world continue to share information and work
together in this effort by building collective resilience, sharing best
practices, and imposing costs on actors that carry out disinformation
campaigns. If confirmed, I will support U.S. efforts to counter
disinformation, support a free and transparent news media environment,
and to increase awareness by conducting outreach to the public, private
industry, civil society, and academic groups.Questions for the Record
submitted to
Question. Will you and your embassy teams actively engage with Laos
on the right of labor groups to organize, including for independent
trade unions?
Answer. The United States has long promoted internationally
recognized labor rights with a particular focus on freedom of
association and collective bargaining, and strengthening core labor
standards, particularly for members of traditionally neglected groups,
such as women, youth, and informal sector workers. Laos faces many
challenges in seeking to ensure that the labor rights of its citizens
who migrate to work in neighboring countries are protected, as well as
protecting the labor rights of the increasing number of foreign workers
entering Laos to work on large foreign investment projects. If
confirmed, I will work closely with Congress and interagency partners
to support protections for labor rights in Laos.
Question. Will you commit to using your position, if confirmed, to
defend the human rights and dignity of all people in Laos, no matter
their sexual orientation or gender identity? What challenges do the
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) people face in
Laos? What specifically will you commit to do to help LGBTQ people in
Laos?
Answer. Promoting, protecting, and advancing human rights--
including the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and
intersex (LGBTI) persons--has long been the policy of the United
States. If confirmed, I will support U.S. policy efforts to deter
violence against LGBTI persons, advocate against laws that criminalize
LGBTI status or conduct, and to prevent discrimination against LGBTI
persons, as applicable in the context of Laos.
Question. Do you commit to respond promptly to all requests for
information by Members of this committee?
Answer. Yes, if confirmed, with the understanding that any such
response would be organized through the Department of State's Bureau of
Legislative Affairs and conducted in accordance with long-standing
Department and Executive Branch practice.
Question. Do you commit to appear before this committee upon
request?
Answer. Yes, if confirmed, with the understanding that any such
appearance would be organized through the Department of State's Bureau
of Legislative Affairs in accordance with long standing Department and
Executive Branch practice.
Question. If you become aware of any suspected waste, fraud, or
abuse in the Department, do you committo report it to the Inspector
General?
Answer. If confirmed, I will follow all Department rules and
regulations as to reporting waste, fraud, and abuse, including
notifying the Department's Inspector General when appropriate.
Question. Has anyone ever made a formal or informal complaint or
allegation of sexual harassment, discrimination (e.g., racial, ethnic,
religious, etc.), or inappropriate conduct against you, in a workplace
or any other setting? If so, please describe the nature of the
complaint or allegation, your response, and any resolution, including
any settlements.
Answer. Not to my knowledge.
Question. Have you ever addressed concerns or allegations of sexual
harassment, discrimination (e.g., racial, ethnic, religious, etc.), or
inappropriate conduct made against any employee over whom you had
supervisory authority? If so, please describe the outcome and actions
taken.
Answer. Specific allegations of sexual harassment or discrimination
are confidential, and in such circumstances, I have immediately
addressed any issues raised to me in accordance with the Department of
State's policies, including providing a witness statement to the
Department's Office of Civil Rights. I take EEO and sexual harassment
in the workplace seriously, and if confirmed, I will work to ensure
that a message of zero tolerance for discrimination, harassment, and
misconduct is affirmed from the beginning of my assignment.
Question. Do you agree that any targeting of or retaliation against
career employees based on their perceived political beliefs, prior work
on policy, or affiliation with a previous administration, is wholly
inappropriate and has no place in the federal government? If confirmed,
what will you do to ensure that all employees under your leadership
understand that any retaliation, blacklisting, or other prohibited
personnel practices will not be tolerated?
Answer. Yes, I agree. If confirmed, I will work to prevent any
attempts to target or retaliate against career employees on the basis
of their perceived political beliefs, prior work on policy, or
affiliation with a previous administration. I take allegations of such
practices seriously and will ensure any such actions are referred to
the Department's Inspector General.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted to Peter M. Haymond by Senator Benjamin L. Cardin
Question. What are your most meaningful achievements to date in
your career to promote human rights and democracy? What has been the
impact of your actions?
Answer. In each of my diplomatic assignments, and particularly in
senior management assignments overseas, I have striven to promote
respect for human rights and democratic values. A few examples:
As Deputy Chief of Mission in Laos, I led the Embassy's efforts to
address concerns about the welfare of over 4,000 Lao Hmong who were
forcibly repatriated from Thailand back to Laos when they sought
refugee status and third country resettlement. We worked with Lao and
Thai officials to gain access to the site where most of the Hmong had
been resettled, including visits by Members of Congress; then secured
permission to provide U.S. humanitarian assistance to the resettled
community, allowing periodic monitoring; and finally convinced
interlocutors to allow those deemed persons of concern by UNHCR to
leave Laos for resettlement abroad.
As Principal Officer of our consulate in Chengdu, China, I spoke
frequently at universities around the five-province consulate district
on themes that included the universality of human rights and the
observed fact that China rapidly grew wealthier and stronger after the
extreme human rights constraints of the Mao era were relaxed.
As Deputy Chief of Mission and Charge d'Affaires in Thailand, I
participated in and oversaw Embassy efforts, in close coordination with
other likeminded diplomatic missions, to urge appropriate Thai
government action on specific human rights cases. In most instances,
that coordinated approach produced positive results.
Question. What are the most pressing human rights issues in Laos?
What are the most important steps you expect to take--if confirmed--to
promote human rights and democracy in Laos? What do you hope to
accomplish through these actions?
Answer. The United States supports transparency, democratic values,
good governance, and respect for human rights. Human rights issues in
Laos include include arbitrary detention, political prisoners,
censorship, substantial interference with the rights of peaceful
assembly and freedom of association, restrictions on political
participation, corruption, and trafficking in persons. Senior U.S.
representatives have consistently engaged Lao leaders at the highest
levels, ensuring that Laos understands our priorities and recognizes
that human rights are universal. In addition, our development
assistance supports our goal of Laos respecting and promoting human
rights, whether through programming to support the rule of law, basic
education for Lao children, labor rights, or media training and access.
The State Department has programs that support civil society capacity
development, and USAID supports persons with disabilities, to name just
two examples. We are engaged with Lao youth via Facebook and our YSEALI
programs. There is very active participation by Lao people in our
programs at the American Center in Vientiane, which expose the Lao to
English language, education opportunities in the United States, and
American culture and values.
If confirmed, I will work closely with Congress and interagency
colleagues, like-minded foreign partners, the Lao government, civil
society, and private sector partners to promote these values.
Question. If confirmed, what are the potential obstacles to
addressing the specific human rights issues you have identified in your
previous response? What challenges will you face in Laos in advancing
human rights, civil society and democracy in general?
Answer. The Lao People's Revolutionary Party remains the ultimate
authority in this communist one-party state, and the LPRP continues to
closely control all Lao media and political expression, including the
formation of civil society organizations. The LPRP permits no public
expression of opposition to its rule. Furthermore, the United States is
concerned about reports of disappearances, forced repatriation, and
suspicious deaths of some political activists in Southeast Asia.
The administration's vision for a free and open Indo-Pacific, and
specifically the Indo-Pacific Transparency Initiative, supports
advancing democratic values, good governance, and respect for human
rights. Our sustained engagement with and support for Laos, including
increased senior official visits in recent years, has engendered
greater trust and enabled progress on these priorities. If confirmed,
together, with like-minded partners, I will engage the Lao government,
including engaging with the emerging reform-minded leaders, to promote
these priorities.
Question. Are you committed to meeting with human rights, civil
society and other non-governmental organizations in the U.S. and with
local human rights NGOs in Laos? If confirmed, what steps will you take
to pro-actively support the Leahy Law and similar efforts, and ensure
that provisions of U.S. security assistance and security cooperation
activities reinforce human rights?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to meeting with human rights,
civil society, and other non-governmental organizations in the United
States and with embassies of like-minded nations, and with local NGOs
and civil society organizations that promote human rights in Laos. I
would ensure my embassy team continues to adhere to and enforce the
Leahy Law so that U.S. security assistance reinforces human rights.
Protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms and advancing
democratic values are among our highest priorities under our vision for
a free and open Indo-Pacific.
Question. Will you and your embassy team actively engage with Laos
to address cases of key political prisoners or persons otherwise
unjustly targeted by Laos?
Answer. The United States supports transparency, democratic values,
good governance, and respect for human rights. If confirmed, I will
work with Congress and interagency colleagues, like-minded foreign
partners, and civil society to promote these values with the Lao
government.
Question. Will you engage with Laos on matters of human rights,
civil rights and governance as part of your bilateral mission?
Answer. The United States supports transparency, democratic values,
good governance, and respect for human rights. Senior U.S.
representatives have engaged Lao leaders at the highest levels,
ensuring that Laos understands our priorities and recognizes that human
rights are universal. In addition, our development assistance supports
our goal of Laos respecting and promoting human rights, whether through
programming to support the rule of law, basic education for Lao
children, labor rights, or media training and access. The State
Department has programs that support civil society capacity
development, and USAID supports persons with disabilities, to name just
two examples. We are engaged with Lao youth via Facebook and our YSEALI
programs. There is strong participation among Lao people for our
programs at the American Center in Vientiane, which expose the Lao to
English language, education opportunities in the United States, and
American culture and values.
If confirmed, I will work closely with Congress and interagency
colleagues, like-minded foreign partners, the Lao government, civil
society, and private sector partners to promote these values.
Question. Do you commit to bring to the committee's attention (and
the State Department Inspector General) any change in policy or U.S.
actions that you suspect may be influenced by any of the President's
business or financial interests, or the business or financial interests
of any senior White House staff?
Answer. I commit to comply with all relevant federal ethics laws,
regulations, and rules, and to raise concerns that I may have through
appropriate channels.
Question. Do you commit to inform the committee if you have any
reason to suspect that a foreign government, head of state, or foreign-
controlled entity is taking any action in order to benefit any of the
President's business or financial interests, or the interests of senior
White House staff?
Answer. I commit to comply with all relevant federal ethics laws,
regulations, and rules, and to raise concerns that I may have through
appropriate channels.
Question. Do you or do any members of your immediate family have
any financial interests in Laos?
Answer. My investment portfolio includes diversified mutual funds,
which may hold interests in companies with a presence overseas, but
which are exempt from the conflict of interest laws. My investment
portfolio also includes a sector fund, which may hold interests in
companies with a presence overseas, but its value is currently below
the de minimis exemption level. I am committed to ensuring that my
official actions will not give rise to a conflict of interest. I will
divest any investments the State Department Ethics Office deems
necessary to avoid a conflict of interest. I will remain vigilant with
regard to my ethics obligations.
Question. Research from private industry demonstrates that, when
managed well, diversity makes business teams better both in terms of
creativity and in terms of productivity. What will you do to promote,
mentor and support your staff that come from diverse backgrounds and
underrepresented groups in the Foreign Service?
Answer. If confirmed, I will direct my senior staff to join me in
mentoring and supporting more junior staff, certainly including staff
that come from diverse backgrounds and underrepresented groups in the
Foreign Service. This will include access to leadership training both
at post and in Washington, and regular opportunities for consultation
and counseling on career decisions and progression.
Question. What steps will you take to ensure each of the
supervisors at the Embassy are fostering an environment that is diverse
and inclusive?
Answer. If confirmed, I will make clear to each of the supervisors
at the Embassy that I expect them all to foster a diverse and inclusive
environment, and that regular performance evaluations will reflect that
expectation. I will hold myself to the same standard.
Question. How do you believe political corruption impacts
democratic governance and the rule of law generally, and in Laos
specifically?
Answer. The United States supports transparency, democratic values,
good governance, and respect for human rights. The Indo-Pacific
Transparency Initiative prioritizes anticorruption and fiscal
transparency as one of its five key program areas precisely because
corruption negatively impacts democratic governance and the rule of
law. The Lao People's Revolutionary Party remains the ultimate
authority in this communist one-party state, and the LPRP continues to
closely control all Lao media and political expression, including the
formation of civil society organizations.
If confirmed, I will work closely with Congress and interagency
colleagues, like-minded foreign partners, the Lao government, civil
society, and private sector partners to promote transparency,
democratic values, good governance, and respect for human rights.
Question. What is your assessment of corruption trends in Laos and
efforts to address and reduce it by that government?
Answer. The United States supports transparency, democratic values,
good governance, and respect for human rights. The Lao government is
grappling with cases of official corruption that have helped enable
other crimes. Prime Minister Thongloun Sisoulit has made fighting
corruption a key theme of his government and his anti-corruption
campaign has shown positive results, including increased investigations
and prosecutions where appropriate.
Senior USG representatives have engaged Lao leaders at the highest
levels on good governance issues, ensuring that Laos understands our
priorities.
If confirmed, I will work closely with Congress and interagency
colleagues, like-minded foreign partners, the Lao government, civil
society, and private sector partners to promote anti-corruption
efforts.
Question. If confirmed, what steps will you take to strengthen good
governance and anticorruption programming in Laos?
Answer. The administration's vision for a free and open Indo-
Pacific supports advancing transparency, democratic values, good
governance, and respect for human rights. Our sustained engagement with
and support for Laos, including increased senior official visits in
recent years, has engendered greater trust and enabled progress on
these priorities. Our USAID development assistance and International
Narcotics and Law Enforcement Bureau (INL) assistance both include
programming to strengthen good governance, including the transparency
that hampers corrupt acts. If confirmed, I will engage the Lao
government to promote transparency, democratic values, good governance,
and respect for human rights.
Question. What role does Laos play in the Trump administration's
pursuit of a Free and Open Indo-Pacific?
Answer. Laos is a member of the 10-nation Association of Southeast
Asian Nations, or ASEAN. The administration's vision for a free and
open Indo-Pacific has ASEAN at its core. Laos is the geographic
connective tissue of Mainland Southeast Asia, sharing over 3,000 miles
of land borders with China and four other ASEAN countries, including
sub-regional leaders Thailand and Vietnam. More of the strategic Mekong
River flows through and along Laos than through any other Southeast
Asian nation. Laos is also one of the weakest countries in ASEAN
economically, making it potentially more vulnerable to external
pressure.
Our sustained engagement with and support for Laos, including
increased senior official visits in recent years, has engendered
greater trust and enabled progress on U.S. strategic priorities.
Together, with like-minded partners, we are seeking a Laos that is more
prosperous and better governed, protecting and promoting the human
rights of those in Laos; we are engaging with emerging reform-minded
leaders; and we are encouraging Laos to maintain its sovereignty and be
a constructive member of the rules-based international order.
Question. How do U.S.-Laos relations fit into broader U.S.
diplomatic, economic, and security interests in the region?
Answer. The Mekong region is strategically important to the United
States, a focal point of our Indo-Pacific Strategy, and integral to our
engagement with ASEAN as a whole. The People's Republic of China (PRC)
is increasingly encroaching on the Mekong River through cross-border
riverine patrols and investment in joint Special Economic Zones (SEZs)
along the river, including the Golden Triangle SEZ, home of the King's
Roman Casino, which was designated as a Transnational Criminal
Organization by the U.S. Department of Treasury. Additionally, the PRC
is building dams upstream that affect the water and sediment flow, with
serious implications for livelihoods downstream.
Although China is Laos' biggest investor and one of its closest
partner, Laos is proud of its own unique history, culture and
independence and does not want to become equivalent to another province
of the PRC. Consequently, Laos seeks to balance China against neighbors
Vietnam and Thailand, newer friends like Japan and Korea, the U.S. and,
most importantly, ASEAN.
If confirmed, I will support regional initiatives and new areas of
cooperation with Laos and like-minded partners to help Mekong countries
preserve their sovereignty.
Question. Given extensive Chinese investment in the country and
perceptions that Laos is one of the ASEAN nations closest to Beijing,
what productive roles do you see for Laos in regional diplomacy?
Answer. Although China is Laos' biggest investor and one of its
closest partners, Laos is proud of its own unique history, culture, and
independence, and does not want to become dependent on a single
country. Consequently, Laos seeks to balance its relationships within
the region. Thus, when Laos served as ASEAN Chair and now as the U.S.
ASEAN country coordinator, Laos has acted responsibly in seeking
consensus with ASEAN countries on issues like the South China Sea.
Question. How would you as Ambassador encourage Laos to pursue such
roles?
Answer. If confirmed, I will support regional initiatives and seek
new areas of cooperation with Laos and like-minded partners that can
help Mekong countries preserve their sovereignty.
Question. Does U.S. assistance help with the creation of greater
space for civil society and respect for human rights in Laos?
Answer. The administration's vision for a free and open Indo-
Pacific supports advancing transparency, democratic values, good
governance, and respect for human rights. Our sustained engagement with
and support for Laos, including increased senior official visits in
recent years, has engendered greater trust and enabled progress. Our
assistance programs regularly engage civil society and encourage
greater respect for human rights. If confirmed, I will engage the Lao
government, including engaging with the emerging reform-minded leaders,
to promote these priorities.
Question. Can aid be used as leverage with the Laos government?
Answer. The purpose of foreign assistance is to advance U.S.
national security and development objectives through evidence-informed
decision-making as represented by the Integrated Country Strategy, East
Asian and Pacific Bureau, and government-wide plans. If confirmed, I
will support the administration's efforts through the free and open
Indo-Pacific Strategy, including through the Indo-Pacific Transparency
Initiative, to provide foreign assistance that promotes transparency,
democratic values, good governance, and respect for human rights.
Question. Would progress in economic development help move the
country to a more open political system?
Answer. The Indo-Pacific Strategy is built on principles that are
widely shared throughout the region: ensuring the freedom of the seas
and skies; insulating sovereign nations from external pressure;
promoting market-based economics, open investment environments, and
fair and reciprocal trade; and supporting good governance and respect
for human rights. The synergy among these values and policies have
helped this region grow and thrive. If confirmed, I will engage the Lao
government to promote these principles.
Question. What is your assessment of U.S. assistance to the UXO
sector? What funding gaps have been addressed in recent years and what
gaps still remain?
Answer. The United States has contributed $200 million towards
unexploded ordnance (UXO) removal efforts since 1995 and is currently
the number one donor in this sector. The Lao government has committed
as part of its strategic development goals to eliminate UXO as a
barrier to national development by 2030--the United States supports
that goal and believes it is achievable. If confirmed, I will firmly
support the administration's efforts in the UXO sector.
Question. How can the U.S. support Laos' efforts to counter human
trafficking?
Answer. Last year Laos made significant progress to combat human
trafficking. In 2018, the Lao government provided restitution to
trafficking victims through its criminal justice process; provided
direct services to male victims for the first time, addressing a key
shortcoming; issued a decree establishing anti-trafficking steering
committees throughout the country; and increased local training and
awareness-raising activities. But there is still much work to be done
in order to build off this momentum. USAID includes Laos in a current
regional assistance program countering human trafficking; the
Department of State INL Bureau's support of law enforcement capacity
building will also help Laos better control traditional human
trafficking routes; and the TIP Office helps provide support services
to victims of trafficking in Laos. If confirmed, I will engage the Lao
government and civil society to promote further progress on protecting
its country's most vulnerable people.
Question. What multilateral solutions might help, given that much
of Laos' trafficking problems involve victims trafficked to other
countries?
Answer. The Lao government grapples with the many challenges of
transnational crime, including trafficking of narcotics and wildlife;
human trafficking; money laundering; and cases of official corruption
that have helped enable the other crimes. To fight human trafficking,
Laos last year took notable new steps that are detailed in the
Trafficking in Persons Report, though there is still significant room
for improvement. USAID's counter human trafficking regional program is
aimed at helping to address the transnational aspects of this problem,
as is our regional cooperation with UNODC and UNDP. If confirmed, I
will actively work with the Lao in their efforts to work with their
neighbors to more effectively fight transnational crime, including
human trafficking.
Question. How does Laos fit into U.S. goals under the Lower Mekong
Initiative?
Answer. Laos is the geographic connective tissue of Mainland
Southeast Asia, sharing over 3,000 miles of land borders with China and
four other ASEAN countries, including sub-regional leaders Thailand and
Vietnam. Since its launch in 2009, the Secretary of State has met
annually with Mekong country counterparts through the Lower Mekong
Initiative (LMI). Over the past decade, LMI programs have built the
human capital of Mekong countries to better address transboundary
challenges on water security, smart hydropower, energy and
infrastructure planning, and STEM education. LMI projects have
delivered tangible improvements to the lives of the people of the
Mekong region, including in Laos. If confirmed, I will support the LMI
and other regional initiatives that improve the lives of the Lao and
advance U.S. strategic priorities.
Question. What impact do you see from the country's plans to
construct two large-scale dams along the Mekong River?
Answer. Laos' considerable hydropower resources are a significant
driver of the country's economic development and a key source of
electricity for the region. But they also create considerable
challenges in both Laos and the broader Mekong region as they are
developed, particularly when environmental concerns and downstream
water security impacts are not adequately taken into consideration.
Recent droughts and unpredictable flooding underscore the hazards
facing this predominantly agrarian country as it continues to rapidly
develop its hydropower resources. The collapse of a dam in Attapeu
Province last year that killed dozens and displaced thousands shows the
peril of developing these resources without proper management and
oversight. If confirmed, I would encourage the government to consider
environmental concerns and take steps to mitigate them during the
design process, including coordinating with the Lower Mekong Initiative
and other USG activities to empower decision makers to incorporate
sustainability and other factors into their planning.
Question. How can the United States help mitigate the negative
environmental impacts from these projects?
Answer. he United States has provided assistance to the Lao
government to help shape the country's hydropower sector. USAID
continues its long-term support for the Lao power sector with a focus
on alternative energy technologies, such as solar, that would reduce
the need for large, high-impact hydropower projects. USG programs like
Clean Power Asia and Asia EDGE could help unlock opportunities for
these advanced energy technologies in Laos, reducing environmental
impacts of energy development while resulting in opportunities for
American investors, exporters, and service providers. This assistance
supports our efforts to create open, efficient, rule-based, and
transparent energy markets where environmental impacts are taken into
consideration.
Furthermore, following the collapse last year of a hydropower dam
in southern Laos' Attapeu Province that killed dozens and displacing
thousands, USAID's Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance provided
immediate support, contributing $200,000 to the recovery effort. The
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers also is participating, in an advisory and
liaison capacity, in a safety review of existing and under construction
dam projects, helping to promote transparency and high standards in the
hydropower sector that will contribute to a better-regulated, better-
managed power sector. If confirmed, I will support efforts like these
to promote transparency and infrastructure projects that utilize high
standards.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted to Alina L. Romanowski by Senator Robert Menendez
Trafficking and Labor
Question. Kuwait has made notable improvements in trafficking and
labor in recent years, moving from Tier 3 to Tier 2 on the State
Department's annual Trafficking in Persons report between 2015 and
2019. Nevertheless, challenges remain. Kuwait has been consistently
slow to criminally prosecute offenders while not regularly using
standard procedures to proactively identify victims and continuing to
detain, prosecute, and deport trafficking victims, including those
fleeing forced labor.
What steps will you take to press the Kuwaiti government to
criminally prosecute traffickers and ensure that victims are
identified and treated in a way that meets international
standards?
Answer. Our Embassy engages the government of Kuwait on this issue,
and the upgrade to a Tier 2 ranking reflects an increased, significant
effort by the Kuwaiti government to meet minimum standards for the
elimination of trafficking in persons.
The Kuwaiti government demonstrated its commitment to this issue by
deploying a specialized trafficking unit housed in the Public
Prosecutor's Office to initiate more criminal investigations and more
prosecutions under the anti-trafficking law. The Kuwaiti government
referred significantly more potential trafficking victims for
protective services, operationalized its central recruitment agency to
hire and better safeguard the rights of hundreds of domestic workers,
and increased enforcement of its domestic worker law.
Still, the government needs to do a better job of using a formal
criminal court process to prosecute offenders with stringent sentences
under the anti-trafficking law vice administrative proceedings, and
identify potential victims among vulnerable migrant worker populations.
Kuwait has made positive steps on this issue, and, if am confirmed, I
will work to ensure the government of Kuwait keeps improving these
efforts and continues implementing its TIP plan.
Question. I was heartened by the recent news that Qatar will
quickly move to phase out its Kefalah system, which is prevalent
throughout the region and provides the regulatory framework for a
number of trafficking and labor abuses. How deeply entrenched is the
Kefalah system in Kuwait? What is the likelihood of phasing it out
there and what steps will you take to that end?
Answer. The Kefalah system of sponsorship still exists in Kuwait.
Reforming this system of employment is one of our key goals for Kuwait
in fighting trafficking in persons. Workers should be able to change
employers and leave the country without employer approval, and the
government should not prosecute workers who flee employment. If
confirmed, reforming this system will be a top priority for the
Embassy.
Non-Proliferation
Question. Kuwait is potentially caught in the middle of a regional
arms race with Iran scaling back compliance with the JCPOA and Saudi
Arabia showing sustained interest in developing nuclear power with few
or any safeguards against weaponization.
How concerned is the Kuwaiti government about this issue? What is
the potential for them to engage positively on the issue and
what steps must the U.S. take to secure that engagement?
Answer. Kuwait, like other U.S. partners in the Gulf, is very
concerned about the destabilizing activity of Iran in the region. Like
the United States, Kuwait does not seek a military confrontation with
Iran. When Iran is ready to come back to the negotiating table, we
believe Kuwait can play a positive role on this issue.
Gulf Rift
Question. Kuwait has played a positive role in trying to mediate
the GCC rift between Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Is there room for more
Kuwaiti engagement and, if so, what should that engagement be? What
steps will you take to promote that engagement?
Answer. Kuwait has been an early and consistent mediator following
the June 2017 rift between Qatar and Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain,
and Egypt. Kuwait wants to see the rift settled as quickly as possible.
The Amir has made numerous attempts to bring the parties together to
reach a settlement. The United States has consistently supported these
efforts. If confirmed, I will continue to work with the Kuwait
leadership on this issue.
Democracy
Question. What are the most important actions you have taken in
your career to date to support democracy and human rights? What has
been the impact of your actions?
Answer. The promotion of human rights and democracy has been core
focal points throughout my career, and if confirmed, I will continue to
advocate passionately for these issues in Kuwait. I have been directly
involved in overseeing, developing, and implementing U.S. foreign
assistance programs to support human rights and advance democracy in
regions of the world where these issues are under attack every day and
I have advocated that our foreign policy include respect for human
rights, fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law. Some of my most
meaningful achievements have included the following initiatives:
While in the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, I led a
team that launched the State Department's most dynamic women's
empowerment program--The Fortune/U.S. Department of State
Global Women's Mentoring Partnership. This public-private
partnership with Fortune magazine and Vital Voices brings
accomplished women leaders to the United States to enhance
their leadership skills through training and a two-week
mentorship with top Fortune 500 female executives across the
United States. Now in its 14th year, this program has over 300
alumni from 56 countries and territories. I was also a member
of the team that launched the first-ever annual International
Women of Courage Awards sponsored by the Department of State-
also a program that I'm proud to say, continues today, honoring
women around the globe who have exemplified exceptional courage
and leadership in advocating for human rights, women's
equality, and social progress, often at great personal risk.
This is the only Department of State award that exclusively
pays tribute to emerging women leaders worldwide.
I feel strongly that counterterrorism efforts must include and
adhere to fundamental human rights, respect for democratic
principles, and must be conducted within the rule of law. For
example, under my oversight in the Counterterrorism Bureau, I
advocated that the draft of UNSCR 2396 must include the
reaffirmation by Member States that any measures taken to
counter terrorism comply with international human rights law,
international refugee law, and international humanitarian law.
The resolution underscores that respect for human rights,
fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law are an essential part
of any successful counterterrorism effort.
During my tenure at the U.S. Agency for International Development,
I was committed to helping the Middle East region build
participatory democracies, improve transparent and accountable
governments, engage civil society, youth, minorities, and women
on key issues such as improving human rights and increasing
political participation. For example, we assisted thousands of
women in rural Egyptian governorates to exercise their
political and economic rights, including helping 48,000 women
receive government IDs. In Libya, we worked to ensure that
minority groups were included in the drafting the constitution.
Similarly, I led an initiative in Yemen that helped minority
ethnic and religious groups, youth, and women weigh in on what
we hoped would be the future of their country through
contributing to the National Dialogue Conference. In Tunisia,
we worked with civil society and the government to foster a
consultation process that led to the implementation of some of
the most progressive NGO laws in the region and became a model
for throughout the region.
To address the crisis in Syria as millions of refugees initially
poured into neighboring countries, I helped set new priorities
for development assistance programs at USAID. Our programs
responded to the needs of the most vulnerable in all 14 Syrian
governorates and Syrian refugees in five neighboring countries-
--Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq, and Egypt. The programs I
designed and oversaw provided over $75 million in assistance to
help the Syrian Opposition Coalition, local councils, and
others provide essential services to their communities, improve
governance and women`s participation, and enhance the
credibility of moderate voices in Syria. Jordan, in particular,
faced the largest number of Syrian refugees not just flowing
into refugee camps, but also into Jordanian host communities. I
helped address those tremendous challenges by launching a new
package of assistance, including an additional $300 million in
direct budget support and a $1.25 billion loan guarantee. As a
result, for example, Jordanian communities were able to
alleviate increased demand for services, including through
hospital renovations, water infrastructure repair and
maintenance, and fast -track the expansion of 20 schools and
train additional teachers. These community engagement projects
helped Jordanian communities alleviate tensions by prompting
dialogue and addressing stressors.
As Coordinator for U.S. Assistance to Europe, Eurasia, and Central
Asia, I oversaw the implementation of over $200 million in
democracy programs, aimed at empowering citizens to engage with
their governments, whether through civil society, independent
media, the justice sector, or political activism. We proudly
initiated programs that supported civil society and independent
media to shine a light on democratic and good governance
challenges in the Balkans, such as NGO monitoring of public
spending and fact-checking; countering democratic backsliding;
and supporting brave activists, journalist, and ordinary
citizens to hold governments accountable to their international
obligations and live up to democratic principles often
enshrined in their constitutions. We built on the anti-
corruption initiative, steering new assistance programs to help
civil society organizations use innovative technology tools to
counter corruption and advance transparency in the region.
Question. What issues are the most pressing challenges to democracy
or democratic development in Kuwait? These challenges might include
obstacles to participatory and accountable governance and institutions,
rule of law, authentic political competition, civil society, human
rights and press freedom. Please be as specific as possible.
Answer. Kuwait has an elected parliament, women vote and run for
office, and there is lively press and public debate, including a strong
tradition of freedom of political speech.
However, as detailed in our annual Human Rights, International
Religious Freedom and Trafficking in Persons reports, we do have
concerns over human rights in Kuwait. Like other states in the region,
Kuwait has placed limits on freedom of expression, including
prosecuting social media users, internet site blocking and the
criminalization of libel. Allegations of torture, abuse of migrant
laborers and interference with the rights of peaceful assembly and
association remain concerning.
We discuss these issues openly and frankly with our partners in
Kuwait. If confirmed, I will continue to raise our concerns at the most
senior levels of the Kuwaiti government in the spirit of strengthening
and advancing our relationship in the context of U.S. values.
Question. What steps will you take--if confirmed--to support
democracy in Kuwait? What do you hope to accomplish through these
actions? What are the potential impediments to addressing the specific
obstacles you have identified?
Answer. Kuwait's elected parliament has real responsibility within
Kuwait's government. We must recognize this accomplishment, while at
the same time encouraging them to increase the participation of women
and minorities toward realizing a fuller democracy.
Still, if confirmed, I will make clear that the United States
remains concerned about allegations of torture, arbitrary detention,
arrest of political prisoners, interference with privacy, restrictions
on free expression and other human rights abuses that run counter to
U.S. values.
Question. How will you utilize U.S. government assistance resources
at your disposal, including the Democracy Commission Small Grants
program and other sources of State Department and USAID funding, to
support democracy and governance, and what will you prioritize in
processes to administer such assistance?
Answer. If confirmed, I plan to leverage U.S. foreign assistance,
along with other tools available to the U.S. government, to advance our
foreign policy goals ?and national security interests, including
through support for democracy and governance. I will continue to ensure
that U.S. foreign assistance resources and programs support civil
society organizations, promote inclusive participatory governance, and
further respect for human rights.
Question. If confirmed, do you commit to meet with civil society
members, human rights and other non-governmental organizations in the
U.S. and with local human rights NGOs, and other members of civil
society in Kuwait? What steps will you take to pro-actively address
efforts to restrict or penalize NGOs and civil society via legal or
regulatory measures?
Answer. If confirmed, I am committed to meeting with human rights,
civil society, and other non-governmental organizations both in the
United States and in Kuwait. I will ensure that the Embassy complies
with all obligations under the Leahy Law, and that U.S. security
assistance and security cooperation reinforces the respect for human
rights.If confirmed, I will continue to raise human rights concerns at
the most senior levels of the Kuwaiti government in the spirit of
strengthening and advancing our relationship in the context of U.S.
values.
Question. If confirmed, do you commit to meet with democratically
oriented political opposition figures and parties? What steps will you
take to encourage genuine political competition? Will you advocate for
access and inclusivity for women, minorities and youth within political
parties?
Answer. If confirmed, I am committed to meet with the full range of
Kuwaiti society, including those working on strengthening democracy in
Kuwait. It has genuine political competition, and its parliament
represents many different Kuwaiti viewpoints. Still, Kuwait can do more
to encourage the participation of women, minorities, and youth in
decision-making and consultation, and my team at the Embassy will work
with these groups to identify opportunities for greater inclusion in
the Kuwaiti government.
Question. Will you and your embassy team actively engage with
Kuwait on freedom of the press and address any government efforts
designed to control or undermine press freedom through legal,
regulatory or other measures? Will you commit to meeting regularly with
independent, local press in Kuwait?
Answer. If confirmed as Ambassador, I will engage with the Kuwaiti
government on freedom of the press and other restrictions on free
expression. I will meet regularly with the full range of Kuwaiti
society, including independent journalists and local press.
Question. Will you and your embassy team actively engage with civil
society and government counterparts on countering disinformation and
propaganda disseminated by foreign state or non-state actors in the
country?
Answer. If confirmed, my embassy team and I will engage with a
diverse cross-section of Kuwaiti society, including government
counterparts, on freedom of thought and expression, as well as the
importance and value of a free and open press.
Question. Will you and your embassy teams actively engage with
Kuwait on the right of labor groups to organize, including for
independent trade unions?
Answer. Kuwaiti law protects the right of Kuwaiti workers to form
and join trade unions, bargain collectively, and conduct legal strikes,
with significant restrictions, although the government did not always
respect these rights. If confirmed, I will underscore to Kuwaiti
leadership that the United States is a strong advocate for the human
rights of workers across the globe, and evaluates each country's labor
rights in our annual Human Rights Report.
Question. Will you commit to using your position, if confirmed, to
defend the human rights and dignity of all people in Kuwait, no matter
their sexual orientation or gender identity? What challenges do the
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) people face in
Kuwait? What specifically will you commit to do to help LGBTQ people in
Kuwait?
Answer. If confirmed, I pledge to support and defend the rights of
LGBTQ Kuwaitis and expatriates, particularly their right to freedom
from harassment and abuse. In Kuwait, consensual same-sex sexual
conduct between men can be punished with imprisonment and LGBTQ persons
have reported stigmatization, harassment, and abuse. The United States
must stand for the human rights of all LGBTQ persons, and if I am
confirmed I will make our position clear to the Kuwaiti leadership.
Responsiveness
Question. Do you commit to respond promptly to all requests for
information by Members of this committee?
Answer. Yes, with the understanding that any such response would be
organized through the Department of State's Bureau of Legislative
Affairs and conducted in accordance with long-standing Department and
Executive Branch practice.
Question. Do you commit to appear before this committee upon
request?
Answer. Yes, with the understanding that any such appearance would
be organized through the Department of State's Bureau of Legislative
Affairs in accordance with long standing Department and Executive
Branch practice.
Question. If you become aware of any suspected waste, fraud, or
abuse in the Department, do you committo report it to the Inspector
General?
Answer. Yes. I will follow all Department rules and regulations as
to reporting waste, fraud, and abuse, including notifying the
Department's Inspector General when appropriate.
Administrative
Question. Has anyone ever made a formal or informal complaint or
allegation of sexual harassment, discrimination (e.g., racial, ethnic,
religious, etc.), or inappropriate conduct against you, in a workplace
or any other setting? If so, please describe the nature of the
complaint or allegation, your response, and any resolution, including
any settlements.
Answer. No.
Question. Have you ever addressed concerns or allegations of sexual
harassment, discrimination (e.g., racial, ethnic, religious, etc.), or
inappropriate conduct made against any employee over whom you had
supervisory authority? If so, please describe the outcome and actions
taken.
Answer. I take all allegations of sexual harassment,
discrimination, or inappropriate conduct in the workplace extremely
seriously. Throughout my career, I have indicated clearly to all those
around me that I have zero tolerance for such behavior. Any time
allegations of this behavior have been raised to me, I have provided
the proper guidance and ensured that employees had all the necessary
information available to them regarding the appropriate channels within
the organization to address their concerns. In addition, I have ensured
that bureau employees take all mandatory training on sexual harassment,
discrimination, and inappropriate behavior in the workplace. While
advancing in my career, I have cultivated and maintained relationships,
and am also a mentor to employees outside my direct supervision and
ensure they too have the resources they need should any situation
arise.
Question. Do you agree that any targeting of or retaliation against
career employees based on their perceived political beliefs, prior work
on policy, or affiliation with a previous administration, is wholly
inappropriate and has no place in the federal government? If confirmed,
what will you do to ensure that all employees under your leadership
understand that any retaliation, blacklisting, or other prohibited
personnel practices will not be tolerated?
Answer. Yes, I agree that targeting or retaliation against career
employees for these reasons is wholly inappropriate. If confirmed, I
will ensure that all employees under my leadership understand their
legal protections, and that prohibited personnel practices will not be
tolerated.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted
to Alina L. Romanowski by Senator Benjamin L. Cardin
Human Rights
Question. What are your most meaningful achievements to date in
your career to promote human rights and democracy? What has been the
impact of your actions?
Answer. The promotion of human rights and democracy has been core
focal points throughout my career, and if confirmed, I will continue to
advocate passionately for these issues in Kuwait. I have been directly
involved in overseeing, developing, and implementing U.S. foreign
assistance programs to support human rights and advance democracy in
regions of the world where these issues are under attack every day and
I have advocated that our foreign policy include respect for human
rights, fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law. Some of my most
meaningful achievements have included the following initiatives:
While in the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, I led a
team that launched the State Department's most dynamic women's
empowerment program--The Fortune/U.S. Department of State
Global Women's Mentoring Partnership. This public-private
partnership with Fortune magazine and Vital Voices brings
accomplished women leaders to the United States to enhance
their leadership skills through training and a two-week
mentorship with top Fortune 500 female executives across the
United States. Now in its 14th year, this program has over 300
alumni from 56 countries and territories. I was also a member
of the team that launched the first-ever annual International
Women of Courage Awards sponsored by the Department of State-
also a program that I'm proud to say, continues today, honoring
women around the globe who have exemplified exceptional courage
and leadership in advocating for human rights, women's
equality, and social progress, often at great personal risk.
This is the only Department of State award that exclusively
pays tribute to emerging women leaders worldwide.
I feel strongly that counterterrorism efforts must include and
adhere to fundamental human rights, respect for democratic
principles, and must be conducted within the rule of law. For
example, under my oversight in the Counterterrorism Bureau, I
advocated that the draft of UNSCR 2396 must include the
reaffirmation by Member States that any measures taken to
counter terrorism comply with international human rights law,
international refugee law, and international humanitarian law.
The resolution underscores that respect for human rights,
fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law are an essential part
of any successful counterterrorism effort.
During my tenure at the U.S. Agency for International Development,
I was committed to helping the Middle East region build
participatory democracies, improve transparent and accountable
governments, engage civil society, youth, minorities, and women
on key issues such as improving human rights and increasing
political participation. For example, we assisted thousands of
women in rural Egyptian governorates to exercise their
political and economic rights, including helping 48,000 women
receive government IDs. In Libya, we worked to ensure that
minority groups were included in the drafting the constitution.
Similarly, I led an initiative in Yemen that helped minority
ethnic and religious groups, youth, and women weigh in on what
we hoped would be the future of their country through
contributing to the National Dialogue Conference. In Tunisia,
we worked with civil society and the government to foster a
consultation process that led to the implementation of some of
the most progressive NGO laws in the region and became a model
for throughout the region.
To address the crisis in Syria as millions of refugees initially
poured into neighboring countries, I helped set new priorities
for development assistance programs at USAID. Our programs
responded to the needs of the most vulnerable in all 14 Syrian
governorates and Syrian refugees in five neighboring countries-
--Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq, and Egypt. The programs I
designed and oversaw provided over $75 million in assistance to
help the Syrian Opposition Coalition, local councils, and
others provide essential services to their communities, improve
governance and women`s participation, and enhance the
credibility of moderate voices in Syria. Jordan, in particular,
faced the largest number of Syrian refugees not just flowing
into refugee camps, but also into Jordanian host communities. I
helped address those tremendous challenges by launching a new
package of assistance, including an additional $300 million in
direct budget support and a $1.25 billion loan guarantee. As a
result, for example, Jordanian communities were able to
alleviate increased demand for services, including through
hospital renovations, water infrastructure repair and
maintenance, and fast -track the expansion of 20 schools and
train additional teachers. These community engagement projects
helped Jordanian communities alleviate tensions by prompting
dialogue and addressing stressors.
As Coordinator for U.S. Assistance to Europe, Eurasia, and Central
Asia, I oversaw the implementation of over $200 million in
democracy programs, aimed at empowering citizens to engage with
their governments, whether through civil society, independent
media, the justice sector, or political activism. We proudly
initiated programs that supported civil society and independent
media to shine a light on democratic and good governance
challenges in the Balkans, such as NGO monitoring of public
spending and fact-checking; countering democratic backsliding;
and supporting brave activists, journalist, and ordinary
citizens to hold governments accountable to their international
obligations and live up to democratic principles often
enshrined in their constitutions. We built on the anti-
corruption initiative, steering new assistance programs to help
civil society organizations use innovative technology tools to
counter corruption and advance transparency in the region.
Question. What are the most pressing human rights issues in Kuwait?
What are the most important steps you expect to take--if confirmed--to
promote human rights and democracy in Kuwait? What do you hope to
accomplish through these actions?
Answer. As detailed in our annual Human Rights report, we have
concerns over Kuwait's record on human rights. There have been
allegations of torture, arbitrary detention, detention of political
prisoners, interference with privacy, and restrictions on free
expression, among others. These abuses disproportionately affect
vulnerable groups like women, stateless Arab Bidoon, and Kuwait's large
migrant labor force.
If confirmed, strengthening respect for human rights in Kuwait will
be one of my top priorities. I will urge the Kuwaiti government to
thoroughly investigate and prosecute perpetrators of human rights
abuses, review the existence and implementation of current laws
surrounding these issues, and push for necessary reforms. We discuss
human rights issues openly and frankly with our partners in Kuwait,
and, if confirmed, I will continue to engage the Kuwait government on
these issues at the most senior levels in the spirit of strengthening
and advancing our relationship in the context of U.S. values.
Question. If confirmed, what are the potential obstacles to
addressing the specific human rights issues you have identified in your
previous response? What challenges will you face in Kuwait in advancing
human rights, civil society and democracy in general?
Answer. Kuwait passed legislation on women's suffrage in 2005,
private sector labor regulations in 2010, human trafficking in 2015,
and domestic worker rights in 2015, but implementing laws continues to
be a challenge. Despite women's suffrage, Kuwait has only one woman in
parliament. Despite the creation of labor regulation, labor
exploitation continues to be reported. Migrant laborers continue to be
victims of exploitation, abuse, and human trafficking.
Still, I know that sustained partnership with the Kuwaiti
government produces results. On human trafficking, Kuwait moved up in
the State Department's tiered ranking system to Tier 2, a result of
steady improvement since the 2015 anti-trafficking law was passed.
Kuwait's parliament has announced its intention to consider a new law
on Bidoon rights and domestic violence in its current session. If
confirmed, I will continue to engage the Kuwaiti government on human
rights issues, and I will ensure that this remains a top Embassy
priority.
Question. Are you committed to meeting with human rights, civil
society and other non-governmental organizations in the U.S. and with
local human rights NGOs in Kuwait? If confirmed, what steps will you
take to pro-actively support the Leahy Law and similar efforts, and
ensure that provisions of U.S. security assistance and security
cooperation activities reinforce human rights?
Answer. I am absolutely committed to meeting with human rights,
civil society, and other non-governmental organizations both in the
United States and in Kuwait. If confirmed, I will ensure that the
Embassy complies with all obligations under the Leahy Law, and that
U.S. security assistance and security cooperation reinforces the
respect for human rights.
Question. Will you and your embassy team actively engage with
Kuwait to address cases of key political prisoners or persons otherwise
unjustly targeted by Kuwait?
Answer. If confirmed, I will engage with the Kuwaiti government to
investigate and address all allegations of political prisoners, and to
ensure that everyone receives equal treatment by the Kuwaiti legal
system.
Question. Will you engage with Kuwait on matters of human rights,
civil rights and governance as part of your bilateral mission?
Answer. Yes, I believe that it is a core part of the mission of
every U.S. Embassy to promote human rights, civil rights, and good
governance. If confirmed, I will engage with Kuwait on these topics,
and I will look to build on the progress that Kuwait has already made
on these issues in recent years.
Question. The State Department identifies the principal human
rights problems in Kuwait as: arbitrary detention; political prisoners;
arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy; restrictions on free
expression, the press, and the internet, including criminalization of
libel, censorship, and internet site blocking; interference with the
rights of peaceful assembly and freedom of association. Kuwait is the
most democratized of the Gulf States, but State Department human rights
reports reflect worrying authoritarian tendencies.
What is your assessment of Kuwait's record when it comes to freedom
of press, assembly, expression, etc.?
Answer. Kuwait has one of the most open societies in the region,
but we remain concerned about restrictions on freedom of expression.
Individuals can be arrested for posting anti-government or ``immoral''
messages on social media, publishing information that could damage the
economy, or insulting a person or religion. These regulations are too
restrictive and do not promote a free and open society. Noncitizens and
some minorities face further restrictions on free expression and
assembly. If confirmed, I will continue working with the Kuwaiti
government to make progress on these issues.
Conflicts of Interest
Question. Do you commit to bring to the committee's attention (and
the State Department Inspector General) any change in policy or U.S.
actions that you suspect may be influenced by any of the President's
business or financial interests, or the business or financial interests
of any senior White House staff?
Answer. I commit to comply with all relevant federal ethics laws,
regulations, and rules, and to raise concerns that I may have through
appropriate channels.
Question. Do you commit to inform the committee if you have any
reason to suspect that a foreign government, head of state, or foreign-
controlled entity is taking any action in order to benefit any of the
President's business or financial interests, or the interests of senior
White House staff?
Answer. I commit to comply with all relevant federal ethics laws,
regulations, and rules, and to raise concerns that I may have through
appropriate channels.
Question. Do you or do any members of your immediate family have
any financial interests in Kuwait?
Answer. No.
Question. Research from private industry demonstrates that, when
managed well, diversity makes business teams better both in terms of
creativity and in terms of productivity. What will you do to promote,
mentor and support your staff that come from diverse backgrounds and
underrepresented groups in the Foreign Service?
Answer. I am proud of the work I have done throughout my career to
promote diversity and inclusion in public service, and if confirmed, I
will continue that work at the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait. I believe that
every member of our work force, regardless of background, should have
the opportunity to grow professionally and thrive as leaders in the
State Department and throughout the U.S. government.
Question. What steps will you take to ensure each of the
supervisors at the Embassy are fostering an environment that is diverse
and inclusive?
Answer. Inclusion begins in hiring, and, if confirmed, I will
ensure all hiring managers are trained on how to standardize interviews
and candidate selection to reduce unconscious bias. Beyond hiring, I
will ensure mentorship, training, and professional development
opportunities are available to employees of all backgrounds.
Corruption
Question. How do you believe political corruption impacts
democratic governance and the rule of law generally, and in Kuwait
specifically?
Answer. Political corruption undermines democratic governance and
the rule of law. Kuwait has had high profile cases from the cabinet
level down to entry-level bureaucrats, but their government has
generally taken these allegations seriously and investigated them.
Question. What is your assessment of corruption trends in Kuwait
and efforts to address and reduce it by that government?
Answer. The Kuwaiti government recognizes the risks associated with
corruption, and the government has held public officials accountable
for corruption in the past. The United States supports Kuwait's efforts
to fight corruption at every level of government.
Question. If confirmed, what steps will you take to strengthen good
governance and anticorruption programming in Kuwait?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with my team in Kuwait to
determine how the United States can best support Kuwaiti efforts to
tackle corruption. I will make it clear to Kuwaiti leadership that the
United States supports anti-corruption efforts in the region, and I
will look for government and civil society partners who share our
vision and values.
Question. What progress did Kuwait make in just one year to improve
its TIP ranking? How likely to do you think the government of Kuwait is
to continue to implement its TIP plan?
Answer. Our Embassy works diligently to engage the government of
Kuwait on this issue, and the upgrade to a Tier 2 ranking reflects an
increased, significant effort by the Kuwaiti government to meet minimum
standards for the elimination of trafficking in persons.
The Kuwaiti government demonstrated its commitment to this issue by
deploying a specialized trafficking unit housed in the Public
Prosecutor's Office to initiate more criminal investigations and more
prosecutions under the anti-trafficking law. The Kuwaiti government
referred significantly more potential trafficking victims for
protective services, operationalized its central recruitment agency to
hire and better safeguard the rights of hundreds of domestic workers,
and increased enforcement of its domestic worker law.
Still, the government needs to do a better job of using a formal
criminal court process to prosecute offenders with stringent sentences
under the anti-trafficking law vice using administrative proceedings,
and proactively identify potential victims among vulnerable migrant
worker populations. Kuwait has made positive steps on this issue, and,
if I am confirmed, I will work to ensure the government of Kuwait keeps
improving its efforts and continues implementing its TIP plan.
Question. What resources are most needed to help Kuwait meet
minimum standards?
Answer. Kuwait has the financial resources needed to meet minimum
standards to fight trafficking in persons. If confirmed, I will work
with our experts from the State Department Office to Monitor and Combat
Trafficking in Persons to share best practices from the region in order
to further improve Kuwait's tier ranking.
Question. How can the U.S. support Kuwait's efforts to counter
human trafficking?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to engage Kuwaiti government
officials to make legislative and policy changes to better fight
trafficking in persons. I will also work with our experts from the
State Department Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons to
share best practices from the region in order to further improve
Kuwait's tier ranking.
Defense Cooperation
Question. As you know, Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in August 1990,
and the U.S. role in ending the Iraqi occupation in early 1991,
deepened the U.S.-Kuwait defense relationship. The U.S. and Kuwait
signed a formal bilateral Defense Cooperation Agreement (DCA) in 1991
and in 2004, President George W. Bush designated Kuwait as a ``major
non-NATO ally,'' a designation only held by one other Gulf state
(Bahrain).
How crucial is Kuwait to U.S. strategy in the Gulf, particularly
with respect to recent challenges from Iran? Would U.S. forces
be able to utilize Kuwaiti facilities in a conflict with Iran?
Answer. Kuwait supports the U.S. government's maximum pressure
campaign against Iran, and we continue to work hand in hand with Kuwait
to enforce all international sanctions against Iran. Kuwait is a
critical partner in protecting the safety and stability of the region,
and we have enjoyed a close relationship with their military since
liberation of Kuwait in 1991.
The United States does not seek military conflict with Iran. The
goal of the maximum pressure campaign is to bring the Iranian regime to
the negotiating table for a comprehensive and peaceful political
agreement. For further questions on our military's readiness to defend
U.S. interests in the region, we would recommend a discussion with our
colleagues at the Department of Defense in a classified setting.
Question. What is the nature of the U.S. security commitment to
Kuwait, if any? What assistance does the DCA with Kuwait commit the
United States to?
Answer. Kuwait is a vital U.S. partner on a wide range of regional
security issues. The United States works with Kuwait and other members
of the Gulf Cooperation Council to increase cooperation on border
security, maritime security, arms transfers, cybersecurity, and
counterterrorism. The access, basing, and overflight privileges granted
by Kuwait facilitate U.S. and Global Coalition operations against Al
Qaeda, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), and its regional and
global affiliates. The 1991 Defense Cooperation Agreement with Kuwait
governs the presence of U.S. forces, their civilian component, and DoD
contractors in Kuwait, and does not commit the United States to any
assistance to Kuwait.
Question. What major purchases of arms has Kuwait requested, if
any? What would be the administration's criteria for deciding to sell
such arms to Kuwait? Should human rights considerations be taken into
account for such arms sales?
Answer. Recent major arms transfers to Kuwait include the sale of
28 advanced F/A-18 Super Hornet aircraft (valued at approximately $10.1
billion), 218 M1A2 tanks (valued at approximately $1.7 billion), 15
Fast Patrol Boats (valued at approximately $100 million), and Patriot
PAC-3 interceptor missiles (valued at approximately $4.2 billion). All
arms transfers--to any partner--are reviewed and approved consistent
with the Arms Export Control Act, the President's Conventional Arms
Transfer Policy, and other appropriate governing regulations. This
includes provisions for consideration of potential human rights abuses.
Question. As part of the Saudi-led coalition, what actions has
Kuwait taken in Yemen?
Answer. The State Department would be happy to provide a briefing
on this in a classified setting.
Iran
Question. Kuwait has undertaken consistent high-level engagement
with Iran, reflecting a legacy of Kuwait's perception of Iran as a
counterweight to Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Kuwaiti officials have
indicated the country will join a potential U.S.-backed Middle East
Strategic Alliance (MESA) to counter Iran, if such a bloc is formed,
while at the same time backing mediation efforts to de-escalate
heightened U.S.-Iran tensions as of mid-2019.
With respect to Kuwait's engagement with Iran, how helpful has
Kuwait been--and how could it be more helpful--in supporting
the ``maximum pressure'' campaign on Iran's economy?
Answer. Kuwait, like many other nations in the Middle East, wants
to see a change in Iran's actions. They have observed all international
and U.S. sanctions against Iran as part of the maximum pressure
campaign.
Question. To what extent, if at all, has Kuwait been helpful in
reintegrating Iraq into the Arab fold and weakening Iranian influence
there?
Answer. Since the formation of the Abd al-Mahdi government in Iraq,
bilateral relations between Iraq and Kuwait have improved
significantly, enabling the Amir's visit to Baghdad in June 2019, the
first such visit in a number of years. Reintegrating Iraq with its Arab
neighbors is a top Department priority and a prudent means of
curtailing malign Iranian influence. Several important, high-level
visits by members of Iraq's new government preceded the Amir's trip,
including by Iraqi President Barham Salih and Speaker Mohammed al-
Halbusi to Kuwait in the fall of 2018, and Prime Minister Adil Abd al-
Mahdi's and Foreign Minister Mohammed al-Hakim's trips to Kuwait in May
2019.
A top priority of the Kuwaiti government has been to support the
stabilization of the political and economic environment in Iraq. This
has included humanitarian assistance and the normalization of bilateral
trade relations. Kuwait has invested hundreds of millions of dollars to
provide food and health care and to fund camp projects for IDPs and
refugees in Iraq. In February 2018, Kuwait hosted an international
conference for the reconstruction of Iraq that netted more than $30
billion in pledges from participants, including $1 billion from Kuwait.
Most of those pledges were in the forms of export credits, loans, and
grants. The Kuwait Fund plans to invest in the construction of schools
and health centers across Iraq to fulfill a significant portion of this
pledge.
Question. To what extent can Kuwait continue to contribute to a
resolution of the intra-GCC rift?
Answer. Kuwait has been an early and consistent mediator following
the June 2017 rift between Qatar and Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain,
and Egypt. Kuwait wants to see the rift settled as quickly as possible.
The Amir has made numerous attempts to bring the parties together to
reach a settlement. The United States has consistently supported these
efforts. We believe that the Amir, as one of the most respected leaders
in the region, is making a great contribution to resolving the intra-
GCC rift.
Question. Once the Amir is succeeded by his half-brother Nawaf al-
Ahmad, what will be the scenarios for continuations of the Amir's
mediation-centric foreign policies?
Answer. The Amir has been a great friend to the United States and a
valued mediator in the region. We believe that Kuwait's position as a
neutral country and a voice for reconciliation and stability in the
region will continue.
Countering Terrorism Financing
Question. The State Department report on international terrorism
for 2017 (released in the fall of 2018) praised Kuwaiti government
steps to counter terrorism financing, including the October 2017
designation of 13 individuals associated with the Islamic State-Yemen
and Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). The report also commended
the Central Bank of Kuwait for implementing a ``same business-day''
turnaround policy for imposing U.N. terrorist financing-related
sanctions, requiring Kuwaiti banks to monitor U.N. sanctions lists
proactively. Other experts assert that Kuwait's record is mixed and
that terrorist financiers still operate in Kuwait.
What can the United States do to further help Kuwait improve its
efforts to counter the financing of terrorist groups?
Answer. The government of Kuwait, and Kuwaitis themselves, take
terrorist groups like Al Qa'ida and ISIS very seriously. These groups
are violently hostile towards the country's culture of moderation and
its traditions of constitutional governance, religious tolerance, non-
sectarianism, and women's rights.
Our collaboration with Kuwait against the broad range of global and
regional terrorist threats extends from capacity building of its
security services to coordination of our efforts to counter the
financing of terrorism.
However, private financial support to terrorist groups continues.
The United States would like Kuwait to continue to monitor and
implement regulations, and to compile and release the number of
financial intelligence reports filed by mandated reporting entities in
order to help measure the effectiveness of these regulations.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted to Alina L. Romanowski by Senator Jeanne Shaheen
Question. Kuwait has long been an important regional and defense
ally of the U.S. Like several other U.S. allies in the region, Kuwait
faces extensive human rights issues that it must resolve:
What should be the role of the United States in fostering
democratization and human rights improvements in Kuwait? In
your estimation, what are the most effective U.S. tools for
doing so?
Answer. As detailed in our annual reports on Human Rights,
International Religious Freedom, and Trafficking in Persons, we have
concerns over Kuwait's record. There have been allegations of torture,
arbitrary detention, political prisoners, interference with privacy,
and restrictions on free expression, among others. These abuses
disproportionately affect vulnerable groups like women, stateless Arab
Bidoon, and Kuwait's large migrant labor force.If confirmed,
strengthening the respect for human rights in Kuwait will be one of my
top priorities. I will urge the Kuwaiti government to thoroughly
investigate human rights abuses, review current laws surrounding these
issues, and push for further human rights reforms. We discuss human
rights issues openly and frankly with our partners in Kuwait, and I
will continue to do so at the most senior levels of the Kuwaiti
government in the spirit of strengthening and advancing our
relationship in the context of U.S. values.
Question. Kuwait has echoed concerns of other countries about a
surge in violence following the death of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-
Baghdadi and the possibility of renewed terrorist attacks throughout
the region and around the world:
Given your previous role as the Deputy in the Counterterrorism
Bureau, if confirmed, how would you work with Kuwait and other
regional U.S. allies to ensure coordination on counterterrorism
efforts?
Answer. Despite Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's death and the group losing
all of its territory in Iraq and Syria, ISIS continues to pursue its
terrorist objectives, including through branches and networks around
the world. As the Coalition works to prevent ISIS's resurgence in Syria
and Iraq, we are also looking to stem the group's expansion and
worldwide reach in part by focusing on the financial, foreign terrorist
fighter travel, and other ISIS networks and resource flows. Kuwait has
been a key partner in the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS, and if I am
confirmed I will continue to work closely with the Kuwaitis on
coordination on counterterrorism efforts.
Question. I work very closely with the families of ISIS victims,
and particularly with Diane Foley, Jim Foley's mother. I understand
that in your time at the Counterterrorism Bureau you worked on the
issue of the Beatles and potential ways to get them to the United
States to face justice:
Understanding that there is a limit to what can be detailed in an
unclassified setting, could you provide more detail about this
work? Does the CT Bureau at State ever meet with the families
of victims to update them on developments?
Answer. The Counterterrorism Bureau (CT) leads interagency
coordination on FTF detention issues and has encouraged foreign
partners to consider viable disposition options for the Beatles. CT has
also encouraged the UK to share evidence of the Beatles' crimes with
appropriate countries. Our goal is to ensure that the Beatles are
brought to justice. Senior-level State and NSC officials have engaged
the families of the Beatles' victims to share information as
appropriate. Broadly, I would highlight that the interagency Hostage
Recovery Fusion Cell, the Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage
Affairs, and the Bureau of Consular Affairs hold primary responsibility
for supporting hostages and their families, and frequently meet with
families to share updates as appropriate.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted
to Leslie Meredith Tsou by Senator Robert Menendez
Yemen
Question. Oman has been a helpful mediator in the Yemen conflict.
What role do you see Oman taking in this conflict going forward? What
steps will you take to encourage that engagement?
Answer. Oman has called for a political solution to the conflict in
Yemen and fully backs U.N. Special Envoy Martin Griffiths' efforts to
bring the conflict to an end. Oman maintains channels of communication
with a variety of Yemeni actors, including the Houthis, and has helped
to bring the Houthis into the U.N. peace press. It has also played a
pivotal role in securing the safe release and return of about a dozen
U.S. citizens held in Yemen, and continues to offer its good offices to
try to secure the release of other Americans unjustly held in Yemen,
Iran, and Syria.
Question. At the same time, there continues to be concern about
smuggling over the Oman-Yemen border. What steps has the U.S. taken to
address this concern and what further steps will you take, if
confirmed?
Answer. The United States is working closely with both our Omani
and Yemeni partners to stem the flow of illicit materiel into Yemen. We
continue to provide successful border security training through our
Export and Border Security (EXBS) program that has bolstered the
capabilities of Yemeni and Omani border security agencies to identify,
interdict, and stem the flow of illicit materiel into Yemen.
Over the last year, the State Department has successfully engaged
Oman through EXBS assistance to address deficiencies in its strategic
trade control and border security systems, especially those that may
have contributed to Iran's supply of weapons to Houthi rebels.
This year, EXBS obligated $2.4 million in FY 2018 funds to build
upon these positive steps to further develop Oman's
counterproliferation capabilities, and thereby disrupt proliferation
and counter Iran's malign influence in the region.
If confirmed, I will make it a priority to support these efforts,
which are critical to mitigating the threats of illicit materiel flows,
supporting the arms embargo in U.N. Security Council Resolution (UNSCR)
2216, and bolstering the efforts of the U.N. Special Envoy for Yemen to
reach a negotiated political solution by reducing the extent to which
external actors can effectively intervene in and sustain the conflict.
Trafficking and Labor
Question. Oman has moved from Tier 2 Watch list to Tier 2 on the
State Department's annual Trafficking in Persons report between 2017
and 2019. Nevertheless, challenges remain. Oman has been consistently
slow to criminally prosecute offenders. What steps will you take to
press the Omani government to criminally prosecute traffickers and
ensure that victims are identified and treated in a way that meets
international standards?
Answer. As stated in the 2018 Trafficking in Persons report, Oman
has made significant efforts to counter human trafficking, including by
increasing investigations, prosecutions and convictions of sex
traffickers and by sentencing offenders to significant jail time.
However, it does not yet meet the minimum requirements of the
Trafficking and Victim Protection Act. We encourage Oman to continue to
increase its efforts to investigate and prosecute trafficking and
forced labor offenses, to institute formal procedures to identify
trafficking victims, and to amend the law to expand referrals of
suspected male and female trafficking victims to protective services.
There is will among key Omani government officials to advance these
reforms, but slow bureaucratic processes and the difficulty of
interagency coordination within the Omani system remain obstacles. If
confirmed, I will work with the Omani government to build on the
progress it has made on this critical human rights issue. Oman is
currently on the Trafficking in Persons (TIP) Tier II ranking; my goal
will be to get them to Tier I.
Question. I was heartened by the recent news that Qatar will
quickly move to phase out its Kefalah system, which is prevalent
throughout the region and provides the regulatory framework for a
number of trafficking and labor abuses. How deeply entrenched is the
Kefalah system in Oman? What is the likelihood of phasing it out there
and what steps will you take to that end?
Answer. The Kefalah system has been deeply entrenched in all Gulf
societies, but Gulf governments are gradually phasing it out. The 2018
Trafficking in Persons Report recommends that Oman amend the system to
allow expatriate workers to leave reportedly abusive employers and to
remove the requirement for ``no objection'' certificates in seeking new
employment and exit permits. If confirmed, I will continue to urge the
Omani government to institute these and other reforms to counter
trafficking in persons.
Gulf Rift
Question. What is Oman's position on the GCC rift between Saudi
Arabia and Qatar? Is there room for Omani engagement to help mediate
and, if so, what should that engagement be? What steps will you take to
promote that engagement?
Answer. While Oman has maintained neutrality in the rift between
Saudi Arabia and Qatar, it remains concerned and has encouraged both
sides to resolve their differences.
Democracy
Question. What are the most important actions you have taken in
your career to date to support democracy and human rights? What has
been the impact of your actions?
Answer. I have spent the majority of my career working on issues
and in areas where human rights and democracy present major challenges,
and their promotion often requires creative and unorthodox ideas. One
of my most meaningful achievements in this area was leading the State
Department's Office of Iranian Affairs in creating a Farsi-language
satirical comedy based on the ``Daily Show,'' with the goal of using
incisive humor to criticize the Iranian regime. We aired the show on
our Virtual Embassy Tehran website, the U.S. government's only direct
outreach to the Iranian people. The show became the world's most
watched web-based program in Farsi, and was also picked up for
broadcast by satellite television. In addition to giving the Iranian
people a much-needed respite from the regime's relentless propaganda
machine, and allowing them to think about the regime in new ways, it
brought together on social media disparate groups from all over Iran,
helping them to form ties that I hope will foster a more democratic
Iran in the future.
U.S. embassies abroad are a perfect place to model human rights and
democratic norms to the local population. In Libya, which was an
absolute dictatorship under Moammar Qadhafi when I served there in
2004-2005, one of our new Libyan staff members proudly told me he had
voted for the first time in his life after he and his fellow employees
elected our very first Locally Employed Staff council. As the Deputy
Chief of Mission at then-Embassy Tel Aviv, I oversaw the Embassy's move
to Jerusalem in 2018, as well as the closure of Consulate General
Jerusalem (``the ConGen'') in 2019. This meant merging into one
structure the Tel Aviv local staff, comprised mainly of Israeli Jews,
with the ConGen's more religiously and ethnically diverse staff which
included Palestinian Christians and Muslims. I worked hard to alleviate
anxiety among all the staff, reassuring them that the USG does not
discriminate against any person based on race, sex, color, religion,
disability, national origin, or age. By the end of my tour in July
2019, we had the laid the ground work for a cohesive mission. I hope
Embassy Jerusalem demonstrates that all people can come together
equally, in the very best American tradition.
Question. What issues are the most pressing challenges to democracy
or democratic development in Oman? These challenges might include
obstacles to participatory and accountable governance and institutions,
rule of law, authentic political competition, civil society, human
rights and press freedom. Please be as specific as possible.
Answer. Oman's human rights record is improving overall. Its most
significant human rights issues include occasional allegations of
torture of prisoners and detainees in government custody; undue
restrictions on free expression, the press, and the internet, including
censorship, site blocking, and laws that define libel as a criminal
offense; substantial interference with the rights of peaceful assembly
and freedom of association; restrictions on political participation,
and criminalization of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and
intersex conduct.
Question. What steps will you take - if confirmed - to support
democracy in Oman? What do you hope to accomplish through these
actions? What are the potential impediments to addressing the specific
obstacles you have identified?
Answer. Oman is a Sultanate, and the Sultan is at the center of the
governing system. It has a bicameral parliament composed of an elected
lower chamber, the Shura Council, and an appointed upper chamber, the
State Council. The parliament's legislative and regulatory powers have
expanded in recent years, but it is not fully independent. In recent
years, Oman has expanded political participation, increased the
parliament's legislative and regulatory powers, and held successful
elections for the the Shura Council. Nearly 350,000 Omani voters - or
just under half of registered voters - participated in the most recent
Shura Council elections on October 27, electing 86 members. In recent
years, Oman has expanded political participation and increased the
parliament's legislative and regulatory powers. Based on its current
trajectory, I believe the parliament's role in the Omani political
system will continue to grow and evolve, and if confirmed I will look
for ways that the United States can support this trend.
One area where I hope to make a difference is in the rights of
women in society. The current Omani ambassador to the United States
holds the distinction of being the first-ever female ambassador to the
United States from a Gulf country. Oman's Minister of Education and
Minister of Higher Education are women, and just last month, the Sultan
appointed women to serve as the Minister of Technology and
Communications and the Minister of Arts Affairs. Omani women also
comprise the majority of university students.
At the same time, because of deeply embedded cultural and tribal
practices, women in Oman do not have completely equal status with Omani
men. I hope to lead by example, and if confirmed will look for ways
that I can support greater rights and opportunities for women.
Question. How will you utilize U.S. government assistance resources
at your disposal, including the Democracy Commission Small Grants
program and other sources of State Department and USAID funding, to
support democracy and governance, and what will you prioritize in
processes to administer such assistance?
Answer. I will use all tools at my disposal to deepen our
cooperation with Oman on democracy and governance.
Question. If confirmed, do you commit to meet with civil society
members, human rights and other non-governmental organizations in the
U.S. and with local human rights NGOs, and other members of civil
society in Oman? What steps will you take to pro-actively address
efforts to restrict or penalize NGOs and civil society via legal or
regulatory measures?
Answer. If confirmed, I commit to engaging broadly with Omani civil
society to hear their concerns and assess how best I can address any
legal or regulatory restrictions or penalties they may face.
Question. If confirmed, do you commit to meet with democratically
oriented political opposition figures and parties? What steps will you
take to encourage genuine political competition? Will you advocate for
access and inclusivity for women, minorities and youth within political
parties?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to engage with all elements of Omani
society. Under Omani law, political parties are not part of the
political system. In the October 27 elections for the lower chamber of
parliament, the Shura Council, voters elected 86 Shura Council members,
all of whom ran without political party affiliations. Just two out of
the 86 were women, double the number in the last Shura Council.
Question. Will you and your embassy team actively engage with Omani
officials on freedom of the press and address any government efforts
designed to control or undermine press freedom through legal,
regulatory or other measures? Will you commit to meeting regularly with
independent, local press in Oman?
Answer. If confirmed, I commit that my Embassy staff and I will
promote freedom of the press. The Omani government restricts and
controls foreign officials' access to the local press. If confirmed, I
will work with my Omani counterparts to identify opportunities where I
might engage with them nonetheless.
Question. Will you and your embassy team actively engage with civil
society and government counterparts on countering disinformation and
propaganda disseminated by foreign state or non-state actors in the
country?
Answer. Yes, we will.
Question. Will you and your embassy teams actively engage with
Omani officials on the right of labor groups to organize, including for
independent trade unions?
Answer. Yes, we will.
Question. Will you commit to using your position, if confirmed, to
defend the human rights and dignity of all people in Oman, no matter
their sexual orientation or gender identity? What challenges do the
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) people face in
Oman? What specifically will you commit to do to help LGBTQ people in
Oman?
Answer. Omani law bans all lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and
intersex conduct. If confirmed, I will do my best to represent American
values, including support for the fundamental human rights and dignity
of all people.
Responsiveness
Question. Do you commit to respond promptly to all requests for
information by members of this committee?
Answer. Yes, with the understanding that any such response would be
organized through the Department of State's Bureau of Legislative
Affairs and conducted in accordance with long-standing Department and
Executive Branch practice.
Question. Do you commit to appear before this committee upon
request?
Answer. Yes, with the understanding that any such appearance would
be organized through the Department of State's Bureau of Legislative
Affairs in accordance with long standing Department and Executive
Branch practice.
Question. If you become aware of any suspected waste, fraud, or
abuse in the Department, do you committo report it to the Inspector
General?
Answer. Yes. I will follow all Department rules and regulations as
to reporting waste, fraud, and abuse, including notifying the
Department's Office of the Inspector General.
Administrative
Question. Has anyone ever made a formal or informal complaint or
allegation of sexual harassment,discrimination (e.g., racial, ethnic,
religious, etc.), or inappropriate conduct against you, in aworkplace
or any other setting? If so, please describe the nature of the
complaint or allegation,your response, and any resolution, including
any settlements.
Answer. No one has ever made such a complaint against me.
Question. Have you ever addressed concerns or allegations of sexual
harassment, discrimination (e.g.,racial, ethnic, religious, etc.), or
inappropriate conduct made against any employee over whomyou had
supervisory authority? If so, please describe the outcome and actions
taken.
Answer. I have no tolerance for harassment, discrimination, or
inappropriate conduct of any kind. Whenever such allegations or
concerns have come to my attention as a supervisor, I have taken
immediate and concrete actions to ensure they are dealt with as quickly
as possible, in accordance with State Department rules and regulations.
Question. Do you agree that any targeting of or retaliation against
career employees based on their perceived political beliefs, prior work
on policy, or affiliation with a previous administration, is wholly
inappropriate and has no place in the federal government? If confirmed,
what will you do to ensure that all employees under your leadership
understand that any retaliation, blacklisting, or other prohibited
personnel practices will not be tolerated?
Answer. Yes, I agree, and will make clear to all Embassy employees
that such prohibited personnel practices cannot and will not be
tolerated.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted
to Leslie Meredith Tsou by Senator Benjamin L. Cardin
Human Rights
Question. What are your most meaningful achievements to date in
your career to promote human rights and democracy? What has been the
impact of your actions?
Answer. I have spent the majority of my career working on issues
and in areas where human rights and democracy present major challenges,
and their promotion often requires creative and unorthodox ideas. One
of my most meaningful achievements in this area was leading the State
Department's Office of Iranian Affairs in creating a Farsi-language
satirical comedy based on the ``Daily Show,'' with the goal of using
incisive humor to criticize the Iranian regime. We aired the show on
our Virtual Embassy Tehran website--the U.S. government's only direct
outreach to the Iranian people. The show became the world's most
watched web-based program in Farsi, and was also picked up for
broadcast by satellite television. In addition to giving the Iranians
people a much-needed respite from the regime's relentless propaganda
machine, and allowing them to think about the regime in new ways, it
brought together on social media disparate groups from all over Iran,
helping them to form ties that I hope will foster a more democratic
Iran in the future.
U.S. embassies abroad are a perfect place to model human rights and
democratic norms to a local population. In Libya, which was an absolute
dictatorship under Moammar Qadhafi when I served there in 2004-2005,
one of our new Libyan staff members proudly told me he had voted for
the first time in his life after he and his fellow employees elected
our very first Locally Employed Staff council. As the Deputy Chief of
Mission at then-Embassy Tel Aviv, I oversaw the Embassy's move to
Jerusalem in 2018, as well as the closure of Consulate General
Jerusalem (``the ConGen'') in 2019. This meant merging into one
structure the Tel Aviv local staff, comprised mainly of Israeli Jews,
with the ConGen's more religiously and ethnically diverse staff which
included Palestinian Christians and Muslims. I worked hard to alleviate
anxiety among all the staff, reassuring them that the USG does not
discriminate against any person based on race, sex, color, religion,
disability, national origin, or age. By the end of my tour in July
2019, we had the laid the ground work for a cohesive mission. My goal
for Embassy Jerusalem was to demonstrate that all people can come
together equally, in the very best American tradition.
Question. What are the most pressing human rights issues in Oman?
What are the most important steps you expect to take--if confirmed--to
promote human rights and democracy in Oman? What do you hope to
accomplish through these actions?
Answer. Oman's human rights record is improving overall. For
example, it has taken steps to support religious freedom and tolerance,
including for its community of foreign workers, many of whom practice
non-Muslim faiths. If confirmed, I will continue to engage with the
government and minority religious groups to support efforts to promote
religious tolerance and interfaith dialogue.
Trafficking in persons is one issue where we need to help Oman make
progress in the near term. As stated in the most recent Trafficking in
Persons report, Oman has made significant efforts to counter human
trafficking, but it does not yet meet the minimum requirements of the
Trafficking and Victim Protection Act. We are encouraging Oman to
continue to increase its efforts to investigate and prosecute
trafficking and forced labor offenses, to institute formal procedures
to identify trafficking victims, and to amend the law to expand
referrals of suspected male and female trafficking victims to
protective services. If confirmed, I will work with the Omani
government to build on the progress it has made in recent years on this
critical human rights issue. Oman is currently Tier II on the
Trafficking in Persons country ranking; my goal will be to get them to
Tier I.
Question. If confirmed, what are the potential obstacles to
addressing the specific human rights issues you have identified in your
previous response? What challenges will you face in Oman in advancing
human rights, civil society and democracy in general?
Answer. There is will among key Omani government officials to
advance reforms to counter trafficking in persons, but slow
bureaucratic processes and the difficulty of interagency coordination
within the Omani system remain obstacles. There is growing awareness
among government officials and the Omani public about trafficking in
persons, but the necessary shift in attitudes will require a long-term
process. I will work with the Omani government to ensure relevant
officials receive appropriate training on trafficking in persons and to
raise public awareness about this issue.
Question. Are you committed to meeting with human rights, civil
society and other non-governmental organizations in the U.S. and with
local human rights NGOs in Oman? If confirmed, what steps will you take
to pro-actively support the Leahy Law and similar efforts, and ensure
that provisions of U.S. security assistance and security cooperation
activities reinforce human rights?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to engage broadly with Omani civil
society. The U.S. Embassy in Muscat will continue to implement Leahy
Law requirements as we deepen our bilateral security cooperation. It is
a standard feature of our security assistance and security cooperation
activities that they incorporate U.S. human rights standards and help
develop respect for human rights among our security partners.
Question. Will you and your embassy team actively engage with Oman
to address cases of key political prisoners or persons otherwise
unjustly targeted by Oman?
Answer. We will. If confirmed, I will raise cases of concern when
they occur.
Question. Will you engage with Oman on matters of human rights,
civil rights and governance as part of your bilateral mission?
Answer. I will. If confirmed, my Embassy team and I will promote
American values in all our engagements.
Conflicts of Interest
Question. Do you commit to bring to the committee's attention (and
the State Department Inspector General) any change in policy or U.S.
actions that you suspect may be influenced by any of the President's
business or financial interests, or the business or financial interests
of any senior White House staff?
Answer. I commit to comply with all relevant federal ethics laws,
regulations, and rules, and to raise concerns that I may have through
appropriate channels.
Question. Do you commit to inform the committee if you have any
reason to suspect that a foreign government, head of state, or foreign-
controlled entity is taking any action in order to benefit any of the
President's business or financial interests, or the interests of senior
White House staff?
Answer. I commit to comply with all relevant federal ethics laws,
regulations, and rules, and to raise concerns that I may have through
appropriate channels.
Question. Do you or do any members of your immediate family have
any financial interests in Oman?
Answer. No.
Diversity
Question. Research from private industry demonstrates that, when
managed well, diversity makes business teams better both in terms of
creativity and in terms of productivity. What will you do to promote,
mentor and support your staff that come from diverse backgrounds and
underrepresented groups in the Foreign Service?
Answer. My personal experience has been exactly what this research
concludes--that all organizations benefit from diversity of background,
opinion, and ways of thinking. I am fully committed to the support of
mission staff who come from diverse backgrounds and to ensuring that
all points of view are represented in decision making.
Question. What steps will you take to ensure each of the
supervisors at the Embassy are fostering an environment that is diverse
and inclusive?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure my senior staff understands the
need for diversity of background, opinion, and ways of thinking from
all elements of our team.
Corruption
Question. How do you believe political corruption impacts
democratic governance and the rule of law generally, and in Oman
specifically?
Answer. The Omani government recognizes the negative effects of
corruption. It has acted against corruption, and there are legal
proceedings against officials on corruption changes currently in the
court system.
Question. What is your assessment of corruption trends in Oman and
efforts to address and reduce it by that government?
Answer. The Omani government recognizes the negative effects of
corruption and has acted against it. There are legal proceedings
against officials on corruption changes currently in the court system.
Question. If confirmed, what steps will you take to strengthen good
governance and anticorruption programming in Oman?
Answer. If confirmed, I would like to arrive in country and assess
the situation first hand before initiating actions or programs. We have
numerous tools at our disposal--international visitor programs,
training, and law enforcement guidance, for instance--that we could
employ based on the needs.
Political Affairs and Succession
Question. Over 80 percent of the Omani population was born since
Qaboos assumed control of Oman in 1970. Sultan Qaboos is reportedly
receiving periodic cancer treatment, has no children, and has not
publicly designated a successor.
What are the possible scenarios for Oman's cooperation with the
United States and its role in the region under Qaboos' unnamed
successor?
Answer. Sultan Qaboos is a close and longstanding partner of the
United States. If confirmed, I look forward to many years of continued
partnership with the Sultan and his government.
Oman formalized its procedure for succession in the 1996 Basic Law.
This procedure empowers the Royal Family Council to choose the Sultan's
successor within three days of his death or abdication. If its members
cannot come to agreement on a successor, a separate council of senior
officials, known as the Defense Council, will confirm the appointment
of a successor designated by the Sultan in a letter he has left with
the Royal Family Council.
Defense Cooperation
Question. The Sultanate of Oman has been a strategic ally of the
United States since 1980, when it became the first Persian Gulf state
to sign a formal accord permitting the U.S. military to use its
facilities. Oman has hosted U.S. forces during every U.S. military
operation in the region since then, and it is a partner in U.S. efforts
to counter regional terrorism and related threats.
What missions are U.S. military personnel deployed in Oman
performing?
Answer. The Sultanate of Oman is a valuable security partner whose
defense needs and goals closely align with U.S. regional priorities.
There are no U.S. troops deployed to Oman. The United States and
Oman maintain close military-to-military ties, carrying out numerous
bilateral military exercises, subject matter expertise exchanges, and
conferences each year. In addition to expanding bilateral
interoperability, these engagements foster mutual understanding and
build strong ties between current and future generations of U.S. and
Omani military leaders. Oman has an important strategic location and
provides extensive support for U.S. military overflights and access,
including to ports outside the Strait of Hormuz.
Question. What are Oman's primary security requirements? What are
U.S. plans for providing security assistance to Oman in the coming few
years?
Answer. U.S. security assistance to Oman includes programs focused
on counterterrorism, border security, maritime security, crisis
management, and overall defense capabilities. Oman remains a keen
consumer of U.S. security assistance, placing tremendous value on both
Defense Department and State Department-funded programs for training
and equipping. We will continue to closely engage with our Omani
partners to build both interoperability and interpersonal ties between
U.S. and Omani security forces through our security assistance
programming.
Question. What U.S. arms purchases, if any, is Oman considering at
this time? What would be the justification for selling those systems to
Oman?
Answer. In the past, Oman has purchased U.S.-produced fighter and
cargo aircraft, air defense systems, and weapons for its ground forces.
If you would like information about potential future purchases, I would
be happy to discuss this in a classified setting.
Regional Affairs
Question. Oman, sandwiched between Yemen, Saudi Arabia, the UAE,
and across a narrow strait from Iran, has sought a neutral, non-
confrontational role in regional affairs. Oman's foreign minister
traveled to Tehran for negotiations during increased tensions between
the United States and Iran earlier this summer, and Sultan Qaboos
hosted both Mahmood Abbas and Benjamin Netanyahu for separate visits in
2018. Oman is not part of the Saudi-led coalition fighting Houthis in
Yemen.
Does the administration support or oppose Oman's maintaining close
ties to Iran?
Answer. The United States would prefer that all its Gulf partners
adopted our approach to confronting and isolating Iran. We recognize
that Oman's policy is to maintain open channels of communication with
all of its neighbors. Oman and Iran have a shared history that goes
back centuries, but today Oman's strategic relationship with the United
States is far closer than its ties with Iran. Oman and Iran share the
Strait of Hormuz, but Oman's support for the safety and security of
navigation through the Strait differentiates it markedly from Iran's
malign behavior. The Omanis share our concern about a nuclear Iran.
They have committed to ensuring that Omani banks and companies fully
comply with the implementation of sanctions as part of our maximum
pressure campaign.
Question. To what extent would Oman be able to determine if and
when Iran is ready to take up U.S. offers to negotiate a new JCPOA that
accommodates the broad range of U.S. concerns?
Answer. Oman's policy is to maintain open channels of communication
with all of its neighbors. We consult regularly with Oman on regional
issues, including Iran, and we appreciate its insights.
Question. To what extent, if any, is Oman helping block the flow of
Iranian weaponry to the Houthis in Yemen?
Answer. Iran has zero legitimate national interests inside Yemen;
instead, it focuses on inflaming regional tensions, prolonging the
conflict, inflicting damage on the Yemeni population, and precluding
meaningful political negotiation. The Department is working with the
Omanis to ensure its territory and territorial waters are not used by
Iran to smuggle weapons to the Houthis. I would be happy to discuss
this issue further in a classified setting.
Question. How does Oman view the potential benefits and risks of
building ties to Israel, and what is the potential backlash from Oman's
allies and citizens?
Answer. Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's visit to Oman
in October 2018 was the first visit by an Israeli Prime Minister to a
Gulf country in over 20 years. This bold gesture demonstrates Oman's
commitment to peace, its support for a resolution to the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict, and its willingness to take risks that advance
that goal. Oman's outreach to Israel has led to some social media
criticism from some Omani citizens and from elsewhere in the region.
Oman has also been clear publicly that it believes establishing a
Palestinian state is an essential step to end the conflict and
stabilize the region.
Port Access
Question. On March 24, 2019, Oman and the United States signed an
agreement allowing U.S. forces to use the ports of Al Duqm and Salalah.
Al Duqm is large enough to handle U.S. aircraft carriers, and the
agreement expands the U.S. ability to conduct operations in the region,
including countering Iran.
What strategic benefits does the United States derive from the Port
Access Agreement signed in March?
Answer. The Framework Agreement codifies and expands U.S. military
access to ports and facilities in Salalah and Duqm, strategic locations
outside of the Strait of Hormuz. Both prior to and since the signing of
the agreement, Oman has provided the U.S. military with reliable,
consistent access to its air and maritime ports in Duqm and Salalah.
Question. What additional financial or other commitments, if any,
did the United States pledge to Oman for that agreement?
Answer. The details of the Framework Agreement and other U.S.-Oman
bilateral defense agreements are classified, and I would be happy to
provide further information in a classified setting.
Countering Terror Financing:
Question. Oman's law to counter the financing of terrorism (CFT)
requires financial institutions, private industry, and non-profit
organizations to screen transactions for money laundering or terrorist
financing and requires the collection of know-your-customer data for
wire transfers. While Oman has made CFT progress, a number of gaps
remain.
To what extent do terrorist groups try to use Omani territory or
its financial system to move operatives and funds around the
region?
Answer. Oman is an important regional counterterrorism partner that
actively works to prevent terrorists from conducting attacks, using the
country as a safe haven, or transferring funds through its financial
system. There have been no terrorist incidents in Oman in recent years.
Omani officials regularly engage with U.S. officials on the need to
counter violent extremism and terrorism, but rarely broadcast their
counterterrorism efforts publicly. Oman continues to use U.S. security
assistance programs to improve its counterterrorism tactics and
procedures.
Question. How do you assess Oman's performance in countering the
financing of terrorism?
Answer. Oman is a member of both the Middle East and North Africa
Financial Action Task Force and the Riyadh-based Terrorist Finance
Targeting Center. Oman's National Center for Financial Information--
Financial Intelligence Unit hosted workshops on money laundering and
terrorism financing in September 2018 and October 2019. Oman has
specific laws in place aimed at countering the financing of terrorism
(CFT). Progress has been made, but some gaps remain. These include
completing the drafting and implementation of certification procedures
for anti-money laundering and CFT, issuing directives for the immediate
freezing and seizure of the assets of persons and entities on the U.N.
sanctions list under U.N. Security Council resolution 1267 (1999) and
its successor resolutions, and designating wire transfer amounts for
customer due diligence procedures.
Question. How does Oman's record on this issue compare to those of
the other Gulf States?
Answer. Oman, a member of the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS, is
an important regional counterterrorism partner that works to prevent
terrorists from conducting attacks or using the country as a safe
haven. Oman has been cooperative in maintaining port security and
countering terrorist financing. If confirmed, I will work with the
Omanis to continue to build upon and further strengthen this
partnership.
__________
NOMINATION
----------
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2019
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:19 a.m. in
Room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. James E.
Risch, chairman of the committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Risch [presiding], Rubio, Gardner,
Romney, Barrasso, Portman, Paul, Young, Cruz, Menendez, Cardin,
Shaheen, Coons, Udall, Murphy, Kaine, Markey, and Merkley.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. RISCH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO
The Chairman. The committee will come to order.
Today we will consider the nomination of Mr. Stephen Biegun
to be Deputy Secretary of State. Mr. Biegun has a long history
of service, with roots right here in this very committee. We
are glad to have you back. We thank him for the good work he
has done as special envoy to North Korea and also for his
willingness to continue serving in that position as he takes on
this incredibly important role at the State Department.
With nearly 200 countries across the globe, there is no
shortage of important issues which need the attention and
leadership of the United States. For the first time in
generations, the world is seeing the reemergence of substantial
competitors: Russia where it can, Iran in the Middle East, and
China across the world. And at the same time, people around the
world are losing faith in the institutions of their
governments.
Our competitors are willing and, most importantly, able to
compete against the United States, and this competition
threatens to disrupt the world order that America and our
allies created in the aftermath of World War II. That world
order, without a doubt, benefited everyone but especially those
who believe in the principles of democracy, human rights, the
rule of law, free markets, and free trade.
These cornerstones of liberty and prosperity are once again
under assault as we face global competition from a China that
wants to displace the United States in the Indo-Pacific and
exert deep influence in every other region of the world and a
resurgent Russia that wants to regain the influence it enjoyed
during the height of the Cold War.
At the same time, rogue states like Iran, North Korea, and
Venezuela continue to challenge stability in their regions.
Collectively this is an outcome that U.S. foreign policy has
always aimed to prevent.
Of our many challenges, China presents the most substantial
competitive threat and should be the top priority in American
foreign policy for the coming decades. The Chinese Communist
Party wants China to take what it believes is its rightful
place at the center of the international system and ensure the
international system functions according to China's values and
objectives.
China's economic and political reach is visible throughout
the Indo-Pacific region and extends across the continent of
Africa and throughout Latin America. Through the ``One Belt,
One Road'' initiative, the Chinese government is pursuing
significant investments in critical infrastructure and ports
around the globe.
And it is not just physical infrastructure. China is deeply
interested in setting the standards and norms for emerging
technologies. That has deep implications for the future
economy, of course, but also for the human rights and freedoms
of individuals around the world.
It is clear that China does not just present a challenge to
American interests. It poses a challenge to the key interests
we share with allies and partners. We must be in lockstep with
our Indo-Pacific partners, and working with our NATO and
European allies will also be key. Brain death is not an option.
As I said earlier, there is no shortage of issues that
require our attention. In the face of these challenges, U.S.
global leadership is critical. But maintaining that leadership
requires more than aid dollars. It requires a robust diplomatic
presence that enables us to project our values and interests,
and I know our nominee today understands that as no other.
The State Department is part of the bedrock of our national
security. Its diplomats are our eyes and ears on the ground
across the globe. These men and women are the tip of the spear
for advancing U.S. interests overseas, our first line of
defense against malign influences, and a vital lead in
negotiations to make sure that our relationships with friends
and foes abroad do not go off the rails.
We need to make sure that our diplomats are getting the
support they need to get outside the walls of our diplomatic
posts. I can assure you Chinese, Russian, and Iranian diplomats
do not have trouble getting off their embassy compounds.
In 2019, the stakes are too high to hamstring our national
security in this way. We need our people out there working with
our security partners, advancing human rights and the rule of
law, and pushing for American business. These are things we
simply cannot do very well sitting at a desk behind several
layers of security in an embassy.
Mr. Biegun's nomination comes at a pressing time for a
range of issues, for Middle East diplomacy as we pursue maximum
pressure against Iran, negotiate for peace in Afghanistan, and
continue to apply pressure to the Islamic State.
Putin continues his pattern of arms control treaty
violations, making the way ahead for bilateral arms control
with Russia increasingly uncertain. This pattern includes
Russia's ongoing nuclear modernization campaign, which includes
new exotic weapons it says are not subject to current arms
control agreements.
Russia continues to have a large and modernizing tactical
nuclear stockpile, which is an asymmetric capability the
Russians say is increasingly key to their operations and which
could enable greater Russian aggression in Europe.
With regard to the Western Hemisphere, there should be no
doubt that the United States has an enduring interest in a
region that is democratic, prosperous, and secure. I hope the
administration will continue its maximum pressure campaign
against undemocratic regimes and transnational criminal
organizations, work dynamically with partners to safeguard
critical institutions with malicious external influence, and
heighten support for organizations seeking greater transparency
from their governments.
Additionally, of great relevance today is that South Korea
has taken the counterproductive step of moving to end its
participation in a key information sharing agreement with
Japan. We have a critical week in that regard this week. This
increases the risk to U.S. forces in Korea and damages the
U.S.-Korea alliance. In partnership with Ranking Member
Menendez, SASC Chairman Inhofe, and Ranking Member Reed, I plan
to introduce a resolution urging South Korea to reverse that
decision.
These are just a few of the many challenges facing U.S.
foreign policy and global leadership today. They illustrate how
imperative it is that we have the right person in the role of
Deputy Secretary. Mr. Biegun is that person, and he is more
than prepared for this vital role that will touch all aspects
of the work that our State Department carries out.
Steve, thank you for being willing to do this and to your
family for the sacrifices they will have to make for this.
And with that, I turn it over to the ranking member.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Biegun, congratulations on your nomination. Thank you
for the service you have rendered to our country to date. We
appreciate it, and we look forward to discussing your
nomination to serve as Deputy Secretary of State.
Now, I am compelled to begin by addressing the Trump-
Ukraine scandal that has gripped the nation. The public
testimony we have heard over the last 2 weeks has detailed the
weaponization of U.S. foreign policy and national security for
the personal and political gain of President Trump.
As you may know, Gordon Sondland, the U.S. Ambassador to
the European Union, is currently testifying as part of the
House impeachment inquiry. Among other things, he has made it
clear that Secretary Pompeo was fully aware of the President's
corrupt scheme. So while completely unacceptable, it is sadly
not surprising that Secretary Pompeo has obstructed the House
inquiry and has refused to produce even a single document to
Congress.
Given Secretary Pompeo's direct involvement in the scandal,
I called on him to recuse weeks ago. I expect at some point
soon, he will realize it is untenable for continue making
decisions about document production in a matter in which he is
directly implicated. So, Mr. Biegun, you may very well be on
the hook for making decisions about the Department's
cooperation with lawful congressional subpoenas, and I look
forward to hearing how you plan to comply.
As we discussed last week, the Deputy Secretary position is
crucial to the functioning of the Department and to advancing
U.S. foreign policy. Given the expectation that Secretary
Pompeo will leave the Department early next year to run for
Senate and that, if confirmed, you will be the Acting Secretary
of State for quite some time, your nomination takes on even
greater significance.
Now, you have deep experience in foreign policy and
national security matters, and I am hopeful that, if confirmed,
you will rely on that experience in carrying out your duties.
As a former staff director on this committee, you know what it
means for the committee and the Department to engage
meaningfully on foreign policy and the results that that can
deliver for the American people. I want you to ensure that
engagement.
As a State Department official, you have worked side by
side with our career diplomats. So you know firsthand what a
dedicated and talented team the Department and our embassies
and consulates around the world have. I want you to value and
protect them.
And as a foreign policy professional in prior
administrations, you have seen how a robust State Department
advances and protects U.S. national security. I want you to
strive for this role to ensure the Department is playing that
exact role and that diplomacy is once again treated as a
critical component of national security decision-making.
These are incredibly difficult assignments given the
current state of affairs. From my perspective, the relationship
between the committee and the Department is at a low point. We
are not provided the information we need to satisfy our
oversight role, and that has to change. Our career Civil
Service and Foreign Service professionals have been debased and
demoralized. That also has to change. And you have been
nominated for this post at a time of unparalleled chaos in
American foreign policy, the likes of which I cannot recall in
my nearly 3 decades in Congress. And that too needs to change.
So, if confirmed, you will be responsible likely as the
Acting Secretary of State, for U.S. foreign policy and
management of the State Department. Your credibility will be on
the line.
In my view, this administration's actions have undermined
our ability to promote American foreign policy and national
security interests, betrayed our values, and has made our
citizens and partners, and the world less safe.
Far from America first, it is leaving America isolated,
corrupted, and behind.
Let me start with some serious ongoing concerns about the
state of the State Department itself.
The Department you will inherit is one with plummeting
morale, an insufficient budget which the administration has
repeatedly, over congressional objections, tried to cut, a
culture in which political retaliation against career civil
servants has gone unchecked, a sharp drop in new foreign
service applications, and a hollowed-out senior diplomatic
corps. If you are confirmed as Deputy Secretary, I hope fixing
these problems will be your first job.
Let me move on to one or two policy items.
Senior members of the intelligence community continue to
point to, quote, ?incontrovertible,? close quote, proof of
Russia's interference in our 2016 elections. Yet, the President
still refuses to acknowledge their attack on our democracy. And
everywhere we turn, it is hard to imagine a bigger winner these
past several years than Mr. Putin. While many in Congress and
around the world agree with the administration that our policy
with China needs adjustment and we want to work to advance that
goal, there is no evidence that the administration's efforts
have led China to change its actions in the South China Sea,
address the structural issues at play in our trade
relationship, or address its worsening human rights and
governance behavior.
You have dedicated the past few years of your life trying
to reach a denuclearized North Korea, for which we applaud you.
But North Korea is on track this year to conduct more nuclear-
capable ballistic missile tests than ever. And President Trump
has undone our defensive alliance, military exercises, shaking
the confidence of our allies and partners.
And while there is talk about restoring deterrence against
Iran's aggression, there is no sign of a comprehensive strategy
to counter Iran's growing influence throughout the regime, even
as Iran's proxy fighters grow more aggressive on all fronts
against the Israeli border.
In the western hemisphere, while the President says he
wants to confront the root causes of migration, drug
trafficking, and the opioid epidemic, he has repeatedly tried
to cripple our counternarcotics, law enforcement, and
development operations in the Northern Triangle and Mexico. All
we are left with are derogatory, hateful, and racist tweets,
tweets that will ultimately leave Americans more at risk and
the region more unstable.
And while along with the President, we support Juan Guaido
and want a peaceful end to the Maduro regime, we need to do
more to address the fate of millions of Venezuelans fleeing
their country and the hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans that
are in the United States in desperate need of temporary
protected status.
And in so many other areas, from climate change to the U.N.
to human rights, we are abdicating American leadership.
The administration appears to have completely written off
the entire continent of Africa. We are absent in South Sudan,
and we are not doing enough to combat Russian malign influence
or to provide an alternative to China. China and Russia are
hosting African heads of state at summits. In contrast, we have
a Secretary of State who has spent plenty of time in Kansas but
outside of Egypt has not set foot on the continent since his
confirmation.
I can keep going, but I think you get the point of how I
feel. Mr. Biegun, it does not have to be this way, and I hope
it gets better. There are serious people on this committee on
both sides of the aisle who are committed to advancing our
national security and to the values that have truly made
America great: democracy, governance, labor, human rights,
transparency. And if you are confirmed, our door will be open,
and I hope you will take advantage of that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Menendez.
Mr. Biegun, after that bleak portrait, perhaps you want to
rethink this, but I do not think so. Certainly we have issues
and always will have. I cannot think of anyone better to rise
to the occasion to deal with the usual issues that we have.
Mr. Biegun serves as special representative for North
Korea, as we all know, a position he has held since 2018. Prior
to serving as special representative, he served in several
senior positions at the Ford Motor Company, the office of
Senate majority leader, office of the National Security
Council, and most importantly, on this committee, for which we
are very grateful. Thank you.
Mr. Biegun, thank you for your willingness to serve at this
critical time and in this critical role. I hope you will take a
few minutes for your remarks, and then we will include your
entire statement in the record and subject yourself to the
intense questioning of this committee. Thank you so much. The
floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF STEPHEN E. BIEGUN, OF MICHIGAN,
TO BE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE
Mr. Biegun. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you, Ranking Member Menendez. It is truly an honor to be here
before this committee today, and I thank you for giving me a
chance to appear in support of my nomination as Deputy
Secretary of State.
I want to thank the President and the Secretary of State
for their confidence in me and nominating me for this position.
I also want to thank our outgoing Deputy Secretary, John
Sullivan, for 2 and a half years of stellar service in the
Department. And beyond that, I want to thank the many former
deputy secretaries of state who, over the course of the last
couple of weeks, have shared their time and counsel with me in
order to help me better understand the responsibilities and
also better prepare for the responsibilities, if I am confirmed
for this position.
I want to thank my team, who are here with me today, both
the team from the North Korea office, as well as the Deputy
Secretary's staff who have done so much to help me prepare for
this position.
I also want to state for the record what an honor it will
be to serve alongside the 76,000 men and women who constitute
our State Department, the Foreign Service, the Civil Service,
the locally employed staff and the support teams around the
world. I look forward to serving with them, and I look forward
to being a leader who is worthy of their confidence.
Let me also credit here some of the people who are most
important for bringing me here. Behind me today is my wife
Adelaide Biegun, as well as my oldest son Joseph. And they have
been with me every step of this journey. In fact, Joseph was
born in 1995, the day after we filed the START II Treaty
document here on the committee staff, and so I remember that
day well for two reasons.
Lastly, I want to thank all of you members of the committee
for your generous offer of time over the last couple of weeks
to spend time with you, to hear your priorities, to discuss my
priorities, if I am confirmed as Deputy Secretary of State. And
I do want to assure you that that will not be--that was not our
first discussion, frankly, and it will not be our last
discussion. I will be a rigorous and active engaged
representative of the Department with this committee.
Senator Risch has gone through my background, and I think
that it would be redundant for me to repeat my resume. Suffice
it to say that over the 30 years I have been here in
Washington, D.C., I have had an opportunity to work with the
people in this town and around the world in government, in the
private sector, as well as in the nonprofit sector. Through
those years, I have learned many great lessons from leaders
with whom I have worked and in my senior positions as leaders
of teams or as a member of leadership teams, I have learned
much on how to work with other people, how to serve as a leader
in an organization, and I hope to bring that to bear, if
confirmed as Deputy Secretary of State.
During my time here in the Congress, we achieved many great
things. We passed the SEED Act in 1989 to help transition the
former Warsaw Pact countries to democratic capitalism. We
passed the Freedom Support Act in 1992 to do the same with the
former Soviet Union. In the mid-1990s, we enlarged NATO for the
first time through an overwhelming treaty vote in the United
States Senate. We passed comprehensive legislation to
reorganize the Department of State. We reformed the United
Nations and paid off arrears that had accumulated over the
course of the preceding decade, and on numerous occasions, we
authorized the budgets of both the State Department and the
U.S. Agency for International Development. Lastly, one of the
proudest achievements of my time here in the Senate was our
passage of the PEPFAR program, the President's Emergency
Program for AIDS Relief in Africa, which still rates as one of
the best foreign aid programs the United States Congress has
ever approved.
As I take up new responsibilities, if confirmed by this
committee, the various issues that I intend to focus on can
roughly be broken down into three broad baskets. I plan to
focus on people. I plan to focus on policy, and of course, I
will need to focus on process and execution. Many
administrations have fallen down in their pursuit of America's
national interests in the execution rather than the formulation
of foreign policy, and I intend to bring a discipline to that
in order to ensure that to the best of our abilities, we
advance America's interests around the world.
In regards to people, as I said a moment ago, it is a great
honor to serve alongside the 76,000 people of the Department of
State. I have every intention of being fully involved in how we
manage the people, and I look forward to working closely with
an excellent Under Secretary for Management, Brian Bulatao; our
Director General of the Foreign Service, Carol Perez; and the
head of the American Foreign Service Association, our Foreign
Service union, Eric Rubin, all of whom I have had an
opportunity to have lengthy discussions over the course of the
last couple of weeks to better understand the challenges and
opportunities that we have at the Department of State. I will
do everything I can to sustain the reputation of the United
States Department of State as the finest collection of
diplomats in the world, and I am confident that we will be
successful in doing so.
As far as policy goes, of course, I will work very hard not
only to deliver the best policy recommendations I can to the
Secretary of State and through the Secretary to the President,
but I will also do the very best to extract the huge benefit of
the talent that we have inside the Department of State. As the
special representative for North Korea over the course of the
last 15 months, I have been able to draw upon unparalleled
reporting, the broad global reach of our diplomats, their
incredibly well developed judgment and the contacts that they
have nurtured in the societies where they represent the United
States of America, and I have found that it has created an
opportunity for us to advance in the most effective way
possible the policies of the President of the United States on
North Korea.
Getting the policy right is important, but I want to go
back to the people. The State Department is not an $89 billion
portfolio of real estate. It is not the 276 embassies,
consulates, and missions we have around the world. It is the
76,000 people who every day show up for work and advance
America's interests. I will be part of the talent management
process. The State Department is investing enormously in
recruitment and retention and development of our professional
teams, and I look forward to joining my colleagues in that
effort.
Lastly, in terms of process, because of my varied
experiences over the course of many years, I have come to the
conclusion that America's foreign policy is strongest when it
is most closely coordinated and transparently communicated
internally and externally. Internally, of course, for me as a
representative of the executive branch, that means maintaining
a strong role in the interagency process, drawing upon the
views and perspectives of various government agencies, our
intelligence services, and of course, our armed forces. But
also that means consultation between the executive branch and
the congressional branch. And as has been said already in the
opening statements, it would be very difficult for me to turn
my back on that experience since I have seen it from both
sides. And while there are oftentimes gray lines that divide
the prerogatives of the two branches of government,
communication is the mother's milk of moving forward, and I
will do everything I can in the course of my job to work with
the committee to respond to what are legitimately the
responsibilities and requirements of the first branch of
government while dutifully representing the prerogatives and
protections of the second branch of government.
Lastly, let me just say that in my 30 years of experience
in foreign policy, I have come to the conclusion that America's
policies are most effective when they sit on a three-legged
stool of our capabilities, our interests, and our values. Any
two of those in combination without the third could leave us
weaker and certainly presents us with uncertain prospects for
success. Our interests without our values, our values without
our capabilities, our capabilities without our interests, each
of these in my experience has been a recipe for less not more
success. But when all three work in concert, we are most
effective at advancing America's interests around the world.
And when I speak about values, I speak about American values,
but I also speak about values that so many people share around
the world: democracy, freedom, human rights, free markets. All
of these are important to me, and all of these will be among
the priorities that I seek to advance as a representative of
the Department of State, if confirmed by this committee.
I have long thought America was great, but America is not
great because of the strength of our military alone. And
America is not great because of the wealth of our economy
alone. America is great because we are good. And I will do
everything to uphold that.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Biegun follows:]
Prepared Statement of Stephen E. Biegun
Chairman Risch, Ranking Member Menendez, distinguished members of
the committee, I am honored to appear before you today as the nominee
for Deputy Secretary of State.
I am deeply grateful to President Trump and to Secretary Pompeo for
the confidence and trust they have placed in me with my nomination for
this position. I also want recognize Deputy Secretary John Sullivan for
his outstanding service during the past two and a half years. I am
grateful to John and to several other former Deputy Secretaries of
State--both Republicans and Democrats--who have generously provided me
advice and counsel as I prepare for the position for which I have been
nominated.
I want to thank the men and women of the State Department--Foreign
Service, Civil Service, locally employed staff--for the work they do
every day in advancing American interests and protecting American
citizens around the world. If confirmed, it would be my great honor to
serve alongside the 76,000 employees of the State Department in
advocating for and representing the United States of America.
I appreciate the careful consideration members of this committee
have given to my nomination, particularly during a time when so many
issues demand your attention. I am especially grateful for the courtesy
of introductory meetings in which we were able to discuss your many
priorities with the Department and U.S. policies. Should I be
confirmed, I pledge to continue close consultation with this committee
and the Congress on issues related to foreign policy.
I am a Michigander. I was born, grew up, and attended college in
Michigan. I moved to Washington after graduating from the University of
Michigan because I was drawn to public service. Except for a two-year
break after the fall of the Soviet Union, during which I led democracy
building programming in Russia on a grant from the National Endowment
for Democracy, I served for nearly two decades in government, including
seven years on the staff of this committee. During my time in Congress,
we oversaw expansion of NATO after the end of the Cold War,
Congressional approval of the PEPFAR program, sweeping reforms of the
United Nations, and authorization of the State Department and foreign
aid budgets over several years. I later served as the Executive
Secretary of National Security Council from 2001-2003, where I directed
and managed the interagency formulation, execution, and implementation
of U.S. national security policies as a senior staff member to National
Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice.
In 2004, I returned to my Michigan roots, following the footsteps
of my grandfather and great-grandfather to become the third generation
in my family to work for Ford Motor Company, one of the great American
companies. At Ford, I led an 80-person team located across 20 countries
advocating for U.S. business interests in overseas markets related to
international trade, tax policy, and regulatory issues.
Last year, Secretary Pompeo asked me to return to public service to
lead our diplomatic efforts on North Korea and tackle the problem of
North Korea's nuclear weapons program, a problem that multiple
administrations, both Republican and Democrat, have worked to resolve
for 25 years. For the past 15 months, as Special Representative for
North Korea, I have led a State Department and interagency team as we
seek to eliminate the threat posed to the United States and our allies
by North Korea's weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile
programs. We work closely on this effort with our allies--the Republic
of Korea, Japan, and Australia in the Indo-Pacific, as well as NATO
Allies--and others around the world, including China, Russia, members
of the U.N. Security Council, the EU, and ASEAN. While we have not seen
concrete evidence that North Korea has made the choice to denuclearize,
we still believe that Pyongyang can make this choice, and if confirmed,
I will continue to press U.S. efforts to make progress on the
commitments President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un made at their
Singapore Summit.
As my work on North Korea and prior service demonstrates, I am
deeply committed to diplomatic solutions to address seemingly
intractable problems. If confirmed as Deputy Secretary, I will continue
to champion diplomatic approaches to the tough challenges our Nation
faces to advance American interests and ensure that America remains
prosperous, secure, and strong.
My priorities will be simple: people, policy, and process. In order
to operate effectively and successfully advance U.S. national security
interests and American values, our number one priority must be our
people, and this is an area where I plan to focus on adding value for
Secretary Pompeo. The people of the State Department, with their
skills, character and dedicated commitment to public service, are the
champions of America's diplomacy. Having led teams at the National
Security Council, Ford, and the Department, I am particularly
interested in helping enhance our recruitment and retention of talent
by being the employer of choice, caring for our people, developing
their skills, and boosting their resiliency and well-being. Under the
leadership of Secretary Pompeo, we are nearing an all-time high in
hiring for the Foreign Service and are planning to reinforce Civil
Service staffing to fill gaps created by a past hiring freeze. If
confirmed, I will continue to advocate for and advance ongoing efforts
to accelerate hiring and training of foreign service officers and civil
servants into what is, and must continue to be, the finest diplomatic
corps in the world. I am confident that as we look after our people, we
will retain a premier diplomatic team, agile and flexible enough to
take on the global opportunities and challenges we face.
During my tenure as Special Representative for North Korea, I have
been privileged to lead a team of talented foreign service officers and
civil servants and benefitted from the unparalleled reporting,
analysis, recommendations, and work conducted by State Department
employees in Washington and around the world. If confirmed, I look
forward to continuing to draw upon the wisdom and counsel of State
Department experts. I will encourage debate and hear out dissenting
views on the broad range of challenges and opportunities for which the
State Department is responsible.
As we formulate the policies to take on those challenges and
opportunities, we will continue to be guided by our vision and our
values: a vision of a world made up of strong, sovereign, and
independent nations, thriving side-by-side in prosperity, freedom, and
peace, and our values of freedom, human rights, democratic ideals, and
rule of law. If confirmed, I will enhance our diplomatic efforts to
advance these principles and defend democratic institutions against
efforts to undermine them, including by working with civil society,
non-state partners, and the private sector. With competitors and
adversaries, we will work to find areas where our interests align in
order to advance American interests, and we will disagree where
necessary. Most importantly, we must work with our allies to enhance
and leverage our alliances to address the full range of foreign policy
challenges facing the United States today. In tackling these
challenges, we are stronger because of the alliances--in this
hemisphere, across the Atlantic, and in the Indo-Pacific--that have
been the foundation of our national security for decades.
And lastly, in order to ensure our people have the tools to execute
our policies effectively, we have to get the process right. American
foreign policy is most effective when there is smooth interagency
coordination within the executive branch, when there is close
communication and collaboration between the executive and legislative
branches of government, and when possible, there is alignment with
members of civil society and non-state partners on our policy
objectives and execution. In my tenure as Special Representative for
North Korea, I have sought to turn these goals into reality on North
Korea policy, and pledge, if confirmed, to strive to meet these goals
across all our policy priorities.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Biegun. We appreciate that.
And we will go to a round of 5-minute questions. With that,
Senator Menendez.
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I wholeheartedly appreciate your statement,
particularly your view, of what makes this nation great and the
role the State Department plays in that, and I would fully
embrace that. And if you are confirmed, we look forward to you
actually being able to fulfill that vision.
Now, I want to ask you a series of questions today of
actions that you might take as the Deputy Secretary. I would
rather have spent my time on policy, but if confirmed, there
are a range of personnel ethical, legal, and policy issues I
think that you will confront. These are not theoretical
abstractions. If they say that past is prologue, then I think
there is a great possibility that you will face some of these.
So let me begin.
This morning, Ambassador Sondland testified that Mr.
Giuliani, the President's personal attorney with a long list of
financial conflicts of interest in Ukraine and elsewhere,
worked for the State Department at the direction of the
President, that Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the
President of the United States, that Mr. Giuliani's requests
were a quid pro quo, and that relevant decision- makers at the
National Security Council and State Department knew the
important details of these efforts, which appears to have
sought to use U.S. security assistance to extort assistance on
the President's personal and political agenda.
Does this sound to you like normal U.S. foreign policy?
Mr. Biegun. Senator Menendez, I know that in parallel with
this hearing are the continuation of the hearings on the House
side reviewing the activities around Ukraine. And I should
start by stating the obvious, that in the 15 months I have been
at the Department of State, my responsibilities have been
around the issue of North Korea. So in regards to the specific
matters around the Ukraine inquiry that is happening in the
House of Representatives today, I do not have anything I can
add to your understanding.
Senator Menendez. I did not ask you that. You are an
excellent attorney.
Mr. Biegun. I just want to say this for the record.
Senator Menendez. But I am not going to have you eat up my
time as the State Department does.
Mr. Biegun. Okay.
Senator Menendez. So my question is very simple. Do you
believe that fact pattern, whether you dispute it or not,
whether you know it or not--that fact pattern--is that a normal
foreign policy process?
Mr. Biegun. Senator, I rely upon on a large suite of
outside advisors in my position.
Senator Menendez. Those advisors have conflicts of interest
against the national interests or the State Department's stated
policy?
Mr. Biegun. I presume--but I do not always have full
evidence to my advantage--that each of them is motivated
sincerely by the desire to achieve a good outcome in our
negotiations on North Korea.
But I will answer your question, Senator. I think the
questions you raise are serious ones, and while I am not going
to pass judgment at this point on facts, which I do not have
firsthand, I will say that in my work as a member of the senior
leadership team at the Department of State, I will seek to
determine those things before I decide how to recommend we act
and where I feel that it is inappropriate, I will say so.
Senator Menendez. If you are confirmed and are confronted
by a similar set of circumstances, what would you do?
Mr. Biegun. Senator, I will evaluate each case on its merit
and I will make the best recommendation to my ability. If I
feel that somebody is, in fact, advancing their own personal
interest in the course of interacting with American diplomats
in a manner that is inappropriate, I will say so.
Senator Menendez. Let me ask you this. Mr. Sondland made
the point this morning that the State Department has not
provided one single document to Congress regarding its inquiry
into the Ukraine matter. And in fact, the State Department
refused to provide him access to his own materials as he
prepared for his testimony.
If confirmed, will you cooperate with the Congress and
provide documents and materials as requested regarding the
Ukraine investigation and other matters.
Mr. Biegun. Senator, as I said in my opening statement, I
have a long record on both sides of the equation on the
interactions between the executive branch and the Congress. I
will always be accessible. I will always be straight with you
where I believe the committee can extend those documents----
Senator Menendez. And I look forward to that. But my
question is, will you provide documents?
This administration, this State Department--forget about
Ukraine for the moment. We cannot get information about the
texts of an executive agreement. We cannot get the legal
justification for failure to comply with the Magnitsky Law and
the brutal murder of Jamal Khashoggi. We cannot get the legal
basis for bypassing Congress and arguing there was an emergency
that necessitated 22 arms sales to Saudi Arabia, any material--
any material, not so much as one document.
So I appreciate your future open door policy. That does not
guarantee me and other members of this committee, who have an
oversight role over the State Department, the documentation to
make independent decisions and judgments about what is going
on.
Can I get from you that if you are in this position, that
you will have a more forthcoming attitude in providing
documentation to the committee?
Mr. Biegun. Yes.
Senator Menendez. Now, one final set of questions, if I
may. Would you commit to making clear that political
retaliation is absolutely not acceptable and to hold
accountable any State Department official found to have
undertaken any act of political retribution at the Department?
Mr. Biegun. Senator, I will state it here. All of us should
be guided by the professional requirements as leaders in the
Department of State which precludes us from making political
considerations on personnel issues or assignments.
In the case of the people who are involved in this inquiry
in the House of Representatives currently, the State Department
has made clear--and I believe that Under Secretary Bulatao did
the same to you in a direct letter--that there will not be
disciplinary action by the State Department against any of our
employees who are testifying under subpoena in front of the
House inquiry commission.
The State Department has gone further. We have provided
resources to underwrite the legal costs that those people may
acquire in the course of this inquiry, and we have also sought
to provide travel orders and support so that people who are
located outside the United States of America can return to meet
their responsibilities in front of the Congress.
Senator Menendez. I appreciate that, although the political
retribution I was speaking of certainly encompasses all those
people, and I am glad to hear that is the Department's view.
But there is an Inspector General's report about political
retributions against individuals outside of the Ukraine
process, and there are still ongoing investigations. And it is
in that context that generically across the board I would
expect you to oppose any effort of political retribution
against an individual.
Mr. Biegun. Senator, I have had the advantage of working
very closely with a team in the State Department. I have a
personal relationship with my entire team. If confirmed by this
committee, I will have responsibilities to 76,000 men and women
around the world, and I will not be able to have that same
personal relationship with each of them for obvious reasons.
But what I can do is have that same personal interaction with
the other leaders in the Department of State, and I will
reinforce the message that you just delivered.
Senator Menendez. Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Portman?
Senator Portman?
Senator Portman. Thank you.
And I am very pleased that you were willing to step
forward. You have amazing experience. I have seen it on the
National Security Council when you worked for Condy Rice.
Certainly the members of this committee appreciate the fact
that you were staff director of this committee as well as your
experience on the House side. And it is not just about
experience. It is about judgment. So I have seen that, Steve. I
am glad you are willing to step forward.
As has been indicated today by my two colleagues, who have
already spoken, it is an important job at an important time.
And your passion for the 76,000 people who represent all of us
at the State Department is also commendable, and I appreciate
that part of your testimony this morning. By the way, no notes
because it is a matter of you feeling this in your heart. I
know that from our conversations. I think that is needed right
now at the State Department, frankly. I think morale is an
issue, and I think your approach will be refreshing for a lot
of people. So I am glad you are stepping forward to do this.
A few quick questions. One on China. As I mentioned to you
briefly this morning, the Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations yesterday issued a report. We had a hearing on
China stealing intellectual property and specifically how they
do it through their talent recruitment programs. Shocking. The
State Department testified it was because visas are provided
for a lot of these individuals who then become on contract with
the Chinese government. The Chinese Communist Party actually
controls this process, and then they are asked not to tell
U.S.-funded entities, say, the National Science Foundation,
NIH, Department of Energy, that they are, in effect, working
for a Chinese institution, not allowed to disclose that. And
they are required in many cases, as you know, to bring
information, research back to China.
Do you agree that we need to tighten this up? And
specifically, will you work with us to ensure that the visa
part of this is part of the approach that we take. The
screening on the visas is virtually nonexistent now in terms of
individuals who we know are members of these talent recruitment
programs. Can you speak to that?
Mr. Biegun. Yes. Thank you, Senator.
In regard to the general issue you raise, absolutely it is
a very serious issue for us and it manifests itself in a number
of ways not just in these visits but also it manifests itself
in acquisitions of key industries and key parts of supply
chains around the world, not just in the United States
incidentally, although obviously our concern is principally the
United States, but it happens in the countries of many of our
friends and allies around the world as well. And we are not the
only ones who have woken up to it. We have seen a backlash in
countries like Australia and Germany, and the European Union
itself is pushing in a similar direction that many here in the
United States Congress are pushing.
I think it is very important for us to find a way to work
with likeminded countries in reversing this because it is a
global problem and because a lot of times those technologies
may be made in America, but they are found all over the world.
And likewise, many technologies from other parts of the world
make their way here into our industries and into our economy
and into our military industrial complex.
Senator Portman. I think that is insightful. In fact we are
working with some of those other countries because in fact we
do provide, as we do here in America because we are transparent
in terms of our research--we have the right ethical standards I
believe.
Mr. Biegun. In regard to the visas, I will take a look at
it, Senator. I am not sufficiently in depth on issues of how we
change consular processes and how we would do that, but it is
certainly something I will be willing to take a look at.
Senator Portman. Great. I will tell you your representative
yesterday actually seemed to be asking us to help them with
legislation to be able to tighten up some of the visa
requirements.
North Korea. As you know, I represent Ohio and am close to
the Warmbier family. I appreciate your work there. But it has
exposed this human rights disaster in North Korea to so many
Americans, and through Otto Warmbier's death, I think there has
been more awareness.
You are now taking a new role not just with regard to
negotiating with North Korea but a broader role as Deputy
Secretary. Are you willing to help us to be able to expose the
human rights violations that occur on a daily basis in North
Korea? And will you help this committee, in particular, to come
up with the right approach?
Mr. Biegun. Sure. Senator, as I said in my opening
statement, that is one of the core values of the United States
of America that I will advance in all of my work, including in
that portfolio.
I will say that like all of you I am deeply moved by what
happened to the Warmbiers' son. It is unacceptable. Part of the
hypothesis of our engagement with North Korea on a broad set of
issues, including denuclearization but others as well, is to
create a better basis for us to be able to have discussions on
some of these issues that have previously been off the table in
our discussions. We are not there yet not by a long shot, but I
assure you that not only will I give attention to these issues,
but I will give attention to Fred and Cindy Warmbier as well.
Senator Portman. My time has expired, but I just want to
mention one other issue quickly, the Global Engagement Center.
You and I have talked about it quite a bit. Senator Murphy is
here. He may talk about it as well. We have had a tough time in
the past sometimes getting State Department focus. Recently it
has been good. You made a commitment to me already in private.
If you could make a commitment here publicly that you are
supportive of the Global Engagement Center and going after
disinformation and propaganda of our adversaries, especially
Russia.
Mr. Biegun. Yes, absolutely, Senator. The Global Engagement
Center, which was an excellent idea but a little bit slow
getting off the ground, is now up and running. As I mentioned
to you earlier, I had a chance to site down with the director
of the center, Lea Gabrielle. She is incredibly talented. She
has put together a strong team. Even more importantly, she has
gotten office space inside the Department of State for that
team, which is like getting blood out of a turnip. And she has
also managed to get a substantial amount of funding, including
support from some of the other departments, including the
Defense Department, to get up and running. And she is up and
running and she is doing some great work. Her and her team are
in the process already of refuting some of the false narratives
that we had not tools available to us to refute 4 years ago.
Senator Portman. Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Cardin?
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Biegun, thank you very much for your willingness to
serve our country and we thank your family because we do know
there are sacrifices the family has to make.
And I must tell you I was extremely impressed by our
meeting and the conversations we had and by your opening
statement today. And I do not doubt your sincerity and your
commitments as you have expressed them.
But I do know the pressure that you are going to be under
by this administration to do otherwise. And that is why the
questions we are asking are critically important, and I
appreciate your answer to Senator Menendez in regards to if
inappropriate conduct comes to you, you will be forthcoming in
identifying that and then using your independent judgment in
regards to that. At least that is how I interpreted your
response to Senator Menendez.
Mr. Biegun. Yes.
Senator Cardin. You are taking an oath to defend the
Constitution. You know firsthand the Constitution, the
independence of the legislative branch of government. And that
is going to be tested because we have already seen this
administration take action that to me is an affront to the
Constitution of the United States as to the separation of
powers and the importance of Congress to have the information
it needs to conduct its affairs.
So my question to you is, if you are confirmed as Deputy
Secretary of State, are you willing to exercise independent
judgment in regards to the Constitution of the United States
and the importance of the separation of branches of government
to give your independent advice and, if necessary, publicly
express that in regards to the constitutional responsibilities
that the Congress has and the information that is requested
from the Department of State?
Mr. Biegun. Senator, I will not just say it. I will live
it, and if I did not, I think I would be something of a
hypocrite. I have been on both sides of this debate for a very
long time. We will not always agree. I should say that. There
will be places where the view of the Congress and the view of
the executive branch do not coincide. And that is not new, but
it should not be the default position. I will be a steady
presence here, and we will continue to discuss these issues and
work together to try to find the appropriate place for us to
meet----
Senator Cardin. Thank you on that. Again, the loyalty is to
the Constitution. And yes, we may disagree as to a request for
information, et cetera, but I am depending upon you to exercise
independent judgment as to what the Constitution requires not
so much to be the champion for this administration.
Mr. Biegun. I appreciate that, Senator. I should just state
for clarification. I am already under that oath. By virtue of
the position I took in August of last year, I swore to uphold
the Constitution and I shall continue to do so, if confirmed in
this position.
Senator Cardin. I want to get further clarity in regards--
you answered the question in regards to retaliation against the
State Department officials. I understand that in regards to the
inquiries that are taking place.
But what I want to see from the Deputy Secretary of State
is support for the independence of our career diplomats and a
climate that allows them to express their views without fear
that by expressing their honest views, that they will not be
supported at the highest levels in the State Department. Do we
have your commitment that you will encourage the independent
thoughts of our career diplomats as they perform their
responsibilities around the world?
Mr. Biegun. Within the processes of the executive branch
and in support of policies promulgated by our leadership, you
have my guarantee 100 percent. Again, my words alone do not
need to be sufficient here. I have a reputation and experience
that I fall back upon over 20 years, and my most recent
experience over the last year and a half in the Department of
State, my team, which is comprised of Foreign Service officers,
Civil Service members, political appointees, and others,
including interagency representatives--the mantra in our team
is that there are no such things as bad ideas, just bad
decisions. We listen to everything. We think it through and we
make our best recommendations.
Senator Cardin. I appreciate that. All of us have traveled.
All of us have seen our diplomats in theater. We have also
visited here in the United States. Our diplomats are not
Democrats or Republicans. They are fighting for American values
as you expressed so well in your opening statement. And they
need a champion in the State Department that will defend that
tradition of our diplomats, and that is what we are looking for
you to be able to do in your position.
I also would express protecting the values that you hold so
dear that you expressed so well in the history. And that has
been challenged by this administration. And we look to our
Deputy Secretary of State and perhaps our Acting Secretary of
State to understand that and give that type of independent
commitment to those values. You are expressing that. I just
want to reinforce the point that we will expect you to exercise
that independent judgment based upon the statements that you
have said to us today. If that is not accurate, you should
clarify it before this hearing is over.
The last point I would make, Mr. Chairman, in the opening
statement, Mr. Biegun has talked about his priorities for
people, policies, and process. We are not going to get enough
time in this hearing to go through all the different policy
issues that we have concern about. So we will ask you questions
for the record, which we do regularly. I want to underscore how
important your answers are going to be to those questions for
the record. And I just urge you to personally get engaged in
those answers and do not let the White House team answer them
for you. We are going to hold you to the answers of those
questions for the record.
Mr. Biegun. Thank you, Senator. In regard to your first
question, I so far have nothing that I have said that I would
seek to clarify and the comments I made at the beginning of my
testimony I believe sincerely.
As far as the many policy issues which we have to discuss,
both you and I know that even questions for the record
oftentimes are insufficient for the depth and nuance that we
need to have between the two branches of government to arrive
at good policy conclusions. This will not be the last time that
you and I have an opportunity to talk.
Senator Cardin. I really appreciate that answer.
Mr. Biegun. And I look forward to that.
Senator Cardin. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Paul?
Senator Paul. Mr. Biegun, thank you for your testimony and
thank you for your willingness to serve.
A lot of people have criticized the President for his
unorthodox approach to foreign policy. In fact, many in the
foreign policy establishment would probably have no discussions
with North Korea. We would have never gotten anywhere because
they thought it was beneath the President to talk to the North
Korean leader. They thought until they agreed to complete
denuclearization, we cannot talk to them. And yet, that is a
conclusion. That is why you start the talks to try to get to
where you want to get. But I think we were prevented from
diplomacy by orthodoxy, orthodoxy of having unacceptable
parameters for discussion.
So I compliment you for being willing to take part in that
knowing that there is a great deal of concern that the North
Koreans will not follow through, that we will not get the
agreement we wish. But I do think that having a discussion and
having diplomacy and having talks is a good thing.
With regard to the President's willingness to talk, I think
this also should be--the lesson of North Korea could also be
taken to Iran as well in the sense that Iran wants all
sanctions removed before they talk. I think that is
unreasonable probably from our perspective. And we want 12
points that Pompeo has laid out. And somewhere in between,
there might be a diplomatic discussion, but we have to have a
discussion. So my hope is that if you are appointed to this
position, you will be open to discussions with Iran. The
President has said he will, and I think that is one of the
President's great strengths is he is not bound up by foreign
policy orthodoxy that prevents us from talking.
The President has also said that the Iraq war was the
biggest geopolitical mistake of a generation. What is your
opinion?
Mr. Biegun. Can I comment on the first two?
Senator Paul. Sure.
Mr. Biegun. On North Korea, I want to thank you for that,
Senator Paul. That is why I came into this position. It was a
tough decision to come back into the government after 15 years
outside. But the creative opportunity that the President has
presented us with, being unhindered by--at least not completely
hogtied by 70 years of history that preceded him, has allowed
us to test new ideas which so far have not been successful, but
have also allowed us to sustain a diplomatic process for over
16 months. And the President remains of a view that Chairman
Kim Jong-un can make this decision to move forward, and if so,
the world and certainly the Korean Peninsula will be a much
more peaceful place.
In regard to Iran diplomacy, I do believe the President
would be prepared to undertake diplomacy with Iran. It requires
Iran to address the full range of American interests, much
broader than what was discussed in the JCPOA, and a level of
conduct that the President has requested of the Iranians is not
unlike that which we would request of most normal countries
around the world. The delta between Iran's conduct and those
requirements are not because the requirements set the bar too
high but because Iran's conduct is just too low.
Senator Paul. The President has also deviated from some of
the hawks around here who say we have to have regime change and
we are going to begin diplomacy with saying we are going to
have regime change. And he has said that that is not part of a
prerequisite, obviously, for diplomacy.
Mr. Biegun. And that is not his policy towards North Korea
either.
In regard to Iraq, you and I had a chance to discuss this
during our meeting in the last week. I will tell you, Senator,
as I said to you then, that the intelligence information that
suggested that Saddam Hussein had an active weapons of mass
destruction program proved to be wrong. And as that was the
premise under which we went into the war in Iraq, it was
unfortunate that we went in there on false pretense.
But as I pointed out to you, Senator, the sequence of
decisions that led to the decision to go into Iraq in 2003 need
to be traced back all the way to 1990 to the beginning of this
process when Saddam Hussein went into Kuwait. I will not use
your time to go through that sequence, but I do think it is
important for us to reflect upon the decisions--what
contributed to the decision to go into Iraq.
Senator Paul. I guess my question is more towards the
question of regime change in the sense that is regime change a
good policy. We can say we went in for WMDs, but also there are
many people that just simply wanted regime change. Hussein is a
bad guy. Assad is a bad guy. Qaddafi is a bad guy. And I guess
my point--and the President has made this point--it has not
always turned out so well.
We have such a confusing situation in Libya now that I
think there is more of a chance for terrorist organization in
that chaos now. I am not certain from one day to the next
whether our government supports the existing government of
Libya or whether they support Haftar. And there have been
various and confusing statements on that.
But I guess the point is and the question is, you know, has
regime change worked in the Middle East, or is there a lesson
to be learned from the different attempts at regime change in
moving forward?
Mr. Biegun. Yes. There are two lessons to be learned.
One is in how decisions were made, particularly in the case
of Iraq where I believe it was the sincere bipartisan judgment
of Members of Congress, as well as the executive branch, that
Saddam Hussein posed a compelling threat. But with the benefit
of hindsight, we know that the intelligence information did not
support that case. We saw what we wanted to see, and perhaps we
were also overly affected by the shock to our nation that came
from the 9/11 attacks, not that that was related to Saddam
Hussein, but only that it was driving a sense of--a mood in
this town in which decisions like that were made in a slightly
more fearful manner than we should ever make such decisions.
In terms of the success or failure of those, we have a lot
of work to do in Iraq, and Libya is in terrible shape. And so I
cannot argue objectively with the case you laid out. My job as
Deputy Secretary of State will be to take those circumstances
and try to produce the best possible outcome for the United
States of America.
If I may, I worked for an outstanding corporate leader who
used to look at the world from the vantage point of the top of
a global corporation. The world is full of problems and
challenges not of this scale or severity, but in a similar
context, he came to talk about challenges like this as
opportunities. And that is how we have to look at it. How do we
make it better? Whatever decisions were made, whatever mistaken
decisions were made have been made. We need to learn from them.
You are absolutely correct. We need to do better next time, but
we also need to make the very best under the circumstances that
this administration inherited.
The Chairman. Senator Coons?
Senator Coons. Thank you, Chairman Risch, Ranking Member
Menendez, for holding this hearing.
And to Mr. Biegun, thank you for your willingness to
continue your service to our nation. You bring to this
challenge and this opportunity experience here in the Senate
and the executive branch and the private sector, and I think
you will be fully engaged and challenged in that service, if
confirmed as the next Deputy Secretary. And to your family,
thank you for supporting what has been a meaningful career in
public service and in the private sector.
I think it is more important now than ever that the State
Department have leadership that stands up for the expertise and
the professionalism of the folks. You referenced the 76,000 men
and women who serve the State Department, whether for national
Civil Service or the career Foreign Service. And I think it is
important they know that they work with leadership that
advances the national interests and values of our country over
the narrow personal or partisan interest of any one individual.
So as we discussed when we met, this is a difficult time
for career diplomats in the State Department. Supporting them
will be one of the top elements of your job description. Your
testimony notes you will prioritize recruitment and retention
of the Foreign Service and the Civil Service.
The women and men at the State Department work hard under
difficult and challenging circumstances to implement U.S.
foreign policy which, as you said, stands on the three legs of
capabilities, interests, and our core values. I hope you will
agree these nonpartisan career diplomats need and deserve our
full support. I think leadership support is critical to the
retention that you say will be a big priority.
What are your plans to reassure our career diplomats that
as they undertake their efforts to extend our foreign policy,
they can do so without concern for a partisan reprisal or
narrow agendas overtaking our national interests?
Mr. Biegun. Thank you very much, Senator. And I very much
appreciate the conversation we had last week.
Let me say that part of what I hope serves as a message to
the men and women of the State Department with whom I will
serve, if confirmed, is our discussion today. The messages that
I have delivered to you are not intended only for your ears but
also for those of the people for whom I will have the
opportunity to serve with in the future, if the committee
confirms my nomination.
In corporate life, we have plenty of tools to gauge the
sentiment of the people in the organizations we work. We do
frequent polling of our personnel, and the management and the
leadership sit down and reflect upon those and determine course
changes or actions, or in some cases just better explanations
of tough realities are necessary in order for people to
understand better and feel more part of the decisions in the
organization. But I do not have that. We do not have that at
the Department of State.
But let me just start without refuting your assumption that
in this time of turmoil with all that is going on around us
with the members of the State Department testifying before a
committee of inquiry, that we have to give people confidence in
the issues that you describe. I will do so not only in what I
say to you but, more importantly, the behaviors that I intend
to model as part of the leadership team in the Department of
State.
I have had the benefit in the past year working with a
small part of the State Department, but as I said, a
combination of every part of the Department. We have a great
team. I have been the benefit of getting absolutely the best
out of that team because they understand our priorities,
because they have a say in how we best implement them, and
because they are aligned around that goal through their
participation and they see their work and the results. Again, I
cannot do that in all 76,000 people in the Department, but I
can make sure that that is the leadership behavior that I model
and that in doing so, that we set that tone for all of our
leaders below the deputy in the Department of State.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Mr. Biegun. I look forward to
consulting with you regularly and hope that that vision, that
prioritization of the professional career Foreign Service will
in fact characterize your service.
Let me ask, if I can, two more questions, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. As long as you stay within the 47 seconds you
have. Have at it.
Senator Coons. Forty-seven seconds. Let me begin a
question.
The ranking member asked whether Africa has been abandoned
by the current leadership of this administration's State
Department. And I know you referenced in your testimony that
your involvement in the passage of PEPFAR and its deployment
gave you a front row seat to one of the most effective, most
widely celebrated initiatives in our foreign aid program.
You also remember the time when this committee annually
passed authorization bills, and that strengthened its reach and
its capabilities.
As we talked about, the Global Fragility Act has passed the
House, has passed this committee, will pass, I hope, the Senate
with strong bipartisan support and lead to better congressional
oversight over a stronger strategy for stabilizing fragile
states. This would be critical in the Sahel in Africa, as well
as in the Northern Triangle.
Can I count on your support to actually implement that
legislation if it finally passes this body? And what do you
intend as a priority for U.S. Africa policy?
Mr. Biegun. Yes, you can, Senator. I had a chance, after
our meeting, to review the Global Fragility Act. It looks like
a very sound piece of legislation to me. One of my colleagues
at the State Department is going to be up testifying before the
Congress in a few weeks, and I am going to leave more
definitive judgments or tweaks to him.
But let me say that in my experience here on the committee,
while we did authorize foreign aid successfully a couple of
times, the most effective foreign aid programs we did were
narrow, targeted efforts to authorize specific priorities or
specific regions, the SEED Act, the Freedom Support Act, the
Millennium Challenge Corporation, PEPFAR. And I encourage you,
Senator, to think this way. I think that is how this committee
can be most effective in demonstrating the will of the
Congress. Of course, you have the legislate that in order to
move that through, and I assure you that the executive branch
will be a partner and dialogue with you that if we have any
tweaks or any priorities that we would like included in the
legislation, we will communicate those to you.
Senator Coons. Thank you. I think the MCC put out a
framework that has been transformative and should be applied
more broadly to a lot more of our foreign aid programs, and I
am hopeful that the Global Fragility Act will bring some strong
bipartisan authorizing and then some real partnership between
the executive and legislative branch in how we deliver aid to
some of the most fragile states in the world.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your forbearance.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Coons.
Senator Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Mr. Biegun, for your service and willingness
to serve.
Could you explain a little bit further your continued role
in North Korea policy under this new position, if confirmed?
Mr. Biegun. So, Senator, as you know from our many
meetings, I serve as the lead person in the Department of
State. We do not have any infrastructure or bureaucracy built
around the North Korea issue because the United States has
never had diplomatic relations with North Korea. While
ostensibly it fits, to some extent, within our East Asian and
Pacific Affairs Bureau, for many, many years the State
Department has determined that having a special representative
is an important part of bringing focus to that.
I do not see this as detracting from my focus on North
Korea. I see this as us elevating further the priority on North
Korea to the Deputy Secretary position. And I think that is
very important. I think that is not only an important message
of the President's priority and his confidence that we can
reach an agreement here, but it is an important message to our
counterparts of North Korea as well.
The person who needs to negotiate with me in North Korea is
the First Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs, Choe Son-hui. So
far, she has not participated in these negotiations in a
meaningful way, and my position as Deputy Secretary of State is
going to make sure that when we engage the North Koreans, they
are bringing forward a person at a sufficient level of
leadership and confidence in their leadership that they can
actually sit across the table from me and make decisions about
how we implement the vision that the two leaders agreed to in
Singapore.
Senator Gardner. Could you describe the current status of
our negotiation or posture with North Korea?
Mr. Biegun. We are now 15 months--I am 15 months into my
tenure. We are about 16-17 months since the Singapore summit.
We have agreed with the North Koreans on a broad construct
for how to pursue these negotiations. The two leaders agreed in
Singapore on four priorities: transforming relations, advancing
a permanent peace regime on the Korean Peninsula,
denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, and recovery of
remains, which I would say more is closing the historical
tragedy of the Korean War, healing the wounds of that war in a
way that we were very successful with our friends in Vietnam 25
years ago when we normalized relations with them. This is a
core part of two societies coming to grips and reaching closure
and moving forward.
In each of these areas, we have discussed with the North
Koreans feasible, specific initiatives that can begin advancing
us in that direction while needing to put in place a broader
construct----
Senator Gardner. Do you believe that we are closer to
denuclearization today of the North Korean regime than we were
15 months ago?
Mr. Biegun. I do, but I have to say, Senator, in all
candor, there is no meaningful or verifiable evidence that
North Korea has yet made the choice to denuclearize. But as was
discussed earlier, we have to start with the point of
engagement. We have listened to the North Koreans.
Senator Gardner. And our policy remains complete,
verifiable, irreversible denuclearization of the North Korean
regime.
Mr. Biegun. Yes, sir.
Senator Gardner. And maximum pressure continues to be the
doctrine that the administration will apply.
Mr. Biegun. Senator, we have maintained through the entire
tenure of my role here, oftentimes to the discontent of the
North Koreans, the complete set of sanctions that are in place.
But the President has said he would be pleased to have the
opportunity to move forward in a balanced way with the North
Koreans towards that ultimate goal of complete, verifiable,
irreversible denuclearization if we could begin to make
progress on the real issues, the tangible issues of
denuclearization.
Senator Gardner. Is China doing everything they need to be
doing to enforce sanctions against North Korea?
Mr. Biegun. No.
Senator Gardner. Is Russia doing everything they need to be
doing to enforce sanctions against North Korea?
Mr. Biegun. They could do more.
Senator Gardner. Should we continue our efforts to sanction
third parties in China, Russia, and beyond that are violating
the sanctions?
Mr. Biegun. We do.
Senator Gardner. And you would support those sanctions and
continue those sanctions.
Mr. Biegun. We do.
Senator Gardner. Thank you.
Turning quickly to the burden sharing agreement with South
Korea, it is your belief, if confirmed, to continue to advocate
for presence of U.S. military personnel in South Korea.
Mr. Biegun. Countries like South Korea, with which the
United States has longstanding shared interests and values, our
alliance partners who are the foundation of American influence
in various parts of the world, South Korea is among our most
important alliance partners. That does not mean anybody gets a
free ride. We have a tough burden sharing negotiation that we
are in the middle of with the South Koreans. We have asked a
lot of the American armed forces to serve abroad----
Senator Gardner. But you believe we should continue a
presence in South Korea.
Mr. Biegun. I do.
Senator Gardner. Thank you.
Japan is the same--the SMA. Negotiations are going to
continue but we should maintain a presence in Japan.
Mr. Biegun. Not just with Japan but with all the countries
with which we have alliances currently. But it also requires
those countries to take fully seriously their responsibilities
in the alliance as well. I am confident we can do this through
negotiations, but these are going to be tough negotiations.
Senator Gardner. There were some very disturbing reports
out of China--continue to be very disturbing reports out of
China particularly related to the treatment of Uighurs, ethnic
minorities in western China, in Xinjiang in particular. We have
reports in the New York Times that students were told their
behavior could shorten or extend the detention of their
parents. They were threatened for their own good that their
behavior fall in line with the Chinese Communist Party
officials and dictates. Senior party leaders were recorded
ordering drastic and urgent action against Uighurs. Some very
disturbing documents have been released in the New York Times
and others.
What should the United States be doing right now as it
relates to China's treatment of ethnic minorities, Uighurs,
Christians, you name it, detention camps that are more like
concentration camps, reeducation camps that are simply a prison
not a school, and the threat that the people of China are
facing from these kinds of actions?
Mr. Biegun. So I saw that same press report that you
described and I read the documents and they were chilling.
I also saw a press report maybe a week before that that
showed some of the photographic evidence of the systematic
elimination of Muslim heritage sites, cemeteries, mosques.
While I in no way question the veracity of these accounts,
I have learned to be a little bit gun shy about accepting at
face value either photos or reports these days because of the
ease with which these can be manipulated or manufactured. But
that said, I have no reason to question the veracity of these,
and in fact, I think all of these reports suggest an appalling
type of behavior that is targeted against an ethnic population
and a religious community in China, and it is unacceptable.
Senator Gardner. I apologize. I am out of time.
Should we pursue sanctions, Global Magnitsky sanctions, or
others against Chinese officials responsible for the detention
of these?
Mr. Biegun. We will take a look at it, Senator.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Biegun, let me follow up for just a minute on an area
that was raised by Senator Gardner. You know, I was sitting in
the closing ceremonies of the Olympics in 2017, the Winter
Olympics, in Seoul with a number of people from the State
Department when all of our cell phones went off with the news
that Kim Jong-un had indicated that he was willing to talk and
talk along the lines that we had to have, and that is the
complete, verifiable denuclearization. And admittedly it came
through the South Koreans, not the North Koreans. But I think I
can tell you that all of us were shocked that that direct kind
of a communication came out. Since then, of course, you and the
administration are making the serious efforts that you have to
try to get to that point.
We all know that this is a one-man show, and I cannot
fathom that that text that came out was not authorized, and
indeed, Kim Jong-un himself as much has said that that is where
he was at the time.
Give me the executive summary. What is holding us up right
now? Because he obviously does have the kind of power that
nobody in this country has or, for that matter, most countries
have. What is holding this up right now?
Mr. Biegun. Senator, let me start by saying that the
President continues to have confidence that the discussions
that he has had in private and in larger groups with Chairman
Kim convince him that we can move forward on the priorities
that the two of them agreed to in Singapore. The job of my team
and myself are to test the hypothesis of whether or not the
North Koreans can make that choice.
In the course of the meetings that I have had over the 15
months as the lead U.S. negotiator, I have met with
counterparts on the other side of the table who are capable,
who are experienced diplomats. But they have no authority. They
have been given no authority to work through the hard,
complicated issues that we are going to have to make progress
on in order to present each of our leaders in North Korea and
the United States a successful path to achieve the vision they
laid out in Singapore. You described the North Korea system
well. This is why the administration, the President, has used
direct contact at the leader level as a catalyst to change the
dynamic that has failed to produce a durable solution for 25
years to these intractable issues. But at the same time, we
have to convince the North Koreans to open space below the
leader level for the kind of dialogue we have.
This goes back to my answer to Senator Gardner, that if
confirmed in this position, I will bring a higher stature to
the North Korean issue. I am fully committed, and I believe it
is possible for us to get a diplomatic outcome that is
satisfactory to the United States and that I believe the North
Koreans at the end of the day will find satisfactory as well.
But we have yet to engage with an empowered negotiator
across the table. I believe that person is the First Vice
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Choe Son-hui. She has the
confidence of Chairman Kim. She is among the senior leaders in
the North Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs. She is constantly
in his presence, and she has been given the level of confidence
by Chairman Kim that President Trump has given to me.
And let me say I fully believe in the President's policies
here. I think he has created an opportunity for us that we have
not had in a generation. The window is still open, but the
North Koreans should not miss this opportunity. If we cannot do
it with the circumstances we have now, with the alignment of
leaders we have now in South Korea, Japan, even Russia and
China--even with countries like Russia and China with whom we
agree on very little, we do agree on the objectives for peace
and stability on the Korean Peninsula and for transforming
relations there to a much better future for all of us. But
ultimately it is the North Koreans that have to make the
choice, Mr. Chairman. And as I said earlier to Senator Gardner,
we do not have any verifiable or meaningful evidence that they
have yet made that choice. Our hypothesis is they can make that
choice, and that is what our determined efforts are designed to
test.
The Chairman. Well, I appreciate that. And I agree with
everything that you have said.
I guess the thing that has troubled me is, first of all,
there was no reason for Kim Jong-un to make the statement he
made if indeed he was not headed in that direction. There would
be no reason for him to do that.
And then secondly, when I was in North Korea, I was--as I
am sure you have been--incredibly impressed with the bench on
each side like Allison Hooker on our side, people who have been
at the table for decades on all the details of this. And so my
view of these things is that you can really get to the place
that you want to get to if both sides have a common objective
and if both sides are acting in good faith to get there. It is
just a matter of working through the details to get there, and
that has proven to be elusive it seems to me. And I am
surprised at that, like I said, with the experience these
people have had. These people know each other on a first name
basis that have been working for decades at this.
So that is just my impression being outside of this, but
your thoughts on that.
Mr. Biegun. When we engage in these discussions with the
North Koreans, Senator, it is fairly obvious to us that we are
able to reach the people. We have good discussions, even a few
weeks ago when our two teams met in Stockholm. While the
characterization after the meeting was quite negative from the
North Korean side, during the course of a daylong discussion,
we had a very constructive discussion about feasible steps that
we could take moving forward to advance the vision of the two
leaders. For their own reasons, they chose to characterize that
as a failure. They even used the word ?sickening? talks.
The dilemma we face here is there are the people and there
is the system. Reaching the people is not our challenge.
Penetrating the system is. But that is where we need the strong
support of the leader of that system, Chairman Kim, to create
the space below himself to empower a negotiator who is capable
and has his confidence to advance that vision.
President Trump has given my team and myself all of the
tools we need to test the hypothesis that I described. The
window is still open. But we all know that events of the world
move on. The provocations that we have seen in recent months,
various things that happen here, congressional legislation,
human rights resolutions, speeches, comments, commentators,
private citizens, all are sufficient to affect the view of the
North Koreans on this diplomacy. And we cannot stave all of
that off. We are a democratic society. We have separate
branches of government that speak for themselves. But the
window is still open. That is the message for the North
Koreans. The window is still open but they need to seize the
moment.
The Chairman. Thank you for your optimism and your sincere
work in this regard.
Senator Udall?
Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you for your service, Mr. Biegun. I really
appreciate you are willing to step forward in these difficult
times.
Will you recommend to the President, the Secretary of
State, and the National Security Advisor that they seek an
authorization from Congress, as required by the Constitution,
before entering into any hostilities with Iran?
Mr. Biegun. So, Senator, I have been part of this debate in
the Congress.
Senator Udall. This is a pretty straightforward yes or no
here. I understand that there is a debate, but this is a
constitutional issue. You are a lawyer.
Mr. Biegun. I am not a lawyer, sir. I am a former
congressional staff member and a representative of the
executive branch. But I have participated in this.
We are strongest when we have the Congress and the
executive branch standing together in unity. That is what
happened in 1990--1991 when George Herbert Walker Bush sought
authorization for the use of force to expel Saddam Hussein from
Iraq. That is what happened after 9/11. That is what happened
in 2002 when we went into Iraq. It does not always guarantee
success, but it is the best foundation for us to send our armed
forces abroad.
At the same time, Senator, this is a subject fraught with
constitutional disagreement between the two branches of
government. It is one that has never been completely settled,
and it is not my intention today as a non-lawyer to create any
new precedent.
Let me just say that I believe that that kind of engagement
between the executive branch and Congress is important and
constitutes an important part of not only success in these kind
of undertakings, but also in winning and sustaining the support
of the American people who ultimately bear the brunt of
decisions on sending their sons and daughters into conflict.
Senator Udall. With the U.S. troop withdrawal from Syria,
the Trump administration has touted that he is fulfilling a
campaign promise to bring troops home. In contrast, there have
been reports that the administration will now keep troops in
northern Syria to defend an oil well in possible violation of
U.S. and international law.
Meanwhile, we are deploying several thousand additional
troops to Saudi Arabia apparently because they are paying for
our petroleum and paying for our protection.
I voted for the 2001 AUMF, and I can tell you that Congress
never intended to give the President permission under the 2001
AUMF to defend an oil well in Syria or to invade Syria, for
that matter.
Under what legal authority is this administration
maintaining troops in Syria, and who are we giving the oil to?
And do we know what they are doing with the money they are
getting for it?
Mr. Biegun. So, Senator, I will confess that I do not have
all of the details at my disposal currently prior to taking the
position to understand the totality of the issues that you are
raising.
But let me say generally I do know that we are retaining
that presence in Syria, and it is my understanding as well that
it is for purposes of protecting vital economic interests but,
mostly in that case or entirely in that case, to deprive some
of the more malign forces that remain in Syria from seeking
access to those resources to support their own aims.
The United States policy in Syria with the troops that
remain there and our presence in the region of the Middle East
are to maintain the enduring defeat of ISIS, which is going to
require a longer effort than we have seen so far. It is also to
seek to be part of the leverage that we use to achieve a more
peaceful outcome in the Syrian territory, the restoration of
its sovereignty, the return of internally displaced people and
refugees to their homes, and ultimately also to maintain U.S.
leverage to keep Iranian influence from growing any further
and, if possible, reversing it.
The authority for that is likely, Senator, the same
authority that the executive branch used in the initial
deployments into Syria before this President took office.
I understand the strong views here in the executive branch
about the need for these authorizations. I will tell you like
many other issues we have discussed today, I have been on both
sides of that equation. My view is that we are at our strongest
when we are unified on these issues.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Romney?
Before you start, for the benefit of the committee, we have
a vote that just started, and what I intend to do is to run
that along as late as we can until they are screaming for us to
come down and vote. We will take a break when we do, go down
and vote for the first and the second, which will be the only
two in this tranche, and then come back here to finish up, just
for everyone's edification.
So with that, Senator Romney.
Senator Romney. Mr. Biegun, thank you for being here today
and for your willingness to serve our country yet again.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for hosting this hearing and our
ranking member.
I presume you were born at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit.
Is that right?
Mr. Biegun. Providence, sir. Providence.
Senator Romney. I was born in Harbor Hospital in Detroit,
so we have that shared beginning although not in the same
hospital. I cannot imagine you would not have been at Henry
Ford, given your family history.
Mr. Biegun. Yes. My grandfather and great grandfather both
worked for Ford, but my dad slipped out of the auto industry.
But I found my way back to it a generation later.
Senator Romney. They should give a discount for family
members.
Putting that aside, I believe the challenge of the century
that we have is one where democracy, human rights, a vibrant
economy, free enterprise, freedom itself is going to be
challenged by an emergent China, which has an entirely
different model based upon authoritarianism.
Is that a fair characterization from your point of view?
Mr. Biegun. It is, Senator. It has been much debated in
recent years about whether or not the basic assumptions we made
in the late 1990s and the early 2000s will prove to be
completely wrong, and I think there is plenty of evidence to
suggest they are. We thought we could bring China into global
institutions, and the global institutions would change the
behavior of China. But instead, what we have seen is a
concerted effort by China to change the rules of the global
organizations. Those rules help us. Those rules are good for
us, but they are also good for the world. And it is very
important for us that we fortify across the board the effort to
reinforce these global norms.
Senator Romney. I totally agree. That is the challenge of
the century where freedom, human rights, democracy, the
prosperity of all by virtue of the power of free enterprise is
being challenged by China that has an entirely different model.
They also have a very effective strategy, a very
comprehensive strategy, which encompasses not only their desire
to become the economic, military, and geopolitical leader of
the world, but a strategy which has as its point of the spear
economic warfare, if you will, of a kind, not playing by the
rules that the rest of the world plays by, as well as taking
away the rights of their people, indoctrinating their people,
brainwashing their people, and affect public attitudes around
the world.
Some people say that we have a strategy. I made a living
working in strategy. We do not have a strategy that stands up
under the meaning I would apply to that term. They do.
I would hope that the State Department and you in
particular would augur for the creation of an American and
Western strategy to protect the rules of the road as it relates
to our economy, to protect our military lead, and to protect
our geopolitical priorities and believe it is of the highest
urgency that we contemplate the development of that kind of
strategy.
Do you agree with that?
Mr. Biegun. I do, Senator. I agree with you that--of the
desires that you see in the People's Republic of China, but I
would point out that desire does not equal likelihood of
success. Strategy affects likelihood of success but not desire.
The Chinese may desire this, but I am not sure they have a
great strategy. In many places around the world, I actually see
countries reacting quite negatively to that. One of the places
maybe we can be more effective is finding a way to work with
likeminded partners in concert to address the issues of mutual
concern.
But let me also say that I spent a lot of time in China. I
spent a lot of time there in track 2 and track 1.5 dialogues. I
spent many years there as a business person. The company in
which I was formerly employed was and remains heavily invested
in China.
China is not a monolith. I would not write off China
altogether. There are many, many good people with whom we can
work and with whom we can cooperate. This is a particularly
tough moment, and I do have some deep concerns about the shift
in the direction of Chinese leadership over the last few years,
which in a single party state is of course consequential. But
we should not give up on China either, Senator.
Senator Romney. I totally agree. One of the statements that
you made in your opening remarks was this. We must work with
our allies to enhance and leverage our alliances to address the
full range of foreign policy challenges facing the United
States today. I totally agree.
For a small country--and we are a small country relative to
China. They are almost four times our size. Their economy will
be larger than ours eventually--much larger. Their military
will be larger than ours eventually given that economic base
barring some kind of discontinuity which may occur. That is
very possible that will occur. But they are going to be a very,
very strong nation.
And the way that a smaller nation is able to defend the
global interests that are associated with freedom and human
rights is by linking arms with our friends around the world and
strongly encourage the State Department and you as a leader to
foster an attitude of cooperation and joint strategy
development with our allies around the world.
Mr. Biegun. So, Senator, I resorted to a little corporate
speak earlier. I do not know if you were here. But I worked for
a former CEO of Ford Motor Company who did not refer to
challenges but rather to opportunities. I see it as an
opportunity-rich environment for us. We have to approach things
the right way. We have a lot of partners we can work with, but
I am confident that we have a lot of headroom to make some very
important improvements and achieve alignment with many
countries around the world on these shared concerns.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Romney.
Unfortunately, we are up against it on the vote. So we are
going to take a break. I appreciate the inconvenience, but it
is what we live with. So with that, we will be in recess until
the second vote has started and we are able to vote on that.
[Recess.]
The Chairman. The committee will come to order.
I apologize for the inconvenience, but it is what it is.
Senator Cruz, you are up.
Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Biegun, congratulations on your nomination.
I want to start by talking about a topic you and I
discussed yesterday afternoon, which is Nord Stream 2. In your
judgment, what would the consequences be for Russia, for
Europe, and for America if Nord Stream 2 is completed and goes
online?
Mr. Biegun. Senator, as I said to you yesterday and I will
affirm here, it is our policy in the United States government
that we oppose the completion of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. We
think that it will add leverage to Russia's ability to bring
political influence to bear upon many of our partners and
allies in Europe. It will also potentially cause economic
damage to Ukraine by bypassing Ukraine with important energy
supplies. More importantly, it seems to me that it will also
cement in place a certain status quo that I think needs to
fundamentally change, which is that Russia should be engaged in
a transparent, legitimate way with our European friends and
allies, but they should not be given undue influence and
certainly not under the circumstances in which we see Russian
policies being guided today, which is to actively subvert many
of our friends and allies in Europe. And I think this pipeline
is simply one more tool they will be able to use.
Senator Cruz. Well, I agree with you. Nord Stream 2, if
completed, would help Russia. It would strengthen Putin. It
would generate billions of dollars that could be used to fuel
Russian aggression. And at the same time, it would hurt all of
Europe by making Western Europe more dependent on Russian
energy, more subject to economic coercion, more subject to
economic blackmail. I think it is better for all parties
concerned for Europe to be able to get energy from sources that
will not use it as economic black-mail. And were Europe to be
importing energy from the United States, that means jobs here
at home instead of enriching Putin.
As you know, this committee passed my bipartisan
legislation on Nord Stream 2 by an overwhelming bipartisan
vote, 20 to 2. That legislation is right now pending on the
floor. I am hopeful that the Senate will take it up and that
the House will pass it. Our window for getting this done is
rapidly shrinking. Our window for getting this done--the
current projections are the pipeline will be completed by
January, which means we have maybe 2 months to get this done,
and if we fail to get it done, we will have vastly strengthened
Putin's hands at the expense of the rest of the free world. I
hope that the Senate acts, takes it up on the floor and passes
it. And the House does as well.
But there is an alternative way to get the job done, which
is under CAATSA. The administration already has the authority
to impose these sanctions. There is right now an active debate
within the administration about whether or not to use that
authority. The legislation that has overwhelming bipartisan
support is narrowly tailored. It is designed like a scalpel to
stop this pipeline and do nothing more. There are five
companies on the face of the planet that have the technology to
lay the deep-sea pipeline. The Russians lack that technology
themselves. They have contracted with two European companies.
If Congress passes the legislation or if the administration
simply uses its existing authority under CAATSA to implement
the same policy--to sanction any company that lays this deep-
sea pipe, Nord Stream 2 will stop in its tracks.
So I want to encourage you, Mr. Biegun, to go back to the
administration to the debate that is occurring as we speak and
make abundantly clear that giving speeches saying the
administration is opposed to Nord Stream 2 is a completely
empty gesture if the administration is not willing to act under
its statutory authority it has right now to stop the pipeline.
The strength of the rhetoric, the strength of the denunciations
of Nord Stream 2 will be measured by one simple test: did we
allow the pipeline to be built or not? And the administration,
with a flip of a switch, can stop this pipeline. And so I would
encourage you to carry that message back.
There are voices within the administration that are
resisting using this authority, and I think those arguments--
and in fact, the arguments they are posing is they hypothesize
that, ``well, maybe Russia has ships that might be able to lay
this pipeline after all.'' Now, my team thinks that they are
incorrect in their assessment. But even if they are correct,
the worst outcome is that imposing the sanctions on the
companies laying the deep-sea pipe would delay Nord Stream 2 by
over a year and cost billions more to Putin, delaying the
benefits. The best outcome, and the outcome that I think is
likely, is we stop the pipeline altogether. Either way, that is
a win-win. So, I would encourage you to carry that to your
colleagues.
Mr. Biegun. Thank you, Senator. And as you said yesterday,
you have also had a chance to discuss this with Secretary
Pompeo. I have not seen him since then. He is on travel
currently. But I assure you I will follow his lead on this.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
I am sure you know, Mr. Biegun, that Senator Cruz's passion
on this is not limited to Senator Cruz himself. This is
widespread here in this institution. He speaks for the vast
majority I think of the United States Congress on this issue.
Senator Markey, you are next.
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
Mr. Biegun, thank you for your service in government and
leading our diplomatic outreach in North Korea.
On Monday, a senior advisor to Kim Jong-un rebuffed the
suggestion from the administration to hold another summit.
Meanwhile, we are 6 weeks away from the end-of-the-year
deadline set by Pyongyang.
Mr. Biegun, if Washington and Pyongyang fail to make
diplomatic progress regarding North Korea's nuclear weapons
program before December 31st, what actions do you believe North
Korea will take and how might these actions affect the security
of our allies and the United States?
Mr. Biegun. Thank you, Senator.
In fact, we have seen an unprecedented surge in North
Korean statements, not limited to the statement that you
referred to, which is surprising, almost unprecedented in
discipline in North Korea on the way they communicate to us.
And it has caused us to ponder a bit about what is exactly
going on in Pyongyang. A number of officials--in fact, over the
last week, we have had seven statements under the name of five
different officials on various elements of this.
Let me say clearly we have never proposed another summit
with the North Koreans. It is possible that there would be
another summit between President Trump and Chairman Kim, but
the President has expressed the view that we should have a deal
or a near deal in order to ensure such a summit actually
produces an outcome that delivers on the vision of the two
leaders.
Let me say likewise there has been some suggestion that I
have appealed to the North Koreans to meet again in Stockholm.
And let me be clear. While we are willing to do so, we would do
so at the invitation of the Swedish government that has reached
out to us and to the North Korean regime directly.
On a third point, on the year-end deadline, we do not have
a year-end deadline, Senator. We have been at this for 25
years, and we will be at this as long as it takes. That is an
artificial deadline set by the North Koreans, and
unfortunately, it is a deadline that they have set upon
themselves now. That does not make it any less worthy of our
attention, but it is not our deadline. It is their deadline,
and they put that on themselves.
You asked me what kind of provocations that we might expect
in the aftermath of that. I can imagine that we could see a
possibility of going back to some of the more provocative steps
that preceded the start of this diplomacy to begin with. I
think that would be a huge mistake and a missed opportunity by
the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. The window for
diplomacy is open.
Senator Markey. If I may, President Trump tweeted to Kim on
Sunday, see you soon. So I am not saying he said let us have a
summit, but see you soon--when the presidents of two countries
meet, that is a summit. That is the President perhaps engaging
in diplomacy around the State Department. I do not know. But
that is how he operates. And if that is a message sent to
Pyongyang, then the message that came back is saying that is
not going to happen. That was on Monday of this week.
Mr. Biegun. Senator, can I just comment briefly on that?
Senator Markey. I just have a couple questions.
Mr. Biegun. Sure. Yes, sir. Go ahead.
Senator Markey. So has North Korea continued to produce
fissile material for nuclear weapons since the leader level
summits began?
Mr. Biegun. Senator, in this setting, what I would say is
we have no evidence to suggest that they have stopped.
Senator Markey. So that means your answer is yes. Is that
correct?
Mr. Biegun. Yes.
Senator Markey. Has North Korea continued to test nuclear-
capable missiles that can target our allies in South Korea and
Japan, as well as American forces in the region?
Mr. Biegun. As I said, North Korea has--as I said earlier,
Senator, we have seen no meaningful or verifiable evidence that
North Korea has begun the process of denuclearization, taken
the steps that we are asking.
However, Senator, we look at this holistically. There are a
whole range of----
Senator Markey. Is the answer yes that they continue to
test nuclear-capable missiles?
Mr. Biegun. That is correct.
Senator Markey. And next, do shorter-range missile tests
help North Korea advance its intercontinental ballistic missile
program?
Mr. Biegun. One can presume that they learn things from the
short-range ballistic missiles that can be scaled up.
Senator Markey. Yes. So they continue to proceed. We have
not, in fact, tightened up those sanctions to a level where Kim
knows that we mean business. I think it is, again, a continuing
problem. And as North Korea does advance its nuclear weapons or
ballistic missile programs, your role is going to be even more
important, and you are going to be in a position to perhaps do
something about it so that you can make the recommendations as
to how tough we have to make these sanctions to bring him to
the table.
And finally, North Korea also engages in systematic human
rights violations. Last year for the first time since 2013, the
U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. failed to place on the Security
Council agenda an annual meeting to discuss North Korea's
abuses. I am putting together a letter from members here to
Ambassador Craft to make clear that the meeting must return to
the agenda because from North Korea to Cambodia to Turkey to
Saudi Arabia to Burma, we are seeing an explosion of human
rights violations.
Mr. Biegun, what steps would you take to help the United
States strengthen our claim to moral leadership in the human
rights area?
Mr. Biegun. Thank you, Senator. And let me also thank you
for your many years of leadership on the issue. I know that you
come from a point of passion on this, as traced back the full
25 years of our diplomatic efforts.
Senator, we are grappling with a challenge that was fully
manifested by the time President Trump took office and one
which drove us to an unprecedented level of tensions in 2017,
only to pivot to a diplomatic opportunity in 2018 that I
continue to believe is possible. I believe the President's
direction is sound. I have interactions with him on this issue.
His inputs on this have almost--in fact, in all cases advanced
what we are trying to do, including his tweets and his public
messages, which are very specifically intended to reassure the
North Koreans that we are prepared to engage seriously in this
diplomatic----
Senator Markey. My time has expired. I would just say but
when it is not on the agenda of the Security Council, that
sends another signal to Kim.
Mr. Biegun. Senator, we continue to----
Senator Markey. The more pressure that we apply by having
other countries have to deal with it, it is the more pressure
Kim----
Mr. Biegun. Senator, we continue to make this issue a high
priority. Just in the last week in the Third Committee of the
United Nations, there was a similar resolution. It did not
generate a very positive response by the North Koreans. In
fact, one of those seven messages from five different authors
that we received in the past week was a blistering
denunciation, but that does not deter us, Senator. We have
values that we will pursue around the world regardless of the
country with whom we are interacting.
My view is that if we could advance down the road some of
the objectives that the President and Chairman Kim have
decided, we can find an easier way to have this discussion on
sensitive issues which heretofore have not been on the agenda,
at least the bilateral agenda of the United States and North
Korea. It is challenging. It is one of the most difficult
issues we wrestle with when it comes to North Korea. But I can
assure you we are not shying away from American values on these
issues.
Senator Markey. Put it back on the Security Council agenda.
That will prove we are not shying away.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Markey.
Senator Murphy, you are next.
Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Good to see you, Mr. Biegun. Thank you for your interest in
continuing to serve.
The ranking member referenced in his opening round of
questions the absolutely earth-shattering testimony that we are
hearing today from Ambassador Sondland testifying that under
the President's orders, he and others were engaged in an effort
to try to get the Ukrainian government to investigate or launch
investigations connected to the President's political rivals in
exchange for access to the White House and the release of
security aid.
This is a really serious moment when we are learning that
many, if not most, of the people at the top of America's
national security leadership were asked to do things that they
knew were wrong, but they did them anyway. And they are now
testifying to that in droves before the committee.
And so I do not want to dwell on this with you, but I do
not think it is sufficient for you to avoid sharing with this
committee your judgment on some of the most egregious events
that are being detailed and upon the principles that are at
stake because you are going to be in a position in which you
may have to deal with similar instances, if not identical
instances, especially if there are no consequences handed down
for this behavior.
So let me just ask you two questions. One is a principle-
based question and one is a question based upon at least one
fact that has unequivocally emerged.
The first is a principle-based question. Is it ever proper
to withhold access to the White House or security aid as
leverage to secure political help for the President?
Mr. Biegun. Senator, I take my lead from the Senator from
my home State of many years ago, Arthur Vandenberg, who
suggested that politics best stop at the water's edge. I think
that goes into the conduct of our foreign policy worldwide, and
that is the dictum that I will abide by.
Senator Murphy. The answer would be that it is not proper.
Mr. Biegun. It is not something I would recommend.
Senator Murphy. Second, a fact-based question. You
acknowledged that Presidents have relied sometimes on outside
advisors both for domestic policy and foreign policy, and I do
not deny that. There is certainly a history of relying on
outside individuals to help advance the goals of the President
of the United States.
But Rudy Giuliani was and still does openly advertise
himself as representing the political interests of the
President. He does not represent that he is helping to
effectuate the national security goals of this country. He is
unabashed in his representation that he is there to represent
the political interests of his client, Donald Trump.
And so do you believe it was proper for Rudy Giuliani to
play a role in U.S.-Ukraine policy?
Mr. Biegun. Senator, I do not know what qualifications an
individual like that would bring to these issues, and as I said
earlier to Senator Menendez, I do not have firsthand knowledge
of what role he played or what he was telling the President or
what opinions the President formed based upon what he was
telling him.
I will tell you in my experience--and all ultimately I can
be judged upon is the record of my own experience and my own
reputation. I understand we will be challenged. I will be
challenged both on policy issues, as well as issues of
propriety, and that would happen in any administration,
Senator. I have a record of not interjecting politics into the
foreign policy of the United States. I work with a team of a
dozen professionals at the State Department. I do not know
their politics, and I do not care. Using somebody for any
purposes other than to advance the policy is not something that
I intend to pursue or would recommend pursuing.
Senator Murphy. Listen, I do not think we have any other
choice than to take you at your word. But we have had plenty of
other nominees for important posts at the State Department who
have sat in that seat and testified the exact same thing to us.
And then when they were confronted with these requests to put
the political interests of the President before the national
security interests, they might have complained privately and
now they are complaining publicly, but for the most part, they
implemented those.
Mr. Biegun. I understand your skepticism, and I understand
the degree of concern you bring, Senator. But I want to say
these are more than words. This is also my background and my
experience. It is a model that I have followed.
Senator Murphy. I appreciate that.
I will not ask you to give a long answer to this question,
but you and I have talked about the really damaging diminution
in U.S. diplomatic presence in Iraq. We had 2,000 diplomats
there in 2012, which was a very dangerous time. Today
reportedly we have 15 State Department officials working
directly on core diplomatic functions, and it is not
coincidental that Iraq is beginning to unravel as the United
States has pulled out. It is no longer justified based on
security threats to have this minimal presence because we had
even greater security threats confronting our diplomatic
personnel for long portions of our time in Iraq. We need to
find a way to get our folks back into Baghdad before we lose
everything that we have gained in that country.
Can you at least today just commit to me--I mean, there is
news that this is permanent, that the Secretary has made a
decision that we are just out of Baghdad, and that would be
disastrous for U.S. national security interests. Can you just
make a commitment to give a very hard look at our presence in
Baghdad and see if there is a way to get our people back in?
Mr. Biegun. I will, sir.
Senator Murphy. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Kaine?
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And, Mr. Biegun, thank you for your service. You have done
a very good job in your current role in my view. It has not
borne the fruit we would want, but that is on North Korea, not
on you. And I think you have been creative, and I appreciate
your persistence in that role.
One of the things you told me when we talked, which I found
fascinating, is the challenge of being an American diplomat
when the people you are sitting with across the table are
afraid. You mentioned that some of them put a tape recorder on
the table when you start talking, and they are not taping you.
They are taping themselves because others want to listen to
them and see if they have done a good job. It is a hell of a
thing to be a hard-working public servant and worry about
whether doing your job will cost you your career or cost you
your safety or even cost you your life. And that is something
we might expect--and condemn--from another country. That is not
something that should ever be thought of about the United
States.
You have an ambassador who is a career Foreign Service
officer who was fired under highly unusual circumstances, and
the person who currently occupies your position, John Sullivan,
told her she had done nothing wrong. He confirmed that in
testimony here last week. So her career has been significantly
affected. When the American with the loudest bully pulpit in
the world says that she is bad news and then tweets out that
she may bear some responsibility for the internal disarray in
Somalia, her career has been affected.
It is more than just career. There is reporting in the Wall
Street Journal and Reuters and other publications that the Army
is now assessing whether they need to move one of the witnesses
who has testified in the House, Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, who
lives in Virginia--whether they need to move him to a military
base to protect him because of allegations that have been made
about his loyalty, about his patriotism, about his character,
and about his judgment.
If you are confirmed into this role, you will be chairman
of something that is called the ``D Committee,'' which I
understand is the committee within the State Department that is
sort of the key committee dealing with personnel. The D
Committee is an internal body that reviews career candidates to
serve as chiefs of missions, ambassadors, and deputy assistant
secretaries, and makes recommendations to the Secretary for
such positions. A key responsibility, should you be confirmed,
is the assessment, of the promotion of, the protection of
people who are at the State Department.
Will you commit to me that you will do everything, should
you be confirmed, to protect State Department employees from
any political retaliation because of their good faith public
service?
Mr. Biegun. Yes, Senator. You have my commitment, and if
confirmed, I will take those responsibilities very seriously.
These folks are my colleagues. They are my team, and they are
my friends.
Senator Kaine. Thank you for that. Thank you for that.
This morning, just coincidentally, I had a hearing in the
Armed Services with the Deputy Secretary of the Department of
Defense, so it would sort of be your equivalent, should you be
confirmed, at the DOD, David Norquist. And we asked him about a
letter that he sent to--it is dated October 22, 2019--I will
put it in the record--to Daniel Levin, who is an attorney at
White & Case.
[The material referred to is located at the end of this
hearing transcript.]
Senator Kaine. And it was a letter sent to him because Mr.
Levin is an attorney who was retained by Laura Cooper, who is a
DOD Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia and Ukraine. It
looks to be a boilerplate letter that is being sent to those
who are being summoned to testify before Congress.
The letter in its kind of operative paragraph says, this
letter informs you and Ms. Cooper of the administration-wide
direction that executive branch personnel cannot participate in
the impeachment inquiry under these circumstances. The letter
goes on to say, in the event that the committee issues a
subpoena to compel Ms. Cooper's appearance, you should be aware
that the Supreme Court has held in United States v. Rumely that
a person cannot be sanctioned for refusing to comply with a
congressional subpoena unauthorized by House rule or
resolution.
Do you know whether the State Department is sending this
kind of a boilerplate letter to State Department employees who
are being asked to testify to Congress?
Mr. Biegun. I do not know, Senator. But I do know that our
Under Secretary for Management, Brian Bulatao, has sent a
letter to the ranking member of the committee just recently in
which he reaffirmed that State Department employees testifying
under oath in front of the House review committee will not face
any disciplinary action, that the State Department is seeking
to provide provision for offsetting legal expenses for those
people.
Senator Kaine. That is helpful.
Mr. Biegun. Their travel is and meeting the requirements of
the committee will be----
Senator Kaine. And you intend to honor that commitment.
Mr. Biegun. It is our commitment.
Senator Kaine. Right. Thank you.
Your predecessor, John Sullivan, was here recently, and he
was asked by Senator Menendez during his confirmation hearing
for the Ambassador to Russia position whether he thought,
quote, it is ever appropriate for the President to use his
office to solicit investigations into a domestic political
opponent. I appreciated that Deputy Secretary Sullivan was
unequivocal. This was his response. Quote, soliciting
investigations into a domestic political opponent? I do not
think that would be in accord with our values.
Do you agree with that testimony of the person whose office
that you might be approved to?
Mr. Biegun. First of all, I hear Deputy Secretary
Sullivan's voice in that comment.
Senator Kaine. With the Boston accent.
Mr. Biegun. And he is somebody for whom I have a lot of
respect, and I would not diverge from anything he said,
Senator.
Senator Kaine. So you do affirm the principle that he
testified to.
Mr. Biegun. My view is that we need to leave the politics
at the water's edge.
Senator Kaine. Thank you.
One last question. Were you involved in the decision--I
think I know the answer to this, but just for the record--that
was recently announced by the Secretary of State that the
United States would overturn decades of policy and no longer
consider settlements in the West Bank a contravention of
international law?
Mr. Biegun. Senator, I have not yet had the pleasure to
expand my portfolio beyond North Korea. I look forward to
taking on the full range of issues in my responsibilities as
Deputy. But prior to confirmation, I have not had any----
Senator Kaine. Do you know whether it is still United
States policy to support a two-state solution with a nation of
Palestine and a nation of Israel living side by side in peace?
Mr. Biegun. My understanding is the common denominator in
all of these policies over the past 2 and a half years is to
create a basis for the two parties themselves to agree on all
of these issues. I do not know the specific answer to your
question, but I expect that as Deputy I will have enhanced
responsibilities for the Middle East. And that is an issue that
we will certainly be prepared to continue to discuss with the
committee.
Senator Kaine. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Menendez?
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Biegun, just a few final questions.
In reference to Mr. Cardin's statement, which I fully
endorsed, that questions for the record here are going to be
very important, many of Deputy Secretary Sullivan's QFR
responses on issues under the Deputy's purview were either
incomplete or unacceptable. So we are going to be resubmitting
these questions for you. They are not specific to him. They are
specific to the position. And I hope that we get a better
response this time around.
I want to follow up on both Senator Murphy's and Senator
Kaine's question because you are very artful in how you express
yourself even though I thought you were a lawyer. So that is
how well you do. But you said in response to Senator Murphy, it
is not something I would recommend. And you have just repeated
to Senator Kaine that I believe politics must end at the
water's edge.
That was a statement used as it relates to Members of
Congress, particularly of an opposing party of whoever an
administration is, not to ultimately engage in criticism abroad
of an administration's policies here at home. And that is
something I have tried to embrace during my time in nearly 30
years in Congress on the Foreign Relations Committee in the
House and the Senate.
But that is not the question. The question that was posed
to you, do you believe that it is proper to ultimately create a
condition to access to a meeting with the President of the
United States and/or to withhold security assistance to a
country for the political purposes of a domestic political
opponent--to review a domestic political opponent.
So I ask you the synthesized question. I am not talking
about Ukraine right now. I am talking about in a broader
context. Is that proper?
Mr. Biegun. In principle, no.
Senator Menendez. Okay.
Now, does it trouble you that the Department has not come
out in a forceful defense--actually forget ?forceful?--any
defense of Ambassador Yovanovitch, not when she was smeared
with no basis, not when she was attacked by the President, not
on Friday?
I am deeply troubled by it. I happen to know Ambassador
Yovanovitch. She has had confirmation hearings here, including
for her position in Armenia, as well as Ukraine. I asked her
really tough questions, as I am asking you. I have the deepest
respect for her as a career Foreign Service officer. But there
is no defense of this Ambassador.
And I bring her up because this is the crystallization of
what we have been trying to ask you in a broad context about
how you are going to stand up for the Foreign Service people.
Are you in any way upset by the way she has been treated?
Mr. Biegun. Senator, I am going to start with the point
that every--it has been much mentioned in the past weeks, which
is all of us, myself included, as presidential appointees serve
at the pleasure of the President. I know you are not
questioning that, and I know you are not questioning the
prerogatives of the President to make changes in his personnel
for the reasons that he chooses. And I have seen over 30 years
those types of personnel changes for many different reason,
performance-related, policy disputes, in some cases because one
official coveted the position of another official and used
sufficient influence inside the administration to supplant them
and take the position. In general, Presidents have this
authority and it is unconstrained.
In regard to Ambassador Yovanovitch, I know her. And we are
not close. I have not seen her in many, many years, but we
worked together when she was in Moscow as a young political
officer and I was working closely with Russia in a different
respect. And I found her to be a very capable Foreign Service
officer. And through friends and colleagues that remained in
close contact in working with her over the years, my esteem has
done nothing except grow for her.
It is clear to me that an outside party based in Ukraine
slandered her, and that information flowed through media
outlets and through other conduits into the government. And I
do not know from that point at which--what perceptions were
formed, why decisions were made, or on what basis.
Senator Menendez. And I must be honest with you. It is less
than satisfying.
Mr. Biegun. Well, Senator----
Senator Menendez. I gather everything that you said. I am
not questioning about the discretion of the President to have
people serve at his will. I get that. I do not dispute that.
The question was very simply whether someone, a career
Foreign Service officer, a distinguished Ambassador who, by the
way, whose term in Ukraine was extended before it was abruptly
ended--so you do not extend someone who is not doing a job
there--who was extended before it was abruptly ended ultimately
should be demeaned in the way that she was because you can
serve at the pleasure but not have to publicly demean someone,
undermine someone, not stop the smear campaign that was going
against her, which was fallacious.
So I mean, it is not what I really want to hear from the
person who is going to be the Deputy Secretary. I want to hear
what happened to her for whatever reasons happened to her was
not simply right, and as the Deputy Secretary, I would not
tolerate it if it was under my administration. So I did not
hear that from you.
Now, let me turn to----
Mr. Biegun. Senator, can I add a comment?
Senator Menendez. Of course.
Mr. Biegun. If confirmed as Deputy Secretary of State, that
is not how I will approach it.
Senator Menendez. All right.
So one final substance thing. And I am worried. I think you
are a very capable guy, but I am worried that you want to keep
the North Korea portfolio, which I understand you have invested
a lot of time and have a lot of knowledge in, and at the same
time be the Deputy Secretary of State and if I am right--I
might be totally wrong, but if I am right, maybe very well the
Acting Secretary of State. That is a huge, huge portfolio. And
so are we not setting you up for failure in one of the two?
Mr. Biegun. Senator, I have been careful throughout the
process of talking to members of this committee, as well as my
internal meetings at the Department of State, to be mindful in
this new position I cannot boil the ocean. I cannot take on
everything.
But I have spoken to my predecessors, to Deputy Secretary
Sullivan, to Deputy Secretary Blinken, to Deputy Secretary
Burns, Deputy Secretary Zoellick, to Deputy Secretary Armitage,
to Deputy Secretary Negroponte, Democrats and Republicans from
across the last two administrations, to get their advice on
many things, large and small, including this point. And the
constant in that is that the Deputy Secretary does need to take
the lead on some of the most important issues because it will
add weight and empower the broader team that are working on
that issue.
I understand your concern, and it is well placed that if
the Deputy Secretary becomes overstretched, then they do not do
anything well if they are trying to do everything well.
I am blessed with a phenomenally talented team. There will
be some reorganization underneath me and there will be some
reorganization, if confirmed, in the Deputy Secretary's office
to allow for the Deputy Secretary to play a more substantial
role in this. I do not think it is just a prudent step. I think
it creates additional opportunities for us----
Senator Menendez. I have raised the concern. You are fully
aware of it, and I will trust that if you are confirmed, you
will use your judgment if at some point in time you cannot
fully function in both positions.
Mr. Biegun. Yes, sir, I will.
Senator Menendez. And then finally, Secretary Pompeo was
here I guess almost 2 years ago. I asked him a series of
questions about our goals as it relates to North Korea. So I
would like to ask you a series of simple yes or no questions
today about the elements of a deal that Secretary Pompeo agreed
to before this committee in testimony as being essential to any
deal with North Korea and which he told us that, quote, did not
need to worry, end quote, about the administration's ability to
achieve within a year. That was 2 years ago.
So yes or no. As of today, do we have an agreement in
writing with North Korea that the current nuclear test
suspension must continue----
Mr. Biegun. No.
Senator Menendez.--that denuclearization means the
dismantlement or removal of all nuclear weapons facilities,
technology, and material from North Korea?
Mr. Biegun. We have no agreed definition.
Senator Menendez. That North Korea will end the production
and enrichment of uranium and plutonium from military programs?
Mr. Biegun. We have yet no agreement on that point.
Senator Menendez. That North Korea will permanently
dismantle and disable its nuclear weapons infrastructure,
including test sites, all nuclear weapons research and
development facilities, particularly with respect to advanced
centrifuges and nuclear weapons enrichment and reprocessing
facilities?
Mr. Biegun. We have no such agreement although that remains
our goal.
Senator Menendez. That North Korea will put forward a full,
complete, and verifiable declaration of all its nuclear
activities.
Mr. Biegun. At an appropriate point in the process.
Senator Menendez. Do we have that in writing from them?
Mr. Biegun. No, but it is part of----
Senator Menendez. My premise question goes to all of these.
Mr. Biegun. It is baked into our basic negotiating approach
with North Korea, which partially explains, Senator, why this
process has been so difficult. We are placing some very
significant demands in front of the North Koreans.
Senator Menendez. That North Korea has agreed to robust
restriction to assure that nuclear material technology and
expertise are not exported.
Mr. Biegun. That remains our priority.
Senator Menendez. But when you say ?remains our priority,?
I just want you to----
Mr. Biegun. We do not have an agreement on that issue.
Senator Menendez. We do not have a written agreement.
Mr. Biegun. No, sir.
Senator Menendez. As a matter of fact, on any of these
issues that North Korea continue its--let me just go through
them so you do not have to go through each one of them unless
there is one that is in writing. Then I would like to know
about it.
North Korea will continue its current missile test
suspension, including all ballistic missiles and any space
launch, and has agreed to the dismantlement of all ballistic
missiles and a prohibition on all ballistic missile
development; that like nuclear technology, North Korea has
agreed to sufficient safeguards to assure us that no ballistic
missiles and associated technologies are proliferated or
exported; that North Korea will submit to a robust compliance
inspection and verification regime for its nuclear and
ballistic missile programs, including complete access to all
nuclear-related sites and facilities with real-time
verification and including anywhere, anytime inspections and
snapback sanctions if North Korea is not in full compliance;
that any agreement is permanent in nature with no sunsets on
its provisions; that progress on sanctions relief should be
dependent on dismantlement and removal of North Korea's nuclear
weapons and ballistic missile programs; and finally, that any
deal that gives North Korea sanctions relief for anything other
than the verifiable performance of its obligations to dismantle
its nuclear missile arsenal is a bad deal.
Are there any of those things in writing?
Mr. Biegun. No. That is a very accurate description in
detail of our negotiating objectives, but we do not have that
agreement in place yet to cover those issues.
Senator Menendez. So my concern is that we are now moving
into the final year of the administration, the ability to
achieve such an agreement. If after nearly 3 years of such a
negotiation and some unprecedented steps by the President, his
personal input into such a situation, with greater missile
tests than we have had certainly in the last year, do we really
think that there is an opportunity in this closing window to
actually get to such an agreement based upon what the Secretary
told the committee was necessary for such an agreement?
Mr. Biegun. Senator, the answer is yes. We still believe
that that is possible, and it amplifies, Senator, the reason
why I am so personally devoted to this. I think there is a
possibility here.
The President is trying to reverse 70 years of history on
the Korean Peninsula. The President's policies have given us an
opportunity in a manner that has not been tested before to get
a different outcome after 25 years of wave after wave of
negotiations by administrations on both sides that have
successfully been unable to achieve the goals that you just
laid out. And each day that passes, each administration that
has succeeded leaves us with ever-more limited choices and an
ever-more grave challenge on the Korean Peninsula.
But there are two ways for us to make sure that North Korea
becomes a permanent nuclear weapons state. The first is to
accept it. The other is to abandon our efforts to reverse it.
We are not going to abandon our efforts, Senator. Our goal
is the complete, verifiable, irreversible denuclearization, or
as we frame it, the final fully verified denuclearization of
the Korean Peninsula. We believe that has to be our goal. It is
not easy, Senator. It has not been a pleasurable 16 months. It
has not been 3 years. It has been a year and a half since the
Singapore summit, but 3 years into the administration. The
President got us to the table. With Chairman Kim, they have
agreed on a framework of commitments in Singapore that if we
can make progress in each of these areas in parallel and
simultaneously, we can begin untying this knot that is cinched
so tight after 70 years.
I appreciate how formidable this task is. I probably know
as well as anybody in the United States government how
substantial this challenge is, Senator, and I am not
Pollyannaish. But I am committed, as is the President of the
United States.
Senator Menendez. I would just say in closing getting to
the table has never been a difficult thing. Both Republican and
Democratic administrations have been at the table with the
North Korean regime. Actually getting an agreement that is
worthy, yes, that has been more formidable.
Mr. Biegun. Senator, I am not claiming victory. Trust me.
Senator Menendez. I did not suggest you were. I am just
trying to accurately test the--I will call the aspirations
versus the reality that we are facing and the time frame we
have to achieve such a goal, not that it cannot be pursued in
the next administration, whoever that might be. But I think it
is unrealistic from what I have seen and how Kim is acting and
what he is insisting on, the same game we have seen 100 times
where he basically cajoles then threatens, acts in certain ways
in order to receive a response. And at the end of the day, when
we have had somebody who is an international pariah now brought
by the President through his direct diplomacy out of that role
of pariah into a more accepted state where we stopped our
defense engagement in terms of active exercises in the region,
which I think are incredibly important, and several other
things, that I am not sure that after making some
extraordinarily different moves that we are any closer. So we
will look forward to continuing with you in that discussion as
it moves forward.
Mr. Biegun. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Menendez. Thank you for your, I would say, open
engagement here on all of these questions.
Mr. Biegun. Thank you, sir. Your skepticism is well
founded, and I assure you that I will continue to be accessible
to the committee for the kind of private discussions in
particular that we have had on this issue in order to make sure
that you are aware of all of the sensitivities and strategies
that we are deploying.
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Menendez.
Mr. Biegun, thank you so much for your service. I think
your descriptions of what you are trying to do on the Korean
Peninsula are nothing short of heroic. The heavy lift that you
have there is I think fully appreciated by everyone here.
Unfortunately, we have a political situation in the United
States today regarding the President of the United States that
really undermines the discussions that take place regarding
this. You are to be commended for keeping your eye on the ball
and your focus towards trying to obtain what will be a
tremendous victory for the American people if we can get this
done and for the Korean people and for the people of the world.
It is certainly one of the biggest challenges that America has
had in recent times.
So thank you again to you and your family for your
willingness to serve.
For the information of the members, the record will remain
open until the close of business on Friday, including for
members to submit questions for the record. When you get the
questions for the record, if you would get them back to us as
quickly as possible. We want to move your confirmation because
of the importance of this position, but we are going to need
the responses. So thank you so much.
And with that, the committee is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:58 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted to Stephen Biegun by Senator James E. Risch
Question. In response to the Venezuela crisis, the U.S. has
provided over $472 million in humanitarian aid, sanctioned over 130
associates of the Maduro regime, and worked with other democracies in
the region to invoke the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance
(TIAR). The lack of European support for credible measures that would
convince Maduro and his accomplices to give way to a democratic future
in Venezuela is very concerning.
What factors explain the general reluctance by the European Union
to join other democratic nations in taking credible measures
against the Maduro regime? To what extent are European economic
interests in Cuba and Venezuela obstacles or leverages to reach
a solution to the crisis?
Answer. European support for pressure against the former Maduro
regime is critical to show that the international community will not
stand for Maduro's continued abuses of power and manipulation of well-
intentioned negotiation processes. We have been able to work closely
with our allies to implement sanctions, but more must be done. We share
information and coordinate in advance of sanctions announcements as a
way of encouraging the EU and other European partners to implement
their own sanctions and visa restrictions. At the same time, we have
made it clear that European-based companies should limit all
transactions with the former Maduro regime and the Cuban government,
particularly those that may trigger U.S. sanctions.
Question. How can the U.S. better work with the international
community to increase the pressure campaign on the Maduro regime and
support Interim President Guaido?
Answer. We are using a whole-of-government approach to engage the
international community to build pressure against the former Maduro
regime, including through the Rio Treaty and with the 57 other
countries that recognize Guaid". We will continue to assist Guaid"'s
efforts to shore up current partners' support while building the
international coalition of supporters. We will also continue to
identify those responsible for committing and contributing to human
rights abuses and corruption that are subject to sanctions or penalties
under U.S. law to deter those malign activities.
Question. What steps should we take with our partners to encourage
them to take a stronger stance and pressure the Maduro regime in
support of democracy for the Venezuelan people?
Answer. The United States will continue to work closely with our
partners in the international community to support the Venezuelan
people, interim President Guaid", and the National Assembly in their
efforts to restore democracy. We work closely with our partners around
the world to amplify the voices of Venezuela's democratic actors,
including as they peacefully protest against the former Maduro regime.
At the same time, we urge partners to exert more pressure, either
through sanctions or other measures, to drive Maduro to negotiate in
good faith toward free and fair presidential elections.
Question. The Merida Initiative is the cornerstone of U.S.-Mexico
security and rule of law efforts and has strengthened our law
enforcement partnership to address drug trafficking and crime. However,
the future of the Merida Initiative remains unclear, as Mexican
President Obrador has shifted Mexico's security strategy to a softer
approach. Organized crime and violence in Mexico has since increased,
seeing record violence in 2018.
How would you rate our bilateral law enforcement cooperation with
the national authorities in Mexico?
Answer. My understanding is there is strong bilateral law
enforcement cooperation between both countries and we will remain
closely engaged with the Mexican government to ensure this remains a
high priority. As evidenced by the brutal killing of American families
recently in the state of Sonora and the many ruthless attacks against
Mexican citizens by the cartels, transnational criminal organizations
pose a serious threat to both Mexico and the United States. Our
governments must strengthen our collaboration to address these mutual
challenges, including through law enforcement cooperation. Effectively
addressing these shared challenges requires a comprehensive approach to
counter narcotics, removing illicit profits from drug traffickers and
addressing the trafficking of arms and money from the United States to
Mexico.
Question. Are existing U.S. law enforcement training authorities
sufficient for the United States to successfully train subnational-
level law enforcement agencies in Mexico and other Latin American
countries?
Answer. Yes. Within our authorities, we are able to effectively
target capacity-building needs in partner countries. The Bureau of
International Narcotics and Law Enforcement utilizes a variety of
partners to train law enforcement agencies at various levels in Mexico
and other Latin American countries, relying on the expertise of U.S.
federal, state, and local law enforcement, determined by an analysis of
how best to meet partner institution needs.
Question. The countries of Sudan and Ethiopia are in the midst of
major transitions that, if successful, would represent a tectonic shift
in the democratic trajectory of the East and Horn of Africa sub
regions. Both of these nations are of tremendous strategic importance
to the United States.
Are we prepared diplomatically to increase our support of these
democratic transitions? Do you have any concerns that these
transitions are occurring with engagement from global and
regional actors from China to Russia, to the Gulf States and
Egypt, nations with interests that might be in conflict with
our own? Is the United States sufficiently prioritizing
engagement with Sudan and Ethiopia?
Answer. In both Sudan and Ethiopia, we have unique opportunities to
ensure that the efforts of the Sudanese and Ethiopian people are able
to achieve our shared goal of democratic transformation. To help these
countries succeed, it is imperative that China, Russia, and Gulf states
with interests in Ethiopia and Sudan do not undermine the current
reform efforts. If confirmed, I will work with our Special Envoy for
Sudan and the Bureau of African Affairs to continue to prioritize
efforts that provide all required diplomatic support, work with
partners in advancing this transition, and counter any elements
impeding democracy.
Question. How do you see the U.S. role in both the Sudanese and
Ethiopian transitions? Do you believe we have a leadership role to
play? If so, what do you envision?
Answer. I believe that the United States should continue to support
the Sudanese people to achieve peace, democracy, and economic
opportunity. The United States should continue to lead efforts to
mobilize international political and financial support to enable the
civilian government to lead the nation to free and fair elections.
We have a historic opportunity in Ethiopia and the United States
supports Ethiopia's Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed and the Ethiopian
people's democratic aspirations. To spur economic development, the
Department seeks to continue foreign assistance efforts and coordinate
with like-minded countries to identify foreign investors to counter
Chinese and Russian influence.
Question. Recently, the African Union has signaled an increased
willingness to play a more forward leaning security role and to be more
proactive in addressing undemocratic actions of the member states
(e.g., ``third-termism,'' coups, peace processes).
How do you see the strategic partnership between the United States
and the African Union evolving as challenges from across the
spectrum continue to test democratic institutions and actors in
countries throughout the continent?
Answer. The U.S. strategic partnership with the African Union (AU)
is key to advancing peace and security, democracy and governance, and
economic development across the continent. The AU also serves as an
important forum for African partners to proactively work through
diplomatic and security challenges before they arise, and to provide
credible, African-led, multilateral responses to resolve ongoing
conflicts and other security challenges. I believe targeted U.S.
advisory, technical, and limited operational assistance in coordination
with like-minded partners is the most effective way to further the AU's
ability to advance these objectives.
Question. What can the United States do to better incorporate
continental multilateral institutions like the African Union in our
diplomatic efforts?
Answer. I believe our partnership with the African Union is
critical to advancing U.S. strategic interests in Africa. The United
States was the first non-African partner to establish in 2006 a
dedicated diplomatic mission to the African Union. The African Union is
increasingly at the forefront of securing peace and stability on the
continent, and it is driving continental economic integration, in
particular through the African Continental Free Trade Area.
If confirmed, I will look to strengthen our diplomatic efforts with
the African Union Commission and its member states in the areas of
peace and security, two-way trade and investment, democracy and
governance, health, and opportunity and economic development.
Question. South Sudan continues to face one of the worst
humanitarian disasters on the continent and in the world. The United
States has played a crucial role in meeting the humanitarian needs of
the South Sudanese people, as well as the political and economic needs
of the world's youngest country.
Do you believe the United States' diplomatic efforts to date are
sufficient?
Answer. Bringing a definitive end to South Sudan's civil war and
enabling that country's transition to democracy and prosperity is and
should remain a diplomatic priority of the United States. If confirmed,
I will work closely with the Bureau of African Affairs and other
relevant bureaus to implement cost-effective ways to enhance our
senior-level diplomatic engagement with key regional countries and
institutions. I view U.S. diplomatic leadership as critical in helping
the region end this conflict and the suffering of the South Sudanese
people.
Question. Do the United States' diplomatic efforts sufficiently
complement our overwhelming investment in the humanitarian relief and
the early efforts of American diplomats to usher through freedom and
independence for the South Sudanese people?
Answer. The failure of South Sudan's leaders to create the
conditions necessary to form a national unity government by their self-
imposed deadline of November 12 has shown the need for all of the
country's partners to increase their diplomatic efforts to build a
definitive peace for the South Sudanese people. If confirmed, I will
remain cognizant of both our historic links to South Sudan's
independence struggle, and our vast humanitarian investments, as I work
closely with our Bureau of African Affairs and other relevant bureaus
to ensure effective American diplomatic leadership in partnering with
our regional allies to resolve this conflict.
Question. The African continent has increasingly become a focus of
various global and regional powers. This focus has taken the form of
investment, military support, and sometimes malign activities such as
resource manipulation, corruption, and negative influence on internal
political processes such as elections.
What must the United States to do ensure democratic institutions
and the continent's people are not just bystanders in this
global and regional scramble for influence?
Answer. American strength and influence lies in our fundamental
democratic identity based on individual freedom, the rule of law, and
protection of human rights. We champion American ideals as a means of
combating the spread of authoritarianism, terrorism, and democratic
subversion. If confirmed, I will promote the rule of law and access to
justice, respect for human rights, adherence to constitutionally
mandated term limits, and strong democratic institutions, including
civil society, which are all fundamental to a long-term peace and
prosperity on the African continent.
Question. Who do you believe should be our partners in this fight
for the people and democracies on the continent? Which countries and
regions deserve our keen focus in the immediate years ahead?
Answer. African countries have made important but fragile gains in
democracy and institution building, but there are still too many
countries where the transition to democracy is uneven. We need to
continue to support democratic governments through diplomacy and
development assistance, and encourage new opportunities for democratic
transition, especially in places like Angola, the Democratic Republic
of the Congo, Ethiopia, Sudan, and The Gambia. We must take advantage
of the opportunity presented by reform-minded leaders to build more
stable, democratic societies through improving the capacity and
governance of core institutions to improve human rights, increase
accountability, open political space, and combat corruption.
Question. What would you describe as the administration's Africa
strategy for the United States? Which tools and tactics would best
ensure a U.S. place in the future of Africa?
Answer. I support the administration's Africa Strategy's focus on
three core objectives: supporting key African states' progress toward
stability, citizen-responsive governance, and self-reliance with all of
our diplomatic tools; protecting the United States from cross-border
health and security threats by early intervention; and advancing trade
and commercial ties with key African states to spur sustainable
economic growth. I believe the new Prosper Africa initiative can bring
a whole-of-government focus to substantially increase two-way U.S.-
Africa trade and investment, while the $60 billion and tools available
through the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation could
help catalyze private-sector investment and accelerate development.
Question. How can we ensure that the more than 1 billion people
expected to be added to the African population over the rest of this
century view America as a friend and partner?
Answer. The United States remains a committed partner to help build
a free and prosperous Africa, by advancing economic growth, good
governance, and rule of law. This is a critical moment for government
and business to invest in young Africans and provide them with tools to
face current and future challenges. With programs like the Young
African Leaders Initiative, we are taking steps towards ensuring the
increasing population benefits from opportunities for economic growth
and strengthening their ties to the United States. If confirmed, I will
work to promote two-way trade and investment, support young, talented
leaders, and strengthen our economic and security partnerships across
the African continent.
Question. Cameroon is facing a major security and political crisis
driven on the back of ethnic, geographic, and historical divisions, and
poorly handled by the host government. Global actors such as the French
also have a longstanding colonial history in the country, and a
questionable post-colonial record that has aggravated challenges facing
the Cameroonian people today.
What do you believe should be done to ensure the French are more
constructive actors in resolving the ongoing civil war in
Cameroon?
Answer. France is a major donor to Cameroon and has deep ties to
the country. If confirmed, I will work with the Bureau of African
Affairs to engage with the French and other partners on helping
Cameroon through its current challenges, including through multilateral
fora. The Department will continue to urge France and other partners to
engage closely with civil society and to encourage the government of
Cameroon on one side, and separatist groups on the other, to relinquish
any hopes for a military solution and to enter into open-ended dialogue
without preconditions.
Question. How can the United States utilize its multiple
international engagements with the French to elevate the Cameroon
crisis, and compel the French government to act more responsibly not
just in Cameroon but the larger Francophone Africa region?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Bureau of African
Affairs to keep Cameroon on the agenda in our bilateral relations with
France and address Cameroon issues in our international engagements and
through multilateral fora. We will continue to call attention to the
crisis in the Anglophone Northwest and Southwest Regions of Cameroon.
In public and private, we will continue to express our concerns and
push our prominent partners to take an assertive role in resolving the
crisis. As successful democracies with strong economies, France and the
United States are natural allies as permanent members of the U.N.
Security Council. Like the United States, France contributes to the
development and better governance of sub-Saharan Africa, including
Cameroon.
Question. Mr. Biegun, I'd like to ask you about the growing number
of Americans detained in Russia. There have been several cases this
year, most coming to a quick resolution. However, one American, former
U.S. Marine Paul Whelan, has been detained nearly a year for alleged
espionage, without any evidence produced. One of the State Department's
primary responsibilities is to help keep U.S. citizens safe while
abroad.
How is the U.S. government working to bring Mr. Whelan home? Does
the case of Paul Whelan bring to light any issues within our
consulate response system? Are you comfortable that system is
up to current challenges?
Answer. The safety and welfare of our U.S. citizens abroad is of
the utmost importance to the Department of State and the entire U.S.
government. The Department takes seriously its responsibility to assist
U.S. citizens who are incarcerated or detained abroad. Paul Whelan's
case receives attention at the highest levels of the U.S. government.
If confirmed, I will continue to urge the Russian government to ensure
a fair and transparent judicial process without undue delay. My team
will also continue to monitor Mr. Whelan's case closely and to press
for fair and humane treatment, unrestricted consular access, access to
appropriate medical care, and due process.
Question. Mr. Biegun, over the past few years, the transatlantic
relationship has experienced some tension: from the Paris Climate
Agreement, the JCPOA, and NATO defense spending, to Chinese investment
in 5G, and accusations of unfair trade practices. In these, the U.S.
has one position, and Europe has another. While we may not agree on
every issue with our European cousins, we must work through them
because keeping the U.S.-Europe relationship strong is critical to U.S.
prosperity and security.
How do you view the current transatlantic relationships, including
political relationship and the military capabilities of NATO?
As Deputy Secretary of State, what would you do to ensure our
relationship with Europe stays strong, through our
disagreements, in defense, trade, and diplomacy?
Answer. Europe and NATO remain America's closest and most capable
partners and Allies. We are united by enduring values, shared
interests, and the fundamentals of our relationship remain strong. NATO
continues to remain the cornerstone of transatlantic security, and our
NATO Allies and European partners are who we turn to first to deal with
the full range of global security concerns. Our NATO Allies acknowledge
the need to improve burden sharing and are stepping up with increased
defense investment, more ready forces, and modernized capabilities,
which contributes to all of our collective security, and if confirmed,
I will continue to engage our European Allies on these issues as well
as how we can address global security concerns.
Question. The media has reported that the State Department does not
plan to fill the role of Special Envoy to the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
Is this accurate? If so, through what channels does the U.S. intend
to engage the Kremlin on this vital issue?
Answer. United States support for Ukraine's sovereignty and
territorial integrity is unwavering, and we welcome President
Zelensky's commitment to achieving a diplomatic resolution to the
conflict in eastern Ukraine. We will continue to support peace efforts
through existing diplomatic channels. I am not aware of any plans at
present to appoint another Special Representative for Ukraine
Negotiations after the departure of Kurt Volker, but I intend to be
personally involved in this issue if confirmed.
Question. Over the past few years, several of the five Central
Asian countries have taken steps to incrementally open up their long-
closed countries to outsiders, including the West. For example,
Uzbekistan has made several meaningful reforms, such as loosening some
media controls, opening border crossings with its neighbors, and
liberalizing visa requirements to allow people to enter and exit more
easily. There are encouraging signs in the other four, as well. While
all five are still considered closed and authoritarian, these are
positive developments in a region sandwiched between Russia, Iran, and
China.
Mr. Biegun, how should the U.S. react to these developments? How
can we support and encourage more reforms in such a strategic
but long neglected region? Should our government and our
businesses prioritize engagement and investment in the region?
Answer. The United States is committed to supporting the
sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of the Central
Asian states. If confirmed, I will work to grow our partnerships to
increase regional economic connectivity and benefit U.S. businesses,
improve security cooperation and military-to-military exchanges, and
support necessary reforms for the promotion of democracy and protection
of fundamental freedoms, such as those begun in Uzbekistan and underway
in the Kyrgyz Republic. Annual bilateral dialogues, the C5+1 diplomatic
platform, Trade and Investment Framework Agreement discussions, and
support for economic and educational reforms are key to building
stability and prosperity in the region.
Question. In violation of both the 1994 Budapest Memorandum and the
Ukraine-Russia Friendship Treaty, Russia's seizure of Crimea,
establishment of the Sevastopol military base, and deployment of S 400
missile systems to the peninsula have resulted in a militarization of
the Black Sea that is largely surrounded by NATO and non-NATO allies.
Furthermore, Russia has used Sevastopol to support its operations in
Syria.
Is the U.S. doing enough to push back on Russia's occupation of
Crimea and its militarization of the Black Sea? Are our allies
equipped to push back on Russia's violations of this strategic
body of water?
Answer. As Secretary Pompeo announced in the July 25, 2018, Crimea
Declaration, the United States rejects Russia's attempted annexation of
Crimea and will maintain this policy until Ukraine's territorial
integrity is restored. Our Crimea-related sanctions will remain in
place until Russia returns control of the Crimean peninsula to Ukraine.
Russia's militarization of Crimea threatens the security of the Black
Sea region and is used as a platform for destabilizing actions in Syria
and Eastern Mediterranean. The United States has committed over $1.6
billion in military assistance to Ukraine. NATO adopted a package of
measures on Black Sea security in April that includes maritime security
training, increased port visits, and strengthened information sharing,
as well as deepened cooperation with NATO's partners in the region.
Question. For the third year in a row, Congress has rejected
efforts to impose deep cuts across the international affairs budget.
For the second year in a row, Congress has pushed back against efforts
to rescind billions of dollars in previously appropriated funds. Though
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) ultimately abandoned efforts
to rescind funds through legally established procedures, the Department
of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
experienced significant disruptions this summer after OMB executed a
last minute reapportionment exercise, resulting in programmatic
uncertainty and delays, excessive and unnecessary bureaucratic burdens,
and the expiration of funds that were intended to advance key U.S.
priorities.
Mr. Biegun, do you support a healthy international affairs budget?
Why or why not?
Answer. I strongly support an international affairs budget that
advances the Department's core mission to support the United States'
most critical foreign policy goals. I understand that recent budget
requests have reflected the administration's priorities to advance
peace and security, expand American influence, and address global
crises, while making efficient use of taxpayer dollars. I value and
respect the important role that Congress plays in providing funds to
support U.S. government operations and programs, including for the
State Department and USAID. If confirmed, I look forward to continuing
discussions with Congress on funding for foreign assistance and
diplomacy programs.
Question. What areas of the budget deserve the greatest attention?
Answer. Above all else, I believe the Department and USAID's budget
must support effective American foreign policy, prioritize embassy
security and the protection of diplomats and staff, and provide for
strategic partnerships and diplomatic progress. It is also important to
ensure that the budget makes programs more effective, while increasing
burden sharing in order to lessen the burden on American taxpayers and
maximize global outcomes. If confirmed, I look forward to working with
Congress to ensure these priorities are reflected in the international
affairs budget.
Question. Experience over the past three years demonstrates that
Congress is not prepared to rubberstamp deep, arbitrary, across-the-
board cuts.
Do you have specific recommendations for foreign assistance reforms
for congressional consideration? Are you prepared to work with
Congress in an open, transparent, and timely manner to achieve
strategic, targeted reductions?
Answer. The President's budget request seeks to enable the
Department of State, USAID, and other international programs to protect
U.S. citizens, increase American prosperity, and advance the
development of democratic societies. Continuously reviewing the
effectiveness of our foreign assistance programs will maximize the
impact of our investments. We must assess what is working, what is not
working, and continuously learn and adapt as contexts across the globe
evolve. If confirmed, I will prioritize continued coordination with
Congress as we deliver strategic, effective, and coordinated resources
on behalf of the American people.
Question. Will you commit to personally intervene in and engage the
non-transparent ``foreign aid reviews'' that have been underway for the
past three years and presumably will continue in order to ensure that
final recommendations are informed by the views of the career diplomats
and development professionals that actually deliver and oversee U.S.
foreign aid programs? If not, why not? If so, how?
Answer. Delivering foreign assistance is an important mission of
the Department of State and USAID, and if confirmed, I am committed to
working with Congress to ensure it serves our national security
interests. The Department will continue to critically review foreign
assistance programs to ensure that U.S. efforts carry out the
President's direction, align with our core national interests, and
maximize the impact of American taxpayer investments. If confirmed, I
plan to ensure the voices of career diplomats and development
professionals are at the forefront of our work.
Question. I strongly support reforms to U.S. humanitarian
assistance programs that will enable the United States to save more
lives in less time and at less cost. In partnership with multiple
administrations, Congress has demonstrated bipartisan support for
reforming U.S. food aid programs, in particular. The President has
attempted to advance food aid reforms in the past three budget requests
by defunding antiquated Title II Food for Peace programs and,
alternatively, prioritizing resources for the fully reformed Emergency
Food Security Program (funded through International Disaster Assistance
[IDA]). Unfortunately, this effort has been undermined by the failure
request funds under the IDA account that reflect actual needs.
Mr. Biegun, what are your views on the nexus between food security
and national security? Do you agree that food security is a
vital part of national security?
Answer. I agree that food security is a vital component of national
security. Food insecurity is a driver of conflict, political
instability, social unrest, and migration. Food and food insecurity are
used as both weapons and recruitment tools by terrorist organizations
and corrupt governments. Famine and famine-like conditions are a major
budgetary expense for the U.S. government and our allies. Additionally,
food production shortfalls and global price spikes have implications
for our own economy and the well-being of American consumers.
Question. If so, are you willing to advocate for a budget level
under the IDA account that reflects actual U.S. food aid needs rather
than an arbitrary percentage reduction?
Answer. The United States takes our role in improving global food
security seriously. Through our Food for Peace programs we remain the
largest donor of emergency food assistance in the world. Our global
food security initiative, Feed the Future, brings partners together to
help developing countries transform their food systems to boost growth,
opportunity, food security, resilience and stability. If confirmed, I
will be committed to making sure this important work is efficient,
effective, and funded at an appropriate level, through the most
relevant mechanisms.
Question. How important is it for U.S. diplomats to regularly get
outside of the embassy to engage local populations? How do you assess
the current ability of U.S. diplomats to engage face-to-face with local
populations at posts abroad? Does the Department need to make engaging
outside of our embassies and consulates a higher priority?
Answer. The Department prioritizes face-to-face interaction as a
core element of diplomacy. We weigh the value of getting outside the
embassy against the security threats in any given country. Our officers
consider engaging local populations a key part of their jobs, and seek
as many opportunities as possible to pursue these engagements.
Question. Given the sharp rise in Chinese economic diplomacy across
the globe, do you believe that the State Department should increase its
emphasis on economic diplomacy, including by increasing the number of
economic officers posted abroad?
Answer. The Department is focused on confronting unfair economic
competitors, including China. I understand the Department is aligning
economic work across the interagency and throughout our missions. Part
of this work includes assessing our staffing and capabilities. We seek
to use the staffing and resources already allocated to the State
Department to execute U.S. foreign policy. This year we have assigned,
for the first time ever, Foreign Service Officers with China expertise
to serve as regional China officers to Europe, Africa, Latin America,
South Asia, the Middle East, and the Pacific Islands. Should we find a
need for additional resources, the Department will work with Congress
to properly resource our economic efforts.
Question. State Department coordination with the Department of
Defense is a key to advancing U.S. national interests across the globe.
Do you believe that DoD details to the State Department are an
important effort to bolster cooperation between the
departments? What about State Department details to DoD? Do you
support encouraging and, where possible, providing incentives,
for State Department Civil and Foreign Service Officers to
participate in non education details to DoD?
Answer. The Department of Defense and Department of State Exchange
Program, and other mutually beneficial detail opportunities that permit
officers from each Department to serve within the other, are critical
to increasing interagency understanding, synchronizing our efforts to
strengthen relations our partners and allies, and assisting in bridging
the diplomacy and defense worlds. We have a shared responsibility for
national security and bolstering the work of each other as we cover
foreign policy objectives around the globe. If confirmed, I will
support these professional development opportunities.
Question. Civil service hiring is still below pre-hiring freeze
levels and morale has yet to fully recover.
How do you intend to increase the pace of hiring as well as improve
morale?
Answer. Eliminating the deficit of Civil Service personnel is one
of our top management priorities. The Department has finalized an
agreement with the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) to
outsource pending recruitment requests and DFAS is already on pace to
supplement other hiring actions. In addition, I understand that the
Department is using policies for shared certificates, direct hiring
authorities, Veterans-only announcements, and other non-competitive
authorities to comprehensively address staffing shortfalls. Increased
staffing, along with an increased emphasis on improving communications,
a more supportive managerial culture, and workforce flexibilities are
all intended to improve morale.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted to Stephen E. Biegun by Senator Robert Menendez
Question. The State Department has refused to make Department
lawyers available to State Department employees providing information
and testimony to Congress in the House of Representatives' impeachment
inquiry of the withholding of security assistance to Ukraine. To date,
the Department has not provided a single document to Congress on this
matter.
Please describe in detail the steps you will take as Deputy
Secretary to ensure that no retaliatory action, demotion,
reassignment, transfer, or curtailment of duties or assignment
for giving testimony to Congress will occur.
Answer. Under Secretary Bulatao wrote to you on November 18, 2019,
assuring you that no employee has faced any adverse action by the
Department for testimony before Congress on this matter. The Department
will not discipline any Department employee for appearing before
Congress in response to a subpoena. Department counsel has been made
available to every Department employee involved in this matter, both to
assist the employee and the employee's personal counsel. Department
counsel has also been available to assist employees to prepare for and
attend Congressional hearings and interviews. Additionally, the
Department has proactively established a program to provide financial
assistance with respect to private counsel legal fees incurred by
Department employees. Diplomats who have testified before the House
have prepared for testimony and appeared before the House while on
regular pay status and with approved travel orders so that they have
not had to expend personal leave or incur travel-related expenses. If
confirmed, I would uphold the Department of State's well-established
system for assignments, consistent with U.S. law, to include the
Foreign Service Act for assignment of its personnel. If confirmed, I
will publicly reiterate this position during my first days on the job.
Question. Do you commit that the Department will not seek to
interfere with, block, preclude, or dissuade any Department employee or
former Department employee from providing any testimony to Congress
related to Ukraine/impeachment?
Answer. While I have not been directly engaged in responding to
this inquiry, I understand that the Department has been consistent in
relying upon instructions and advice from the White House Counsel's
Office and the Department of Justice. I have enclosed an October 8
letter from White House Counsel Pat Cipollone and a November 1 letter
from Assistant Attorney General Steve Engel.
Question. Do you commit that the Department will cease sending any
form of written or oral communication to any Department employee or
former employee that has the direct or indirect purpose of seeking to
dissuade an individual from testifying before Congress on Ukraine/
impeachment?
Answer. While I have not been directly engaged in responding to
this inquiry, I understand that the Department has been consistent in
relying upon instructions and advice from the White House Counsel's
Office and the Department of Justice. I have enclosed an October 8
letter from White House Counsel Pat Cipollone and a November 1 letter
from Assistant Attorney General Steve Engel.
Question. What steps will you take to ensure the Department
produces documents to Congress in a timely and efficient manner?
Answer. While I have not been directly engaged in responding to
this inquiry, I understand that the Department has been consistent in
relying upon instructions and advice from the White House Counsel's
Office. I have enclosed an October 8 letter from White House Counsel
Pat Cipollone in this regard.
Question. How will you work with Secretary Pompeo and push him to
respond to Congressional document requests produce documents to
Congress in its impeachment inquiry?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to working with Secretary
Pompeo and the White House to review the request.Bullying Concerns:
Ambassador McKinley testified before the House of Representatives that
he forwarded allegations to senior officials at the Department,
including to the current Deputy Secretary, about intimidation and
bullying of Department employees who had been asked to provide
testimony to Congress.
Question. How do you plan to address concerns of bullying and
intimidation at the Department?
Answer. While I have not been engaged in responding to this
inquiry, if confirmed I look forward to reviewing the allegations of
bullying referred by Ambassador McKinley to determine whether any
actions are warranted. As a general matter, I do not tolerate bullying
in the workplace and, if confirmed, will make clear to the Department's
personnel that Secretary Pompeo and I expect a workplace that
prioritizes professionalism consistent with the Department ethos.
Question. What steps will you take to ensure Department personnel
are aware of protections against such prohibited personnel practices?
Answer. If confirmed, I am committed to ensuring that all
Department personnel operate in an environment that is professional and
where bullying and intimidation are not tolerated. I will personally
advise employees of their rights and protections regarding prohibited
personnel practices. I will ensure our policies in this regard are
widely disseminated on a regular basis to raise awareness of
protections against these practices. I also commit to coordinating
closely with all relevant offices, including the Office of the
Inspector General, the Office of Civil Rights, the Director General,
and the Under Secretary for Management, to review and update our
policies as needed. I do not know the facts and circumstances regarding
the allegations discussed by Ambassador McKinley. I look forward to
reviewing them if confirmed and taking any appropriate actions as
warranted.
Question. Do you agree with Secretary Pompeo's statement in his
October 1, 2019 letter to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs that
the House of Representatives' request for the Department's cooperation
in its impeachment inquiry ``can be understood only as an attempt to
intimidate, bully, and treat improperly the distinguished professionals
of the Department of State''?
Answer. As I understand Secretary Pompeo's October 1, 2019 letter,
he highlighted the fact that the House of Representatives was refusing
to allow Department personnel to coordinate testimony with the Bureau
of Legislative Affairs and the Office of the Legal Adviser, and was
prohibiting Department counsel from being present in depositions to
protect classified information and Executive Branch confidentiality
interests.Yovanovitch: At your confirmation hearing, you stated that
Ambassador Yovanovitch, a 33 year career diplomat, was very capable and
your esteem for her has grown over the years. You also acknowledged
that an outside party in Ukraine slandered her inappropriately and
defamed her character. In a divergence from the Department's current
senior leadership, who have remained silent on this subject, you stated
that ``if confirmed, as Deputy Secretary of State, that is not how I
will approach it.'' However, you did not specify what you would do to
defend Ambassador Yovanovitch.
Question. How exactly would you have handled the attacks on
Ambassador Yovanovitch? Please provide a detailed explanation.
Answer. As I said in my hearing, I was not involved in the events
surrounding Ambassador Yovanovitch. Without being party to all the
circumstances and information, I cannot speculate as to how I would
have acted. However, I can tell you about the approach I will take, if
confirmed, to leadership and management, reflecting the approach I have
taken over the past 30 years in government and the private sector in
empowering, supporting, and protecting members of my team and ensuring
their work is valued. If confirmed, one of my first acts will be to
address the Department workforce and to highlight what I stated
publicly at the hearing: I have the utmost respect for the 76,000 women
and men serving at the State Department. I will assure Department
leaders and their teams that they have the full support and trust of
Department leadership as they perform the important work of advancing
American interests. As I stated at the hearing, Ambassador Yovanovitch
is an example of this professionalism and excellence.
Question. Do you think the Department could have and should have
done more to publicly support her?
Answer. As I have stated, I was not involved in the events
surrounding Ambassador Yovanovitch and without being party to all the
circumstances and information, I cannot speculate as to how I would
have acted. However, I want to highlight my record of supporting
members of my team, as well the leadership and management principles I
have discussed as being important to me that I plan to carry into the
Deputy Secretary position, if confirmed. I will address Department
leaders and their teams and assure them that they have the Department's
full support and trust.
Question. Please detail how you plan to defend Ambassador
Yovanovitch and other Department personnel that have testified in the
impeachment inquiry moving forward.
Answer. If confirmed as Deputy Secretary, I will reiterate the
pledge set out in Under Secretary Bulatao's November 18 letter. I can
assure the committee, that if confirmed, I will ensure that Ambassador
Yovanovitch, and other Department personnel who have testified in the
House proceedings, will not face any disciplinary action for their
appearance. I will make this position clear in my interactions with
senior Department leaders and their teams.Standing Up for Employees: It
is apparent that several State Department senior officials were aware
of the ``irregular channel'' spearheaded by President Trump's personal
agent Rudy Giuliani to smear Ambassador Yovanovitch and pressure
Ukraine to conduct political investigations. Documents aimed at
smearing Ambassador Yovanovitch even made it into the Department and
were circulated among senior leaders. Yet, it seems no one spoke up in
defense of a widely respected Ambassador.
Question. What do you think it says about State Department culture,
senior leadership, and fostering an environment where the oath to the
constitution is understood and valued?
Answer. As I stated in my hearing, one of my top priorities, if
confirmed, will be to ensure that we look after our people in order to
retain the finest diplomatic corps in the world. A critical part of
that is ensuring that the State Department is an environment in which
employees feel respected, supported, and valued. I plan to focus on
caring for our people, developing their skills, and boosting their
resiliency and well-being.
Question. Do you think additional steps are necessary to encourage
the moral courage and leadership skills so senior officials will stand
up and voice their concerns? How will you effect these changes?
Answer. Encouraging debate and hearing out dissenting views has
long been a principle of my leadership and management style. If
confirmed as Deputy Secretary, this will continue to be important to me
and I plan to meet early on with Department leaders and their teams to
communicate the importance of encouraging debate.Whistleblowing
Question. What steps will you take to ensure whistleblowers know
their rights, know how to raise concerns through appropriate channels,
and are not subject to retaliation for exercising their rights?
Answer. If confirmed as Deputy Secretary of State, I will be a
strong and consistent advocate for ensuring that all Department
employees know their rights and where to report concerns without fear
of retaliation. I will personally advise Department employees of their
whistleblower rights and the various avenues to raise concerns, working
in close coordination with the Inspector General. I will provide
assurances to all employees that they will not be subject to
retaliation for exercising their rights and will ensure that our
policies are widely disseminated on a regular basis to increase
awareness of whistleblower rights and protections among all Department
employees. Additionally, should any employee be found responsible for
engaging in retaliation, I will ensure that he/she is held accountable.
Question. What steps will you take to ensure whistleblowers know
their rights and are not subject to retaliation for exercising them?
Answer. As stated above, if confirmed as Deputy Secretary of State,
I will personally advise all Department employees of their
whistleblower rights and provide assurances that they will not be
subject to retaliation for exercising them. I will ensure our policies
are widely disseminated on a regular basis to increase awareness of
whistleblower rights and protections among all Department employees.
Additionally, should any employee be found responsible for engaging in
retaliation, I will ensure that he/she is held accountable.
Question. In August 2019, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG)
found that senior leadership in the Bureau of International
Organization Affairs (IO) targeted career employees for their perceived
political beliefs. This month, the IG also found that at least one
employee was politically targeted and discriminated against for her
national origin and perceived political affiliation. Since the OIG
released its findings, the Department has failed to take serious steps
to hold perpetrators of political targeting and other prohibited
personnel practices accountable. Do you agree that any targeting of or
retaliation against career employees based on their perceived political
beliefs, prior work on policy, or affiliation with a previous
administration, is wholly inappropriate and has no place in the federal
government?
Answer. Retaliation for protected whistleblowing activity or other
protected activity has no place in the federal government. I agree that
any employee found responsible for engaging in a prohibited personnel
practice should be held accountable. I agree that targeting or
retaliation against employees is inappropriate.
Question. Do you agree that anyone found to have engaged in
retaliation should be held fully accountable, up to and including
losing their job?
Answer. Yes. Retaliation for protected whistleblowing activity or
other protected activity has no place in the federal government. I
agree that any employee found responsible for engaging in a prohibited
personnel practice should be held accountable.
Question. If confirmed, what will you do to ensure that all
employees under your leadership understand that any retaliation,
blacklisting, or other prohibited personnel practices will not be
tolerated?
Answer. I take allegations of such practices seriously, and if
confirmed, I will ensure that all employees under my leadership
understand that any retaliation, blacklisting, or other prohibited
personnel practices will not be tolerated. If confirmed, I will ensure
that all Department employees are aware of the laws and policies
regarding prohibited personnel practices, and that they know how to
report violations. I will continue to ensure that all employees are
protected from prohibited personnel practices by requiring Department
managers to receive training on the laws and policies they must adhere
to.
Question. What else can the State Department do to prevent and
counter retaliation?
Answer. As a leader and supervisor, I am accountable for the
employees who work under me. If confirmed, I will ensure that employees
know that I will not tolerate violations of merit systems principles.
Additionally, the Department will continue to advise employees of their
rights through Department Notices and other messages from the bureau of
Human Resources, the Office of Civil Rights, and the Office of the
Inspector General. I will further ensure that employees receive
training on application of merit system principles, and I will take
steps to ensure that all Department employees know how to report
violations.
Question. Will you commit to periodic updates every 60 days
regarding progress on addressing retaliation in IO and at the
Department for your first six months?
Answer. The Department takes seriously any allegations of
prohibited personnel practices, including politically motivated
retaliation against career Department employees. If confirmed, I pledge
to work with Department leadership to provide periodic updates
regarding the progress on addressing retaliation in IO and across the
Department.
Question. Will you commit to disseminating guidance to empower
employees against retaliation and discrimination and warn Department
supervisors of the consequences for engaging in such prohibited
personnel practices?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that employees understand the
Department takes seriously allegations of retaliation or
discrimination, and that anyone engaging in such behavior will be
subject to disciplinary action, up to and including separation. I take
allegations of reprisal seriously. As such, if I become aware of a
violation of merit systems principles, I will report the violation to
the Office of Inspector General, the Office of Civil Rights, or the
Office of Special Counsel as appropriate. I will not tolerate
prohibited personnel practices at the Department, and I will ensure
that all employees who fail to follow merit systems principles,
regardless of rank, will be held accountable.
Question. What steps are you taking to address low morale at the
Department and in the IO Bureau?
Answer. If confirmed, I will commit to building and maintaining a
positive working environment across the Department, domestically and
overseas, including the IO Bureau. I plan to work with the Department's
senior leadership to ensure that we have a strong, well-resourced
workforce, and that all our employees and families have the support
they need. The Department takes seriously any allegations of prohibited
personnel practices, including politically-motivated retaliation
against career employees. The Department is implementing the Corrective
Action Plan for the IO Bureau, including through improving
communication, mandatory training for IO officers, and increasing
engagement with the Office of the Under Secretary for Political
Affairs.
Question. Have you personally been made aware of any concerns
regarding or reports of prohibited personnel practices during your
tenure at State? If so, what actions have you taken to address them?
Answer. I have not been made aware of any allegations of prohibited
personnel practices relative to my work at the Department. During my
tenure, I have observed the vast majority of Department employees
adhere to the highest standards of conduct, and I am confident the
Department has appropriate mechanisms in place to appropriately
investigate and take action regarding allegations of misconduct.
Question. This year, the OIG determined that the ill-planned hiring
freeze under Secretary Tillerson had a negative or very negative effect
on morale for one hundred percent of bureaus and offices at the
Department. If confirmed as the Deputy Secretary of State, you will be
responsible for improving the Department's approach to its personnel
and developing a plan to address these issues moving forward. Please
review the OIG's August 2019 report on the effects of the hiring
freeze. What measures will you take to undo the extensive damage
created by the hiring freeze, cited in the OIG's report?
Answer. If confirmed, I commit to support actions to grow Foreign
Service and Civil Service staffing levels and bolster morale. Building
on work that I understand Director General Carol Perez has already
started, I will continue to promote workplace flexibilities and overall
workforce agility to ensure the Department remains an employer of
choice and competitive in today's talent market. Since the hiring
freeze was lifted, the Department has instituted measures to increase
Foreign Service and Civil Service hiring, with the goal of reaching
employment targets stipulated in the Department's FY 2018 Statement of
Managers and funded in recent appropriations. If confirmed, I will
continue to build upon these efforts.
Question. As you know, the Department is plagued by numerous key
vacancies, departures of senior employees, and a shrinking Foreign
Service Officer pool. What is your biggest concern and how will you
tackle it?
Answer. The Foreign Service Officer pool has returned to levels
prior to the hiring freeze, and is expected to increase in the upcoming
year. Projected intake of Foreign Service Officers for FY 2020 is
planned to be higher than normal, and it will be higher than the
projected attrition. Attrition among the senior ranks remains stable.
Promotions are anticipated to backfill losses with highly talented and
experienced mid-level officials. Retaining our people is a critical
concern, as they are the Department's greatest asset and if confirmed,
I will work closely with our Under Secretary for Management, the
Director General and other relevant offices to ensure that we
strengthen our retention efforts.
Question. In the last three years, the Department has seen its
smallest incoming Foreign Service Officer classes in years. Does this
concern you? Do you commit to revisit the incoming class numbers and
assess whether additional FSOs slots should be approved for this year?
Answer. If confirmed, I am committed to assessing Department needs
and adjusting intake based on the requirements of the Foreign Service.
From my understanding, Foreign Service Officer classes over the past
two years have returned to a more stabilized level. Projected intake of
Foreign Service Officers for FY 2020 will be at the highest level since
FY 2016, well above attrition levels.
Question. Do you commit to revisiting the current hiring and
promotion policies in place and report back to Congress on what steps
you think are necessary to ensure that we have a robust and experienced
workforce going forward?
Answer. I am committed to assessing Foreign Service employment
needs and adjusting intake based on the candidates on the registers and
the requirements of the Foreign Service. If confirmed, I will conduct
this assessment and report to Congress on steps the Department is
taking to ensure that the Department recruits, develops, retains, and
promotes the best talent that this country has to offer.
Question. Many experienced diplomats have expressed extreme concern
about the retention of experienced Foreign Service Officers and civil
servants and the impact on the Department's short-and long-term ability
to carry out its diplomatic function. Do you agree this is a critical
area of concern? What will you do to ensure that we are not
hemorrhaging experienced Foreign Service Officers and civil servants,
and that the Department will have the experience it needs for the next
5 to 10 years?
Answer. Retaining the Department's diplomats as its greatest asset
is a critical concern. Over the past ten years, attrition rates among
career employees have been less than four percent for Foreign Service
Officers, approximately five percent or less for Foreign Service
Specialists, and about eight percent or less for the Civil Service.
These attrition rates are lower than the government-wide rates, which
from 2014 to 2018 ranged from 12 to 15 percent according to the Bureau
of Labor Statistics. Nevertheless, the Department is committed to
enhancing workplace flexibilities and overall workforce agility in
order to retain an experienced workforce and attract new talent.
Question. Will you review all current workforce planning and report
to Congress on what additional steps related to staffing and personnel
you think the Department should take this year?
Answer. Yes, if confirmed, I will review the Department's workforce
plans and work with Congress this year.
Question. How many mid-level foreign service officers have left the
Department since the beginning of the administration (January 20,
2017)?
Answer. Between January 31, 2017, and October 31, 2019, 270 career
mid-level Foreign Service (FS) officers left. Mid-level FS officer
attrition rates have been very low and stable, varying from 2.5 percent
to just over 3.5 percent across the past 10 years. Retirements, both
voluntary and mandatory for the FS at age 65, constitute the majority
(over 70 percent) of the attrition. In FY 2019, the overall attrition
rate for mid-level FS officers was 3.2 percent, slightly above the FY
2017 rate of 2.8 percent and the FY 2018 rate of 2.9 percent.
Question. How many senior foreign service officers have left the
Department since the beginning of the administration (January 20,
2017)?
Answer. Between January 31, 2017, and October 31, 2019, 154 career
Senior Foreign Service (SFS) officers left. SFS attrition rates vary
more than the mid-level because they are a smaller population. Over the
past 10 years, the SFS attrition rate has ranged from nine to just over
12 percent, with retirements constituting the majority (over 99
percent) of the separations. In FY 2019, the overall attrition rate for
SFS Officers was 12 percent, slightly lower than the FY 2017 rate of
12.3 percent and higher than the FY 2018 rate of 10.7 percent.
Question. How does the current number of civil service personnel
compare to the number on December 31, 2017?
Answer. As of October 31, 2019, the Department's Civil Service
full-time permanent employment level was 10,118, which is 385 below the
December 31, 2017, level of 10,503.
Question. How do you plan to compensate for the loss of expertise
with the exodus of senior level officials?
Answer. Attrition among the senior ranks has remained stable. The
Department has a deep bench of experienced and capable Foreign Service
officers. As is routine in the Foreign Service, promotions of talented
and experienced mid-level officers are anticipated to backfill losses.
Question. Which bureaus currently face the most difficult staffing
challenges? Why?
Answer. Currently, I understand that the Administrative and
Management bureaus are the most under-staffed bureaus because these
bureaus received few Civil Service hiring exemptions/waivers under the
hiring freeze. This includes the Bureau of Administration, the Foreign
Service Institute, the Bureau of Human Resources, and the Bureau for
Overseas Buildings Operations. The Department has raised the staffing
level targets for these bureaus for FY 2020 in order to produce a
robust recruitment pipeline that should eliminate a significant part of
the staffing gaps that hamper current operations.
Question. Does Human Resources need additional tools to help
increase civil service hiring? What?
Answer. Increasing Civil Service hiring is a top management
priority. The Department is committed to innovation, developing new
tools and implementing policies to streamline processes and increase
capacity. The Department finalized an agreement with the Defense
Finance and Accounting Service to outsource pending recruitment
requests. The Department is utilizing Shared Certificates, Direct
Hiring Authorities, Veterans-only announcements and other non-
competitive appointing authorities. The Bureaus of Human Resources and
Diplomatic Security are partnering in order to streamline the security
clearance process to further expedite the onboarding of candidates.
Question. Do you commit to taking steps to ascertain the reasons
why employees are retiring or leaving the Department?
Answer. If confirmed, I am committed to improving how the
Department collects information from employees separating from the
agency, as well as enhancing the quality of the data so that it can be
used to inform our policies and procedures. The Department is updating
existing exit survey questionnaires in order to collect more granular
data, adopting more agile technology for survey administration, and
developing a marketing campaign for the survey launch. I expect that
modernizing the process and formally launching the exit survey tool
will improve response rates and data distribution throughout the
Department of State. If confirmed, I will support all efforts to ensure
that this new system is operational as soon as practicable.
Question. Does the Department have a formal retention program that
provides guidance and support to those contemplating resignation?
Answer. The Department supports the retention of a high-performing
workforce and continues to facilitate professional development. Foreign
Service Officers contemplating resignation may consult with their
Career Development Officers for advice and guidance. Resigning officers
are asked to complete a voluntary Resignation Questionnaire to provide
us insight into their reasons for resigning. This questionnaire is
currently being revised. The Department also provides services to all
employees to ensure that their professional development is responsive
to the Department's needs, to include access to the Career Development
Resource Center, which provides one-on-one career counseling both
domestically and overseas.
Question. Do you or does anyone from the Department interview
personnel resigning from the Foreign Service?
Answer. The Department does not conduct exit interviews for
separating personnel at this time. In lieu of interviews, all Foreign
Service personnel separating from the Department are asked to complete
a voluntary exit survey. All respondents receive the same questions and
can respond confidentially, which limits the introduction of bias in
their responses. Low participation rates have prevented the Department
from maximizing the exit survey data we have collected; however, I
believe participation rates will improve with the launch of the new
exit survey this fiscal year.
Question. What is your assessment of the Department's ability to
retain experienced and talented employees?
Answer. I have met and worked with many experienced and talented
Department employees. My understanding is that the Department's
retention rates have remained steady over the long-term. If confirmed,
I will be committed to enhancing workplace flexibilities and overall
workforce agility in order to ensure the Department remains an employer
of choice and competitive in today's talent market.
Question. What else can the Department do to improve the ability to
retain experienced and talented personnel?
Answer. Employees and family members are the Department's greatest
asset. The Department supports retention of talented personnel and
offers a variety of professional development opportunities through the
facilitation of training and career development for both Foreign
Service and Civil Service employees. The Department supports details to
other USG agencies and programs for those who wish to pursue advanced
degrees. The Department also participates in programs allowing Foreign
Service Officers to work for a year in the Foreign Ministry of another
country and in the U.S. Congress. The Department offers a variety of
work-life flexibility programs such as telework, flexible work
schedules, and leave without pay, and is developing additional such
programs.
Question. What will you do to ensure Bureaus are adequately staffed
to respond to pressing foreign policy challenges as well as operational
functions of the bureau?
Answer. If confirmed, I will support necessary programs to ensure
adequate staffing. In FY 2020, the Department is projected to hire
Foreign Service Officers above anticipated attrition, consistent with
the Department's recent appropriations. For the Civil Service, the
Department is taking several actions to accelerate hiring, including
finalizing an agreement with the Defense Finance and Accounting Service
to outsource pending recruitment requests, and utilizing a variety of
other policies to comprehensively address staffing shortfalls.
Anticipated employment growth, in both the Foreign and Civil Service,
should enhance the Department's capacity to fill key vacancies
worldwide and ensure that Bureaus are adequately staffed to respond to
policy challenges.
Question. Do you commit to meeting and communicating directly and
frequently with career employees? How will you achieve this?
Answer. Yes. The Department has no greater resource than our
people, the more than 75,000 career employees--Foreign Service, Civil
Service, and Locally Employed staff--who work at home and abroad to
advance the United States' foreign policy goals. If confirmed, I commit
to engage our career workforce regularly through ``meet and greet''
opportunities when I travel to our missions overseas, conversations at
home and abroad, and meetings with employee groups and unions. I will
also leverage technology to enhance employee communication. I
understand that Director General Perez and her team have launched
creative tools to that end, and I look forward to working with her and
the Bureau of Global Public Affairs to connect with our people
regularly.
Question. If confirmed, you will be charged with representing the
interests of the American people and communicating the foreign policy
viewpoints of the U.S. government. This includes on any official social
media profiles you have. As a February 2019 report by the State
Department Inspector General found, a number of Ambassadors have not
complied with the Department's social media policies. Are you familiar
with the IG Report? Have you read it?
Answer. Yes. In response to the 2019 OIG recommendation, the
Department developed and distributed guidance and illustrative examples
of the types of postings appropriate for official and personal social
media accounts, as well as those that could violate Department policy.
Further, the Department is providing employees, including ambassadors
and other senior officials, with regular social media policy reminders,
and is ensuring that social media policies are adequately addressed
during orientation and through regular training. The Department is
finalizing a standard operating procedure to assess and address
potential violations of social media policies. If confirmed, I commit
to ensuring the policy is followed.
Question. Have you reviewed the Department's social media policies?
Answer. I have been briefed that in response to the 2019 OIG
recommendation, the Department developed and distributed guidance and
illustrative examples of the types of postings appropriate for official
and personal social media accounts, as well as types of postings that
could lead to violation of Department policy. Further, the Department
is providing employees, including ambassadors and other senior
officials, with regular social media policy reminders, and is ensuring
that social media policies are adequately addressed during orientation
sessions and through regular training. I commit to supporting the
Department's efforts to ensure that appropriate uses of official and
personal social media accounts are followed.
Question. Do you commit to following them going forward?
Answer. Yes. Pursuant to the Department's policies, accounts that
are or have been used for official communications are considered
Department accounts and are either retained by the Department for use
by the incumbent's successor or retired in accordance with applicable
records disposition schedules, as appropriate.
Question. What are some examples of the types of posts that you
understand would require review by the Department?
Answer. The personal capacity public communications of all
Department personnel must be reviewed if the content addresses a topic
``of Departmental concern.'' The term ``of Departmental concern'' is
defined to mean ``[p]ertaining to current U.S. foreign policy or the
Department's mission (including policies, programs, operations, or
activities of the Department of State or USAID), or which reasonably
may be expected to affect the foreign relations of the United States.''
Further, personal accounts and posts on such accounts must not claim to
represent the Department or its policies, or those of the U.S.
government, nor may they use any Department or other U.S. government
seals or logos.
Question. Do you commit to seeking review of any social media posts
on a personal account that could be considered a matter of Departmental
concern?
Answer. Yes, if confirmed, I commit to reviewing all allegations of
potential violations of the Department policy and other applicable
rules.
Responsiveness
Question. At your nomination hearing, you committed to have a
``more forthcoming attitude in providing documentation'' to the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee and said ``you would be more accessible.''
More pointedly, however, do you commit to the following:
Will you respond timely and promptly to all requests for
information from each and every member of this committee?
Answer. Yes, with the understanding that any such effort would be
organized through the Department of State's Bureau of Legislative
Affairs and Office of the Legal Adviser and conducted in accordance
with long-standing Department and Executive Branch practice.
Question. Will you respond timely and promptly to all requests for
documents from each and every member of this committee?
Answer. Yes, with the understanding that any such effort would be
organized through the Department of State's Bureau of Legislative
Affairs and Office of the Legal Adviser and conducted in accordance
with long-standing Department and Executive Branch practice.
Question. Will you provide briefings in a timely and prompt manner
in response to requests by each and every member of this committee?
Answer. Yes, with the understanding that any such effort would be
organized through the Department of State's Bureau of Legislative
Affairs and Office of the Legal Adviser and conducted in accordance
with long-standing Department and Executive Branch practice.
Question. How, specifically, do you plan to improve the
Department's responsiveness to this committee?
Answer. As I stated during my confirmation hearing, I intend to
emphasize as a leader that a strong foreign policy must include
consultation between the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch.
With experience in both branches, I have seen that there are often gray
lines that divide the prerogative of the two branches of government,
and communication is essential to moving forward. If confirmed, I will
do everything I can to work with the committee to respond to what are
legitimately the responsibilities and requirements of the legislative
branch of government while dutifully representing the prerogatives and
protections of the executive branch of government and I will make
myself personally available to members of the committee in order to
advance this goal.
Investigations by Foreign Power.
Question. Do you think it is ever appropriate for the President to
use his office to solicit investigations into a domestic political
opponent?
Answer. No.
Question. If you discover that this occurs, if confirmed, what will
you do?
Answer. I would immediately refer any such actions giving rise to
such allegations to the Office of the Legal Adviser and to the Office
of the Inspector General for their review to determine whether such
allegations should be referred to the Department of Justice for further
action.
Question. Despite widespread employee concerns that they lack
adequate resources and human capital, the Trump administration
continues to propose massive budget cuts, including an almost 30
percent budget cut for the State Department in Fiscal Year (FY) 2019
and a 23 percent cut for FY 2020. These budget requests would leave the
Department of Defense without strong U.S. diplomatic or development
partners. Given the importance of cultivating institutional development
expertise within our civilian workforce, I am deeply concerned about
the proposed budget cuts to the State Department and USAID and the
ongoing staffing vacancies. Given these budget constraints, are you
confident that you will be able to put in place the 21st-century
workforce your agency needs and demands? Can you share with the
committee your staffing plan?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to working to align available
resources and staffing with strategic priorities, and to advocate for
the budget to address potential gaps. It is my understanding that the
Department's FY 2020 budget request would fund existing workforce
levels for the Department of State and USAID, and the Department
continues to accelerate hiring efforts. I will support Secretary Pompeo
in requesting funding that serves national interests and to ensure we
have the personnel to support excellence.
Question. The State Department should accurately reflect the
American people. Unfortunately, we currently have a huge diversity gap
in our Foreign and Civil Service workforce, especially at the higher
ranks. This committee has specifically included language in past years
outlining that the State Department Human Resources Bureau has a
responsibility to recruit and manage a talented and diverse workforce.
If confirmed, what will you do to elevate and embrace the diversity of
people, voices, and backgrounds within the State Department's
workforce?
Answer. The Department must ensure that each of our colleagues
feels valued and respected and has an equal opportunity to develop and
contribute their talents. If confirmed, I will meet with employee
affinity groups on a consistent basis to understand and support the
needs and interests of those groups.
I understand that Under Secretary Bulatao has coordinated the
Department's Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan (DISP) Taskforce.
Each bureau has designated a representative to contribute to the
enterprise-wide framework for diversity and inclusion efforts, which
include efforts to recruit widely for diversity. I will ensure the DISP
is communicated broadly and hold the Department accountable to the
established plan. If confirmed, I will ensure that senior leaders
prioritize diversity and inclusion in their internal and external
mission.
Question. Will you commit to fully support the full funding and
maintenance of the Rangel Fellows program, and diversity initiatives at
large within the State Department?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I will continue to support all the
Department's diversity programs, including the Rangel Fellows program.
A main focus in the Department's recruitment efforts is working with
organizations such as the Hispanic Association of Colleges and
Universities and placing some of the Diplomats in Residence at
Historically Black Colleges and Universities such as Howard University
and Florida A&M. Fellowship programs such as the Pickering and Rangel
programs provide a pipeline into the Foreign Service and typically
account for 20 25 percent of Foreign Service Officer intake every year.
Question. How do you plan to address that gap and assure that we
have a vibrant, robust and diverse workforce at the Department of
State?
Answer. The Department's recruitment strategy involves identifying,
recruiting, and hiring on merit from the broadest, deepest pool of
diverse candidates to ensure a strong pipeline of Civil Service and
Foreign Service personnel. To meet these goals and provide nationwide
coverage, the recruitment team includes Washington, D.C.-based
recruiters with diversity-focused portfolios and 16 regional
recruiters, known as Diplomats in Residence. Recruiters engage with
undergraduate and graduate students at colleges and universities as
well as professionals at national-level associations and conferences.
As of September 13, 2019, the recruitment team participated in 208
diversity-focused events this year, specifically geared toward
recruiting women, individuals from underrepresented populations, and
veterans.
Question. What efforts will you make to address inclusion and
retention at the State Department with professional development,
unconscious bias training, sexual harassment and assault training, and
career advancement opportunities?
Answer. The Department's Foreign Service Institute has integrated
diversity and inclusion into required training and development for all
employees, particularly supervisors, to ensure they are aware of their
roles and responsibilities to support diversity and inclusion in the
workplace. The emphasis placed on supervisors ensures that they know
the laws and rules that prohibit certain personnel practices, as well
as those that provide special hiring authorities that affirm the role
of diversity in the government. If confirmed, I will fully support
these programs.
Question. If confirmed, what will you do to support more minority
candidates applying and successfully receiving promotions within the
Senior Foreign Service?
Answer. If confirmed, I will advocate for programs that advance a
diverse and inclusive workforce, with a particular view to promoting
minorities and underrepresented groups into the senior ranks. I will
also work with the Director General and her team to understand the
barriers these groups face and identify possible solutions. I will
encourage all pursuing the Senior Foreign Service (SFS), especially
those from underrepresented backgrounds, to identify and participate in
training and development opportunities throughout their careers to
prepare them for senior leadership. If confirmed, I will also encourage
current SFS officers to mentor officers of all backgrounds and work to
formalize that initiative.
Question. In October 2019, President Trump selected his own
property, Trump National Doral Miami to host the 2020 Group of Seven
(G7) summit before abruptly reversing its decision a day later. The
President's selection and the subsequent reversal raises questions
about the site-selection process. Do you think the selection of
President Trump's own property for the G7 summit affects the
Department's ability to promote transparency and anti-corruption
efforts?
Answer. The Department and I remain committed to efforts to promote
transparency and anti-corruption efforts. As President Donald J. Trump
announced on October 19, the G7 Leaders' Summit will not be held at
Trump National Doral in 2020.
Question. To the extent the State Department plays a further
consultative role in the selection of the G7 site, will you advice the
President to select a site that does not benefit him financially, and
therefore risk undercutting our global anti-corruption work?
Answer. I understand that neither the Office of Presidential Travel
Support nor the Office of the Procurement Executive have been involved
in the site selection process for the 2020 G7. The Department is wholly
committed to promoting anti-corruption efforts globally, and the G7
site selection process does not impact that commitment.
Question. Do you believe that climate change should be on the
agenda for the 2020 G7?
Answer. The White House sets the agenda for the U.S. G7 presidency,
in consultation with the Department and other cabinet agencies. I
understand that the 2020 agenda has not yet been finalized, but the
administration has decided to focus our presidency on a ``back to
basics'' G7 Presidency with the following economic themes: rejuvenating
incentives for growth and prosperity; rolling back onerous prosperity-
killing regulations; ending trade barriers; and opening energy markets.
Question. What role has, does, and will the Department play in the
agenda-setting process for the 2020 G7, including on decisions such as
whether to include climate change?
Answer. The White House sets the agenda for the U.S. G7 presidency,
in consultation with the Department and other cabinet agencies. I
understand that the 2020 agenda has not yet been finalized, but the
administration has decided to focus our presidency on a ``back to
basics'' G7 Presidency built primarily around economic themes.
Question. Does the Department have a total estimated budget for the
2020 U.S. Chairmanship of the G7 in its entirety, including a total
estimated budget for the 2020 G7 leader-level summit, and including the
Department's portion? What is that total? Please do not refer to any
other documents.
Answer. In my current role, I have not had any involvement in the
site selection process for the G7 Summit. I understand that the site
selection process is still ongoing and that the budget for the G7
Summit, including the Department portion, has not been finalized.
Question. How much of that would go directly to the host venue?
Answer. As a final decision regarding the site for the G7 Leaders'
Summit has not been made, the Department cannot outline the line item
for costs incurred at the host venue at this time.
Question. Which Department Bureaus, Offices, and personnel in the
Department will be involved in the G7 site selection process moving
forward?
Answer. In my current role, I have not had any involvement in site
selection for the G7 Summit but I understand that neither the Office of
Presidential Travel Support nor the Office of the Procurement Executive
were involved in the selection of Doral to host the 2020 G7. If
confirmed, I will look into this matter.
Question. Please provide dates for the selection of the location
for the G7 summit, including the date that the site selection process
for the 2020 G7 began, the date that an initial solicitation was sent
out, when proposals were received, when Doral was selected, when Doral
was decided against, when the process of selection began again, and the
deadline for a new site to be selected.
Answer. In my current role, I have not had any involvement in site
selection for the G7 Summit but I understand that neither the Office of
Presidential Travel Support nor the Office of the Procurement Executive
were involved in the selection of Doral to host the 2020 G7. If
confirmed, I will look into this matter.
Question. In the past, the White House would pick the host city and
the Department would choose the hotels for the G7 site. Is that the
process that will be followed in the site selection process moving
forward?
Answer. As the G7 is a domestic conference, the State Department's
Office of Presidential Travel Support did not participate in the site
selection. State Department employees from the Presidential Travel
Support office do not stay at Trump properties when they travel and
have never stayed at the Doral in particular.
Question. Do you believe it is appropriate for the U.S., or even
has the authority, to unilaterally strike an issue, like climate
change, from the agenda of the G7?
Answer. The country holding the rotating presidency of the G7 has
wide latitude to set an agenda that reflects its priorities. As the G7
is a consensus-based group, it is appropriate for the administration,
as it sets the agenda, to focus on those issues where it is possible to
build consensus among all members.
Question. On February 14, 2019, I sent a letter asking for
information regarding the brutal murder of Jamal Khashoggi, and
specifically asking for the Department's legal determination that it is
not required to submit a report to the Chairman and Ranking Member of
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee pursuant to section 1263(d) of
the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act. Will you commit
to provide the committee with the Department's legal justification for
not making the determination required under the Global Magnitsky Act?
Answer. I understand that this authority remains with the
President; however, accountability and justice for Jamal Khashoggi is
crucial. At President Trump's direction, the United States was the
first nation to impose visa restrictions and financial sanctions on
individuals implicated in his murder. If confirmed, I commit to urge
the government of Saudi Arabia--and all governments around the world--
to protect human rights.
Vetting Outside Conflicts
Question. At the hearing, in response to my question regarding
irregular channels and whether Rudy Giuliani's involvement in foreign
policy was demonstrative of ``normal'' foreign policy, you responded
that you often have worked with outside advisors in your current
position.
If confirmed, do you commit that you will personally ensure the
Department has a policy to vet any such ``outside advisor'' who
is playing a significant role in U.S. foreign policy, is
subject to vetting, including a conflicts of interest and
financial check?
Answer. I agree with you and with Secretary Pompeo on the need to
recruit talented personnel to represent the United States in all
positions, including Department leadership. I will work hard to ensure
qualified candidates are vetted carefully during their consideration
for overseas ambassadorial and domestic positions requiring Senate
confirmation, including in coordination with the White House. As for
outside advisors, I will not allow any individual outside the Executive
Branch to play a role in my work other than an advisor role, based on
their expertise, and I will seek to ensure this does not contribute to
any conflict of interest.
Question. The Department's Dissent Channel was set up during the
Vietnam War era as an avenue for foreign and civil service officers to
raise concerns with senior management about U.S. foreign policy,
without fear of retribution. The Foreign Affairs Manual explicitly
states ``Freedom from reprisal for Dissent Channel users is strictly
enforced.'' In the past, the Trump administration has said that Foreign
Service Officers using the ``Dissent Channel'' to express their views
on Presidential Executive Orders should ``either get with the program
or they can go.'' Are you aware of the Department's Dissent Channel
policies?
Answer. It is the Department of State's policy that all U.S.
citizen employees should be able to express dissenting or alternative
views on substantive issues of policy in a manner that ensures serious,
high-level review and response. All drafters of Dissent Channel cables
are offered anonymity and are guaranteed by the FAM freedom from
reprisals. I fully support the Department's Dissent Channel policies.
Question. Do you commit to upholding these policies and holding
accountable any personnel who engage in retribution against employees
who use the Dissent Channel?
Answer. The Department has a strong interest in facilitating open
dialogue on substantive foreign policy issues. I take seriously my
responsibility to foster an atmosphere supportive of such dialogue,
including the opportunity to offer dissenting opinions without fear of
penalty. Freedom from reprisal for Dissent Channel users is strictly
enforced. Anyone found to have engaged in retaliation against a Dissent
Channel drafter, or to have divulged to unauthorized personnel Dissent
Channel messages, will be subject to appropriate disciplinary action.
Dissent Channel messages, including the identity of the authors, are
one of the most sensitive elements of our internal deliberative process
and are protected accordingly.
Question. How specifically will you encourage employees to utilize
the Dissent Channel and combat any chilling effects against using the
Dissent Channel stemming from the White House?
Answer. If confirmed, I will strongly encourage employees to
utilize the Dissent Channel. The Dissent Channel was created to bring
in alternative views on substantive foreign policy to the attention of
the Secretary of State, and other senior State Department leaders, in a
manner that protects the author from any penalty, reprisal, or
recrimination. I believe that use of the Dissent Channel is a sign of
the strength of the employees of the Department of State, not a
weakness.
Role of State Department
Question. Mr. Biegun, in the past Secretary Pompeo has
characterized the State Department political nominees the
administration has sent to this committee as ``excellent'' and
``outstanding'' candidates. While I have great respect for qualified
career State Department Foreign Service Officers, we have also received
political nominees that are, to put it bluntly, unqualified and unfit.
I recognize that yours would not be the only voice in approving
nominations. But you would have role in the process, so I would like to
know, if confirmed, if will you sign-off on:
A nominee who has, on social media, made personal attacks on
members of this committee or their family members?
Answer. I agree with you and with Secretary Pompeo on the need to
recruit talented personnel to represent the United States in all
positions, to include Department leadership. I will work hard to ensure
qualified candidates are vetted carefully during their consideration
for overseas ambassadorial and domestic positions requiring Senate
confirmation, including in coordination with the White House.
Question. A nominee who has retweeted a post with anti-Semitic or
racist content, or expressions of religious bigotry and intolerance?
Answer. I agree with you and with Secretary Pompeo on the need to
recruit talented personnel to represent the United States in all
positions, to include Department leadership. I will work hard to ensure
qualified candidates are vetted carefully during their consideration
for overseas ambassadorial and domestic positions requiring Senate
confirmation, including in coordination with the White House. The
Department works to combat anti-Semitism, bigotry, and intolerance
around the world, including through our public diplomacy efforts and
our Special Envoy to monitor and combat anti-Semitism. Additionally,
the Department's Office of Civil Rights works daily foster an
environment of fairness, equity, and inclusion within the Department.
Question. Nominees who have had restraining orders issued against
them?
Answer. I agree with you and with Secretary Pompeo on the need to
recruit talented personnel to represent the United States in all
positions, to include Department leadership. I will work hard to ensure
qualified candidates are vetted carefully during their consideration
for overseas ambassadorial and domestic positions requiring Senate
confirmation, including in coordination with the White House. The
Department carefully reviews the criminal history of every applicant as
part of the hiring and clearance process.
Question. Someone who may have committed tax fraud?
Answer. I agree with you and with Secretary Pompeo on the need to
recruit talented personnel to represent the United States in all
positions, to include Department leadership. I will work hard to ensure
qualified candidates are vetted carefully during their consideration
for overseas ambassadorial and domestic positions requiring Senate
confirmation, including in coordination with the White House. All
Department employees are required to comply fully with U.S. tax law.
Question. A nominee who has been involved in sexual harassment
lawsuits?
Answer. I agree with you and with Secretary Pompeo on the need to
recruit talented personnel to represent the United States in all
positions, to include Department leadership. I will work hard to ensure
qualified candidates are vetted carefully during their consideration
for overseas ambassadorial and domestic positions requiring Senate
confirmation, including in coordination with the White House. The
Department is committed to providing a workplace that is free from
sexual harassment. Sexual harassment in the workplace is against the
law and will not be tolerated. When the Department determines that an
allegation of sexual harassment is credible, it takes prompt and
appropriate corrective action.
Question. A nominee for a strategic post with literally no foreign
policy experience?
Answer. I agree with you and with Secretary Pompeo on the need to
recruit talented personnel to represent the United States in all
positions, to include Department leadership. I will work hard to ensure
qualified candidates are vetted carefully during their consideration
for overseas ambassadorial and domestic positions requiring Senate
confirmation, including in coordination with the White House. The
President may appoint Ambassadors based on their unique qualifications
and experience, including in outside sectors, such as private business.
Question. Can I have your commitment, if confirmed, that you will
oppose political nominees with these sorts of marks in their files from
being nominated?
Answer. I agree with you and with Secretary Pompeo on the need to
recruit talented personnel to represent the United States in all
positions, to include Department leadership. I will work hard to ensure
qualified candidates are vetted carefully during their consideration
for overseas ambassadorial and domestic positions requiring Senate
confirmation, including in coordination with the White House. If
confirmed, I will seek out and support political nominees who are
highly qualified and demonstrate a track record of excellence and
integrity.
Question. Foreign diplomacy under this administration has been
frequently carried out outside official diplomatic channels. In the
Gulf, we've seen certain officials in the White House develop personal
relationships with senior Gulf leaders, including Mohammad bin Salman
and operate--from what we understand--completely outside of the
standard diplomatic channels. Do you think it's appropriate for the NSC
or anyone in the White House to be pursuing policies with the Kingdom
without the input, sign-off or even awareness of the Chief of Mission,
the State Department, or any other embassy staff? If confirmed, what
will you do if you run across such a situation?
Answer. The U.S. government should always act as one unit in the
execution of foreign policy. If confirmed, I will forcefully work to
ensure that U.S. government officials in Washington and at our missions
overseas are operating in the most coordinated manner possible.
Question. What steps will you take to ensure U.S. diplomats are
kept in the loop and U.S. relationships are conducted through normal
diplomatic channels?
Answer. If confirmed, my policy as Deputy Secretary will be to have
Department representatives and appropriate interagency counterparts
directly involved in every official meeting and communications channel
with foreign government interlocutors, to the extent possible. I
believe strongly the U.S. government should always act as one unit in
the execution of foreign policy, and all U.S. officials with formal
responsibilities on a specific issue or country should be involved,
commensurate with their ranks and roles.
Question. If one of our senior diplomats warned you that ending
Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for a country and stripping hundreds
of thousands of people of humanitarian protections would jeopardize our
national security, yet a Trump administration political appointee
recommended that you accelerate the termination of TPS so it wouldn't
be a liability during the 2020 election, what would you do?
Answer. The decision on whether to designate or extend a country's
designation for TPS is made by the Secretary of Homeland Security,
after consultation with appropriate agencies. I understand that, as
part of the process, the Secretary of Homeland Security usually
consults with the Secretary of State. If confirmed, I will seek to
ensure the Secretary has what he needs to properly inform the DHS
decision.
Question. If one of our senior diplomats told you ending TPS would
send hundreds of thousands of people back to countries ridden with
crime and violence, but a Trump administration political appointees
recommended it anyway, what would you do?
Answer. The decision on whether to designate or extend a country's
designation for TPS is made by the Secretary of Homeland Security,
after consultation with appropriate agencies. I understand that, as
part of the process, the Secretary of Homeland Security usually
consults with the Secretary of State. If confirmed, I will seek to
ensure the Secretary has what he needs to properly inform the DHS
decision.
Question. If one of our senior diplomats told you that hundreds of
thousands of American citizen children would face crime and violence if
they accompanied their TPS recipient parents back to their homeland,
yet Trump administration political appointees still recommended it,
what would you do?
Answer. The decision on whether to designate or extend a country's
designation for TPS is made by the Secretary of Homeland Security,
after consultation with appropriate agencies. I understand that, as
part of the process, the Secretary of Homeland Security usually
consults with the Secretary of State. If confirmed, I will seek to
ensure the Secretary has what he needs to properly inform the DHS
decision.
Question. A hallmark of U.S. leadership has long been our
commitment to our partners and allies. President Trump doesn't seem to
appreciate that, and his actions undermine American credibility. The
Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) have fought on the frontlines against
ISIS, in close partnership with the United States and United States
allies, and lost more than 11,000 lives as a result. It seems to me
that the United States should continue this partnership with the SDF in
order to defeat ISIS and protect U.S. national security. Have our
Kurdish partners in Syria been a reliable ally?
Answer. U.S. actions in Syria remain driven by our core objectives:
the enduring defeat of ISIS and al-Qa'ida; a political solution to the
Syrian conflict in line with United Nations Security Council Resolution
2254; and encouraging the removal of all Iranian-backed forces from
Syria. The United States longstanding interests have been clearly
stated and align with our Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Force (SDF)
partners in these areas.
Many Kurdish SDF fighters in Syria and Iraqi Kurds fought valiantly
against ISIS. The United States sincerely appreciates the tremendous
sacrifice these forces made. The Kurdish-led SDF remains a reliable
partner in U.S. efforts to ensure the enduring defeat of ISIS in
northeast Syria, and the U.S. will continue working with them.
Question. Would we have defeated the physical ISIS caliphate
without the Kurds?
Answer. The Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces are an important
partner in our efforts to ensure the enduring defeat of ISIS. Many
Kurdish fighters in both Iraq and Syria courageously fought alongside
U.S. and Coalition forces to defeat ISIS. The United States sincerely
appreciates the tremendous sacrifice these forces made.
Question. Do our Kurdish partners view us as a reliable partner?
Answer. On October 23, the spokesperson for the Kurdish-led Syrian
Democratic Forces thanked President Trump on Twitter for his support
and efforts to stabilize the region. The Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic
Forces remain an important and reliable partner in our efforts to
ensure the enduring defeat of ISIS in northeast Syria. The President
has clearly and publicly articulated his support for our Syrian
Democratic Forces partners. I understand that Ambassadors Jeffrey and
Roebuck remain in daily contact with the SDF leadership.
Question. How will this decision impact our ongoing ability to
confront continuing ISIS threats?
Answer. The Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces remain our
partners in northeast Syria as the United States continues to pursue
and defeat ISIS. As the President has stated, some U.S. troops will
remain in Syria for now to help ensure that ISIS does not reconstitute
or gain control of oil fields in northeast Syria.
Question. Withdrawing troops in northern Syria and greenlighting
Turkey's incursion paves the way for continued Iran adventurism in
Syria. A reduced U.S. presence in Syria with increased Russian activity
all but guarantees that Iran and will fill in the vacuum, positioning
itself to build its long sought land bridge to the Mediterranean. From
there it can easily deliver arms and supplies to Hezbollah and further
threaten our ally Israel. Does the administration have a plan for
countering Iran in Syria?
Answer. U.S. policy in Syria remains the removal of all Iranian-
backed forces from Syria, the enduring defeat of ISIS and al-Qa'ida,
and a political solution to the conflict in line with U.N. Security
Council Resolution 2254. The administration opposed the Turkish
invasion of northern Syria. Turkey has a role to play in resolving this
crisis, but it has acted unwisely and dangerously despite warnings and
incentives from this administration to pursue different courses of
action. The administration remains committed to pushing back on malign
Iranian influence in the region, including full support of Israel's
right to self-defense.
Question. If so, please explain what it is and how it will account
for recent gains by Iran-backed, pro regime forces that are filling the
vacuum the departure of U.S. troops created in northern Syria.
Answer. The United States is conducting a campaign of economic
pressure to deny the Iranian regime funds that it uses for its malign
regional activities, including in Syria. Since May 2018, our sanctions
have reduced Iran's crude oil exports by more than 90 percent,
depriving the regime of around $25 billion in export revenues and as
much as $50 billion in revenue annually going forward. The
administration is putting effective pressure on Iran for the first time
in a long time. U.S. efforts supporting a political resolution in Syria
in line with U.N. Security Council Resolution 2254 counter Iran's
actions to prop up the brutal Assad regime and the U.S. supports
Israel's action against Iranian forces threatening Israel from Syrian
soil.
Question. What commitments, if any, do we have with Turkish and
Iraqi authorities to prevent Iran from moving fighters and supplies
from Iraq through northern Syria?
Answer. Iran is the biggest cause of insecurity in the Middle East,
and routinely violates the sovereignty of Iraq by sending personnel and
material through Iraq to Syria. We have routinely pressed the
government of Iraq (GOI) to control its borders and prevent these
movements, while providing substantial security assistance to Border
Guard Forces. The United States has bilateral and NATO instruments with
Turkey to ensure border security, including information-sharing
arrangements related to the threat posed by foreign terrorist fighters.
The United States expects the GOI and the government of Turkey to
continue cooperation with the United States and others to prevent
Iran's malign activities.
Question. If there are no commitments, what steps with the U.S.
take to prevent this from happening?
Answer. The United States regularly presses the government of Iraq
to monitor and control its borders and prevent the movement of illicit
actors into northeastern Syria. The Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS and
the United States work with the Syrian Democratic Forces to ensure the
enduring defeat of ISIS and prevent the emergence of a security vacuum
in northeast Syria that could be exploited by Iran, ISIS, or other
malign actors.
Question. How has the Turkish incursion into northeastern Syria
impacted Iranian ability to operate directly or through proxies in
Syria?
Answer. The United States is conducting a campaign of economic
pressure to deny the Iranian regime funds for its malign regional
activities, including in Syria. Since May 2018, U.S. sanctions reduced
Iran's crude oil exports by more than 90 percent, depriving the regime
of around $25 billion in export revenues and as much as $50 billion in
revenue annually going forward. For the first time in many years, this
administration placed effective pressure on Iran. Efforts by the United
States supporting a political resolution in Syria in line with U.N.
Security Council Resolution 2254 counter Iran's actions to prop up the
brutal Assad regime and the United States supports Israel's action
against Iranian forces threatening Israel from Syrian soil.
Question. Recent reports indicate that the U.S. may wind up with
900 troops stationed around oil fields in eastern Syria, only 100 fewer
than the 1,000 that were in Syria before the President's withdrawal
announcement. A significant number of those troops appear to include
National Guard armored units. What are the administration's current
priorities in Syria and is our current posture enough to achieve them?
Answer. The administration's Syria policy consists of three
priorities: the enduring defeat of ISIS and al-Qa'ida; a political
solution to the Syrian conflict in line with U.N. Security Council
Resolution 2254; and the removal of all Iranian-backed forces from
Syria. I fully support the administration's approach of using all
political and economic tools available to pressure the Assad regime and
advance the political process in line with 2254 to deliver real reforms
that have a real impact for all Syrians, including those in the
diaspora, while maintaining a U.S. military presence in northeast Syria
to ensure the enduring defeat of ISIS.
Question. The President keeps referring to the mission of the U.S.
Armed Forces stationed in Syria as ``protecting the oil''; he often
also speaks of ``taking'' the oil. Do you believe that the U.S.
``taking'' the oil, or bringing in outside companies to extract the
oil, without the permission of the Syrian government, is illegal under
international law?
Answer. The enduring defeat of ISIS is a key priority of the
administration's Syria policy and is critical to the national security
of the United States. Oil fields were a major source of revenue for the
ISIS territorial caliphate, which the United States has now 100 percent
destroyed. The United States will deny ISIS access to critical
resources and revenue that could allow them to regain strength. The
United States will continue to partner with the Syrian Democratic
Forces to prevent an ISIS resurgence, including by denying them access
to the revenues they could generate from oil fields.
Question. Does the President have any authority under the
Constitution or under any Authorization of Use of Military Force to
militarily protect the Syrian oil fields from Syrian government forces
or Russian forces? If not, then do you believe that the President would
need a new AUMF in order to do so?
Answer. Legal authorities for our presence in Syria have not
changed and the administration is not seeking an additional AUMF. The
President has sufficient constitutional and statutory authority to
direct the U.S. Armed Forces to carry out the mission of denying ISIS
access to critical resources and revenue that could allow them to
regain strength. Oil fields were a major source of revenue for the ISIS
territorial caliphate. The enduring defeat of ISIS is a key priority of
the administration's Syria policy and is critical to our national
security, which the President is charged with protecting.
Question. In the wake of the administration's maximum pressure
campaign, Iran has renounced many of the nuclear commitments it made in
the JCPOA. Iran has restarted its enrichment program at Fordow, a
fortified laboratory hidden beneath a mountain. The Institute for
Science and International Studies warned in early September that over
time these steps could ``shrink precipitously'' the amount of time Iran
needs to produce the material for one nuclear weapon, known as breakout
time. Would you agree that the nuclear steps Iran has taken since July
have shrunk their breakout time below one year?
Answer. If confirmed, I will defer to the intelligence community
and the Department of Energy for their analysis of the impact of Iran's
recent nuclear escalations on their breakout timeline. The maximum
pressure campaign is putting the Iranian regime under unprecedented
economic strain. Since May 2018, U.S. sanctions have reduced Iran's
crude oil exports by over 90 percent, depriving the regime of over $25
billion in export revenues. The regime would have used this money to
fund destabilizing activities, including its nuclear program.
Question. Given Iran turning away from its JCPOA nuclear
commitments and increased aggressive actions against the Gulf states
and in the Strait of Hormuz, is now the time to take into account and
debate the differing views and ideas across the branches of government?
Do you assess that Iran is now closer to achieving its goal of building
a nuclear weapon than it was before the maximum pressure campaign was
initiated?
Answer. If confirmed, I will approach with an open mind the many
challenges Iran poses to the United States and the world. I look
forward to engaging with Congress and the relevant interagency partners
on how to best achieve our objectives. Iran is facing an unprecedented
economic crisis as a result of the maximum pressure campaign. Iran
therefore must choose between funding its terrorism proxies abroad or
stabilizing its economy.
Question. What is the administration's strategy for reigning in
Iran's nuclear program now that Iran has said it is no longer bound by
the commitments it made in the JCPOA?
Answer. The JCPOA was a flawed deal because it did not permanently
address our concerns with respect to Iran's nuclear program or its
destabilizing conduct. The fact that Iran has been able to return to
higher levels of nuclear enrichment so easily reflects the deal's
deficiencies. The purpose of the maximum pressure campaign is to bring
Iran to the negotiation table to address both its nuclear program and
its destabilizing activities. The United States is also engaged in
robust international engagement to bring multilateral pressure on Iran
and to raise the costs of its nuclear escalation. At the same time, the
United States continues to support the IAEA's continued professional
and independent verification and monitoring of Iran's program.
Question. At what point will the size and sophistication of Iran's
nuclear program force the administration to consider whether military
action is necessary to restrain Iran's nuclear program?
Answer. The President has been clear that we do not seek war with
Iran. That is why the maximum pressure campaign is solely diplomatic
and economic in nature, forcing Iran to choose between ceasing its
destabilizing activities or facing greater economic pressure and
isolation. Iran must meet our diplomacy with diplomacy, not with
violence and extortion.
Question. What concrete steps are you taking to get Iran back to
negotiations to address its nuclear activity, including ballistic
missile production?
Answer. The maximum pressure campaign is putting the Iranian regime
under unprecedented economic strain. Since May 2018 our sanctions have
reduced Iran's crude oil exports by over 90 percent, depriving the
regime of over $25 billion in export revenues, and as much as $50
billion in revenue annually going forward. The purpose of the campaign
is to get Iran back to comprehensive negotiations that address not only
its nuclear activities but also its missile program, destabilizing
activities in the region, and continued unjust detention of American
and foreign citizens.
Question. How are our European partners responding to Iran's
nuclear developments? What steps are you taking to ensure international
coordination on efforts to constrain Iran's nuclear ambitions?
Answer. The UK, France, and Germany have all expressed concern with
Iran's recent decisions to advance its nuclear program through
increased uranium enrichment and research efforts in advanced
centrifuge design. Cooperation with European allies and partners to
address the range of threats posed by Iran remains robust and we are in
regular communication with our allies and partners regarding our Iran
policy and how to increase pressure on Iran for its nuclear
escalations. I understand that the U.S. welcomed the E3's September 23
statement urging Iran to reverse its nuclear developments and accept
negotiations on a framework for its nuclear and missile programs.
Question. Iran's violent response to ongoing protests throughout
the country are the same response we have seen to previous protests.
How are these protests similar or different from earlier protests that
the regime was able to repress?
Answer. The current protests began after the regime's announcement
on November 15 that it would raise gasoline prices substantially. We
have been closely monitoring these protests and the regime's response,
but it is too early to make a definitive comparison to the protests in
late 2017 and early 2018. Our early assessments indicate that they were
widespread and damage to property was extensive. The unconfirmed number
of protesters killed by the regime also appears to be higher than in
the 2017-2018 protests. The decision by the regime to shut down
Internet access almost completely for several days across the country
was more extensive than actions it had taken previously.
Question. What is the administration's strategy to engage these
protests? How does the administration plan to balance support for these
protesters with the maximum pressure campaign??
Answer. A key component of our Iran strategy is support for the
Iranian people, who are the longest suffering victims of the Iranian
regime. During the recent protests, we have called for the regime to
respect their human rights. This is consistent with the maximum
pressure campaign, which seeks to comprehensively change the behavior
of the regime so that the Iranian people can have the government they
deserve. The State Department, working with other agencies, is
committed to using sanctions and other authorities to hold human rights
abusers accountable. For example, the United States sanctioned Iran's
Minister of Information and Communication on November 22 for his role
in restricting Internet access to the people of Iran.
Question. In Iraq and Lebanon, we have seen massive protests in
response to, among other things, Iran's undue influence in politics and
corruption in those countries.
What steps is the administration taking to counter malign Iranian
influence in those countries and around the region?
Answer. The economic strain caused by the maximum pressure campaign
means the Iranian regime has less money to support its proxies and
spread terror across the region. Earlier this year, Hizballah Secretary
General Hassan Nasrallah publicly appealed for donations for the first
time ever. In Iraq, Embassy Baghdad continually highlights the
difference between positive, constructive American engagement and the
exploitative and destructive malign influence of Iran. Iranian proxies
in Syria and elsewhere are going unpaid, and the services they once
relied upon are drying up. Hamas has also enacted what it calls an
``austerity plan'' to deal with a lack of funds from Iran.
Question. What steps is the administration taking to engage
protesters and support their calls for responsive governments free from
corruption and malign Iranian influence?
Answer. One of the chief goals of the maximum pressure campaign is
to curb the Iranian regime's malign influence in the region. Recent
protests in Iraq in particular demonstrate that people are demanding
responsive government and reduced Iranian influence. The Iranian people
also continue to call on their government to invest more at home and
less on misadventures abroad. The United States supports the Iranian
people's demands, and the Department will continue to work with our
partners to counter Iran's malign behavior and support transparent,
improved governance free from corruption.
Question. In the U.N. Special Rapporteur for extrajudicial, summary
or arbitrary executions' report on Jamal Khashoggi's murder, she found
that there is ``credible evidence warranting further investigation of
high-level Saudi officials' individual liability, including the crown
prince.''
Have you read the report? If not, will you commit now to reading
it?
Answer. I have been briefed on the report, and if confirmed, am
committed to reviewing, all information available to the U.S.
government regarding the murder of Jamal Khashoggi.
Question. Do you commit to assisting any U.S. government efforts to
investigate the cause of Khashoggi's murder?
Answer. I am committed to any U.S. government efforts to collect
all the facts regarding the horrific murder of Jamal Khashoggi.
Question. Do you believe that any individuals, regardless of who
they are, should be held responsible?
Answer. Yes. The President and Secretary of State have been clear
that Saudi Arabia must hold accountable every individual implicated in
the horrific murder of Jamal Khashoggi, regardless of rank. If
confirmed, I will do my utmost to advance this goal. As you are aware,
the United States was the first country to take significant action to
promote accountability in the case, including use of Global Magnitsky
sanctions authorities to aggressively pursue individuals who had a role
in the killing. If confirmed, I will support continued action as new
information becomes available.
Question. Do you commit to urging Saudi Arabia to conduct trials
that are free and fair, and to investigate the individuals responsible
for Khashoggi's murder?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I will continue to urge the government
of Saudi Arabia to fully investigate the murder, hold all parties
involved accountable, and conduct a fair and transparent judicial
process.
Question. Do you commit to publicly raising concerns about other
human rights abuses inside Saudi Arabia?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I will continue to raise human rights
issues both publicly and privately, whether with the government of
Saudi Arabia or other governments around the world. I will continue to
urge the Saudi government to ensure fair trial guarantees,
transparency, rule of law, and freedom from arbitrary and extrajudicial
detention. If confirmed, I will call on Saudi Arabia to treat prisoners
and detainees humanely, to ensure that allegations of abuse are
investigated quickly and thoroughly, and that those found responsible
are held accountable.
Question. Please detail the U.S. embassy presence at the Saudi
trials of those it says it is holding responsible for the death of
Jamal Khashoggi.
Answer. U.S. embassy observers have attended all eight hearings of
the Jamal Khashoggi murder trial. I understand the trial remains
ongoing.
Question. What efforts you are taking to secure the release of
Americans in prison in Saudi Arabia?
Answer. The safety and welfare of U.S. citizens overseas is one of
my top priorities. If confirmed, the U.S. Embassy Riyadh team and I
will continue to press the Saudi government for the fair and humane
treatment of all U.S. citizens detained in Saudi Arabia and for an
expeditious and transparent judicial process so their cases may be
resolved quickly.
Question. Foreign diplomacy under this administration has been
frequently carried out by unofficial diplomats. In the Gulf, we've seen
certain officials develop personal relationships with senior Gulf
leaders, including Mohammad bin Salman and operate--from what we
understand--completely outside of the standard diplomatic channels. Is
it appropriate for official staff or anyone affiliated with the White
House to be pursuing policies with Saudi Arabia without the input,
signoff or even awareness of the Chief of Mission, the State Department
or any other embassy staff?
Answer. The U.S. government should always act as one unit in the
execution of foreign policy. If confirmed, I will forcefully work to
ensure that U.S. government officials in Washington and at our missions
overseas are operating in the most coordinated manner possible.
Question. What steps will you take to ensure U.S. diplomats are
kept in informed of unofficial exchanges and U.S. relationships are
conducted through normal diplomatic channels?
Answer. If confirmed, my policy as Deputy Secretary will be to have
State Department representatives and appropriate interagency
counterparts directly involved in every official meeting and
communications channel with foreign government interlocutors, to the
extent possible. I believe strongly the U.S. government should always
act as one unit in the execution of foreign policy, and all U.S.
officials with formal responsibilities on a specific issue or country
should be involved, commensurate with their ranks and roles.
Question. As I have recently noted in letters to Secretary Pompeo,
Ambassador Abizaid and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, I am extremely troubled
by Saudi attempts to spy on and intimidate activists over social media,
as shown by the charges recently brought by the U.S. Department of
Justice. What steps is the State Department taking, specifically, to
raise concerns with Saudi officials about using U.S. technology
companies to monitor and gather information on dissidents and those
critical of the Kingdom?
Answer. I share your concerns and understand the Department
immediately raised the issue with Saudi Arabian officials in Riyadh and
Washington. The reported misuse of American technology companies and
social media to access personal data of dissidents is unacceptable. I
know Department officials in both capitals regularly raise with Saudi
leaders a range of human rights issues and advocate for Saudi Arabia's
adherence to international principles, including respect for civil
liberties and the rights to freedom of association and expression,
including peaceful dissent. If confirmed, I pledge to continue raising
these issues with Saudi leadership.
Question. How is the administration working with technology
companies to ensure they are not being exploited by foreign countries,
including Saudi Arabia, for surveillance of dissidents?
Answer. The United States engages with technology companies on a
variety of subjects, including defending against state and non-state
actors. Specific to Saudi Arabia, the U.S. Commercial Service team in
country is in regular contact with U.S. technology companies and other
U.S. businesses to address their concerns in conducting business in
Saudi Arabia, including privacy and data protection. The Commercial
Service will lead an inbound Digital Economy Mission in January 2020 to
engage the Saudi Arabian government on these issues.
Question. The Associated Press, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty
International, and the U.N. Panel of Experts on Yemen have all issued
reports detailing the torture of Yemeni detainees by Yemeni forces
receiving support from the UAE. There are also allegations that at
times UAE forces themselves have directly participated in the torture
and illegal detention of Yemeni detainees in a network of secret
prisons. Have you read these reports? If not, will you commit now to
reading them?
Answer. I will read these reports.
Question. Given the findings of these reports, do you agree or
disagree with their conclusions that the UAE has responsibility for the
torture and disappearances of detainees in Yemen by its own forces or
by Yemeni forces under the UAE's effective control or direction?
Answer. I have been briefed that the administration is not able to
independently verify the allegations upon which the findings of the
reports are based, but, given the seriousness of the allegations, the
United States has raised and will continue to raise with the UAE
through diplomatic, intelligence, and military channels.. It is crucial
for the United States to investigate such reports and ensure that any
forces found to have engaged in such abuses are held accountable.
Question. What should the United States' role be in investigating
the allegations of illegal detention and torture?
Answer. The administration takes allegations of illegal detention
and torture by all sides in the Yemen conflict very seriously and
closely monitors human rights conditions in Yemen. The Department
reported on allegations of illegal detention and torture in Yemen in
the most recently published Human Rights Report. If confirmed, I will
continue to raise such allegations with government counterparts at
senior levels through diplomatic, intelligence, and military channels.
I would also emphasize the importance of investigating such reports and
ensuring that those responsible for such abuses are held accountable.
Question. What steps will you take to push the UAE to release any
and all unjustly held individuals in UAE-run facilities in Yemen and to
hold accountable those responsible for arbitrary detention and torture?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with administration
colleagues to continue to urge all parties, including the UAE, to treat
prisoners and detainees humanely and to ensure that abuses are
investigated and those responsible are held accountable. In any
engagements with Yemeni government and Saudi-led coalition officials, I
will urge all parties to allow regular access by the International
Committee of the Red Cross to any detention facilities in Yemen under
their control to ensure detainees are being treated in accordance with
international law.
Question. I remain concerned over reports that the UAE has
transferred U.S. origin weapons, including small arms, anti-tank
missiles and armored vehicles to armed Yemeni groups that include
affiliates of al Qaeda fighters and hardline Salafi militias. Such
transfers are in direct violation of sales agreements made between the
U.S. and the UAE. I understand the Department is also continuing to
review these allegations. If confirmed, what steps will you take to
ensure there is a thorough investigation into these transfers and make
certain that they do not happen again?
Answer. The Department takes all allegations of unauthorized
transfers of U.S-origin defense articles very seriously. We continue to
investigate this matter and intend to reach a determination soon. If a
partner country does violate provisions of any transfer agreements, the
Department will typically work with the country to ensure that they
have a complete understanding of their requirements and assist in
establishing procedures for appropriate oversight. Depending on the
severity of the violation, we may consider other measures.
Question. Going forward, what steps should the U.S. take to prevent
such transfers that were not taken in this instance?
Answer. As with all such cases, we will first determine what
occurred and will then take steps relevant and applicable to whatever
circumstances occurred. In all such cases, our goals include ensuring
there are no violations.
Question. On July 1, Iraq's Prime Minister issued a decree
attempting to more closely integrate the Popular Mobilization Forces
(PMFs) into the Iraqi Armed Forces. As you know, these militias, some
of which are backed by Iran, contribute to Iraq's instability,
especially in the northern regions. What continuing support, if any,
does Iran provide to PMF units? What is your assessment of the PMF
threat to Iraq's security and the steps taken by the Iraqi government
so far to address that threat?
Answer. Iran provides support to some PMF units. This includes
logistical, advisory, and material support as well as training. The
actions of undisciplined PMF units such as Kata'ib Hezbollah, Harakat
al-Nujaba, and other Iran-backed groups are destabilizing and threaten
Iraq's internal security.
The prime minister's July 1 decree ordering PMF units to
depoliticize, remove checkpoints, and forego economic activities was a
positive step toward reform. Iraq had made minor progress implementing
the decree before the country was racked by wide-spread protests in
October.
Question. What is your assessment of the role played by Iran-backed
Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) in the violent response to recent
protests?
Answer. The Department assesses that some members of Iran-backed
PMF units have taken part in the violent suppression of protests in
Iraq. Not all PMF units have taken part in quelling protests; some
disciplined units that are sponsored by Iraq's Shia religious
authorities--the Marja'iyah--have refrained from violence against
demonstrators. As Secretary Pompeo said on November 19, ``the United
States is prepared to impose sanctions.on those responsible for the
deaths and wounding of peaceful protesters.'' We expect to announce new
sanctions in the coming days.
Question. Please describe how the United States is supporting Iraqi
efforts to integrate security forces into government control. What
steps will be taken going forward?
Answer. The prime minister's July 1 decree ordering PMF units to
depoliticize, remove checkpoints, and cease economic activity was a
positive step. The timeline by which PMF units are integrated into the
Iraqi security forces as called for by the decree is for the government
of Iraq to decide. Prior to the start of protests in October, Prime
Minister Adel Abd al-Mahdi was steadfast in his statements that the PMF
must reform into a disciplined and apolitical security service, yet
progress was negligible. The United States is prepared to offer
technical assistance to the government of Iraq to reform its security
sector and to take punitive action against spoilers who, through
violence or corruption, attempt to block legitimate reform efforts.
Question. We recently passed the seventh month mark since the State
Department instituted ordered departure of all non-emergency personnel
from Iraq. With little congressional engagement in the interim, the
ordered departure in Iraq appears to have been lifted. Additionally,
proposed security assistance to Iraq has taken a cut under this
administration's FY 2020 budget proposal. What exactly is the plan for
U.S. presence in Iraq?
Answer. On May 14, Mission Iraq went on ordered departure due to
credible threats from armed groups not under the control of the Iraqi
government. The evacuation included the Baghdad embassy compound, the
Baghdad diplomatic support center, and Consulate General Erbil. In late
June/early July, the Department developed a new minimal staffing plan
to advance the President's strategic objectives while minimizing the
number of personnel working in a high threat, high-risk volatile
environment. On November 5, the Department terminated ordered
departure. The Department has consulted with Congress on this new
minimal staffing plan and is preparing a formal Congressional
notification.
Question. While I recognize that you may not be able to share
numbers in an unclassified format, please describe how many personnel
are currently in country and where? When does the administration plan
to be at full staffing levels in Iraq, given the lifting of the ordered
departure? What percentage of pre-departure levels will they be?
Answer. Mission Iraq terminated ordered departure on November 5.
During ordered departure, the Department developed a new minimal
staffing level. Consistent with the findings of the staffing review,
the current plan is to reduce Mission Iraq staffing levels by 28
percent below the pre-ordered departure staffing levels (inclusive of
U.S. direct hires, personal service contractors, and third-country
nationals, excluding certain personnel) by May 31, 2020. The Department
has consulted with Congress on this plan and is preparing a formal
Congressional notification.
Question. What have been the impacts of reducing diplomatic
presence in our diplomatic facilities, especially given the ongoing
protests?
Answer. The reduction of our diplomatic staff in Iraq has had
minimal impact on the State Department's ability to address the
protests. Ambassador Tueller leads a team of our best and most
effective diplomatic professionals at our embassy in Baghdad and our
consulate in Erbil. As the largest donor to humanitarian,
stabilization, demining, and security assistance, our efforts are aimed
at helping the government of Iraq improve its delivery of essential
basic services, encouraging it to institute reforms demanded by the
protesters, and urging the security forces to exercise maximum
restraint and refrain from violence in dealing with protesters.
Question. Please provide an unclassified description of the current
threat level in Iraq and the decision making process that led to the
lifting of the ordered departure.
Answer. In May, in the face of credible threats from armed groups
not under the control of the Iraqi government, the Department
authorized an ordered departure and evacuated all non emergency
personnel to reduce the potential threat against U.S. facilities and
personnel. In early November, the Department lifted the ordered
departure, implementing a staffing plan that leaves the minimal number
of staff at our posts necessary to accomplish the U.S. government's
mission. The Department continues to monitor the security situation and
adjusts staffing levels as appropriate. The Department has consulted
with Congress on the new minimal staffing levels and is preparing a
formal Congressional notification.
Question. Will you commit to keeping Congress informed about
staffing and personnel plans?
Answer. Yes, we are committed to keeping Congress appropriately
informed.
Question. Along with many of my colleagues, I continue to be
concerned about the closure of our consulate in Basra. Outreach to
Iraq's Shia heartland seems more important than ever given the ongoing
protests there. Please describe the administration's plans for
engagement with the southern governorates of Iraq closure of the U.S.
Consulate in Basra.
Answer. Ambassador Tueller and his team in Baghdad will continue to
engage with a variety of contacts in southern Iraq to keep apprised of
the situation there. We will continue to engage officials at the
highest levels within the government of Iraq and urge them to address
the protesters' demands throughout the country and not to use violence
against peaceful protesters.
Question. What effects has the U.S. withdrawal had on U.S.
interlocutors among the local Iraqi populations in the south?
Answer. Ambassador Tueller and his team in Baghdad have made use of
an extensive network of relationships with contacts in southern Iraq--
built over many years--to work around the challenges posed by the
reduction of our diplomatic presence in Basrah. This is how Embassy
Baghdad has been able to monitor the protests in southern Iraq and
events elsewhere in Iraq.
Question. Although the State Department, including Secretary Pompeo
have publicly supported the right of Iraqis to peacefully protest and
urged the Iraqi security services to use restraint against protesters,
I am concerned that the recent drawdown has handicapped our ability to
respond to events on the ground. Please provide an unclassified
assessment of the Embassy Baghdad's response to the recent protests
during the drawdown period.
Answer. Our staff has been able to monitor the protests throughout
the country and has kept the Department fully informed through timely
and insightful reporting, despite the reduction of our diplomatic
presence in Iraq. Our efforts are aimed at helping the government of
Iraq improve its delivery of essential basic services, encouraging it
to institute reforms demanded by the protesters, and urging the
security forces to exercise maximum restraint and refrain from violence
in dealing with protesters. Ambassador Tueller has repeatedly delivered
this message in recent weeks to the prime minister, president, speaker,
minister of defense, and other Iraqi leaders. We have also said that we
will hold accountable those responsible for abusing the human rights of
Iraqis and stealing the country's wealth through rampant corruption. I
understand that we plan to announce sanctions against such individuals
in the coming days.
Question. What is the plan for Embassy engagement in the protests
going forward, now that the ordered departure has been lifted?
Answer. We have conducted a full review of our minimal staffing
needs and, now that ordered departure has been lifted, we have been
able to return to full staffing as determined by the review. Our
efforts are aimed at helping the government of Iraq improve its
delivery of essential basic services, encouraging it to institute
reforms demanded by the protesters, and urging the security forces to
exercise maximum restraint and refrain from violence against the
protesters.
Question. How would that plan be different if staffing levels
returned to pre-departure levels?
Answer. The current full staffing level, as determined by the
review, is lower than pre-ordered departure numbers, but it enables us
to engage diplomatically with government of Iraq officials, opposition
leaders, academics, civil society, and a host of others. Ambassador
Tueller and his team are leveraging a vast network of Iraqi contacts,
as well as coordinating closely with other country missions and the
U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq, to promote U.S. interests amidst the
protests. Our staff has been able to monitor the protests throughout
the country and has kept the Department fully informed through timely
and insightful reporting based on this active engagement.
Question. What further steps will the administration take, both
through Embassy Baghdad and in Washington, to urge the Iraq government
to address protester concerns and respond less violently?
Answer. As Secretary Pompeo has said, the United States urges
Iraq's leaders to protect human rights as Iraqis lift their voices to
secure a flourishing democracy. We remain the largest humanitarian
donor to Iraq, providing more than $2 billion in food, water, medicine,
and shelter since 2014. And we are the largest donor as well to
stabilization, rebuilding more than 500 schools, 100 health centers,
and 50 water treatment plants, with many more projects coming soon.
Our commitment continues. The United States will not hesitate to
use its available legal authorities to sanction corrupt individuals who
are stealing the public wealth of the Iraqi people and those killing
and wounding peaceful protesters.
Question. How do you think the United States can best secure our
interests, including an independent and stable Iraq, whose government
is responsive to the demands of its people?
Answer. The United States remains committed to our bilateral
relationship with Iraq, which is key to our national security
priorities in the region, and continues daily diplomatic engagement to
counter malign Iranian influence in Iraq. Iranian efforts to undermine
the Iraqi government, propagate sectarianism, and increase Iraq's
dependency on Iran have alienated many Iraqis, as has become clear
during the current protests. In contrast, our public diplomacy outreach
highlights the marked difference between positive, constructive
American engagement and the exploitative and destructive malign
influence of Iran in Iraq and the broader region. We will continue to
work with the Iraqi security forces to ensure the ISIS caliphate does
not re-emerge.
Question. Until recently, the U.S. was consistent in its support
for the internationally recognized government of National Accord as
well as the U.N.-brokered political process. However, that record was
muddied by President Trump's April 15 telephone call with General
H[a]ftar, which appeared to embolden the General in his advance on
Tripoli. Soon after that, the U.S. reportedly vetoed a U.K.-drafted
U.N. Security Council Resolution calling for a ceasefire in Libya. What
is the administration's current policy towards Libya?
Answer. To my knowledge, the United States did not veto a U.N.
Security Council Resolution on Libya. The United States is engaging all
Libyan parties and their external backers to urge them to de-escalate,
agree to a ceasefire, and return rapidly to dialogue and U.N.-
facilitated political mediation. The United States supported the U.N.
Security Council's unanimous adoption of strong language supporting the
arms embargo when it renewed the U.N. Support Mission in Libya's
mandate in September (UNSCR 2486), and is participating in German-
hosted discussions as part of the three point plan U.N. Special
Representative Salame outlined to the U.N. Security Council.
Question. Is it still our position to back the internationally
recognized government of National Accord?
Answer. Yes, there has been no change to U.S. policy with regard to
recognition of the Libyan government of National Accord (GNA). The
United States is engaging all Libyan parties and their external backers
to urge them to de-escalate, agree to a ceasefire, and return rapidly
to dialogue and U.N.-facilitated political mediation.
Question. Does the U.S. support a ceasefire and resumption of U.N.-
brokered talks in Libya?
Answer. Yes. The United States continues to make clear this
position, in public and private.
Question. Recent media reports have warned that Russian
paramilitary snipers deployed to Libya threaten to tip the balance of
fighting in Tripoli in favor of General Haftar. What is your assessment
of these reports?
Answer. The United States supports Libya's sovereignty and
territorial integrity in the face of Russia's attempts to exploit the
conflict against the will of the Libyan people. I agree with the U.N.'s
Special Representative of the Secretary-General, who said on November
18, ``[T]here is growing involvement of mercenaries and fighters from
foreign private military companies. The insertion of these experienced
fighters has naturally led to an intensification in the violence.''
Question. What is your assessment of Russia's role in Libya more
broadly?
Answer. The United States strongly condemns Russia's destabilizing
interference in this conflict. Libyan civilians suffer the most when
foreign mercenaries are brought in to fight, and the Libyan economy is
weakened when billions of counterfeit Libyan dinars are secretly
funneled to parallel, illegitimate Libyan authorities. Libya's future
should be for Libyans to decide, and Libya's resources should be for
the benefit of the Libyan people. This tenet is in danger.
The United States has noted deep concerns about attempts by
terrorist groups to exploit a security vacuum in Libya. By fueling the
conflict, external actors create space for these terrorists to regroup.
Question. How does Russia's influence with Haftar compare to other
regional actors?
Answer. General Haftar maintains relationships to varying degrees
with a range of countries. The United States prioritizes engagement
with foreign backers of the Libyan parties as an essential part of a
diplomatic strategy to press for a ceasefire and a return to U.N.-
facilitated political mediation. The United States emphasizes to these
countries that the conflict is endangering our shared interests,
particularly by degrading counterterrorism cooperation, fostering
instability in Libya's oil sector, and renewing migration pressures
across the region.
Question. I have serious concerns about the erosion of political
and human rights in Egypt, the systematic choking off of avenues for
legitimate dissent, press freedom and LGBTQ people and the threat this
poses for Egyptian stability. I am especially concerned by Egypt's
crackdown on the recent protests and this administration's minimal
public engagement on this issue. These protests have been mostly
peaceful, but still prompted a brutal response by Egyptian security
services. At least 4,300 people have been detained and there are
credible reports of protesters being tortured while in detention.
What points of leverage can the U.S. use to push the Egyptian
government to improve its human rights record?
Answer. I have serious concerns about human rights and governance
in Egypt. The State Department will continue to raise these concerns at
the senior-most levels of the Egyptian government and urge progress in
addressing them. We are especially concerned by recent reports of
arrests and mistreatment of activists and protesters and are following
these cases closely. The Department will continue to stress to the
Egyptian government how respect for human rights and universal freedoms
are required for a robust civil society that helps ensure stability.
Question. If confirmed, will you commit to publicly raising
concerns regarding political and human rights in Egypt and to meet with
Egyptian civil society actors?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I commit to continue the State
Department's engagement with Egypt on political and human rights
concerns.
Question. What further steps can the U.S. take to address the
challenges facing the Coptic community in the context of broader human
rights concerns in Egypt?
Answer. I am aware, despite the positive steps Egyptian President
Sisi has taken to protect Coptic Christians and promote their rights,
that governmental and societal discrimination against Copts remains a
problem. The administration continues to urge protection for religious
minority groups, and Egypt participated in the Secretary's July
ministerial on international religious freedom. We will continue to
emphasize privately and publicly the importance of respect for the
freedoms of expression, peaceful assembly, association, and religion to
ensure the Egyptian government takes steps to end discrimination and to
ensure the safety of all Egyptians, including Coptic Christians, and
their places of worship.
Question. As the United States provides significant military
assistance to Egypt, I am concerned about their deepening relationship
with Russia. I am specifically concerned about Egypt's reported
purchase of 20 Russian Sukhoi SU-35s and the loan that Moscow has
provided to construct the nuclear power plant at Dabaa.
The per unit cost for a Su-35 is about $85 million, meaning this
deal for 20 SU-35 is worth about $1.7 billion dollars. Does the
administration consider a $1.7 billion sale of 20 fighter jets
to be a ``significant transaction'' for the purposes of CAATSA?
Answer. The administration is deeply concerned about Egypt's
reported purchase of Russian Sukhoi Su-35s. Prior to the Secretary of
State's determination, I cannot prejudge whether a specific transaction
will result in sanctions. The Secretary has made clear that he is
committed to implementing CAATSA, and the administration has urged
Egypt to forgo transactions with Russia that could trigger mandatory
CAATSA section 231 sanctions. As the Secretary said to Congress last
spring, the Department has told Egypt that, without a waiver, the law
requires imposition of CAATSA sanctions on any person who knowingly
engages in a significant transaction with the Russian defense or
intelligence sectors.
Question. What does it say about the U.S.-Egypt partnership that
Egypt is pursuing these deals with Russia?
Answer. Russia seeks greater influence in Egypt and across the
Middle East and Egypt's political, economic, and military cooperation
with Russia is longstanding. In recent years, Egypt has signed major
arms deals with various suppliers other than the United States,
including France, Germany, and Russia. While Russia-Egypt relations
have improved during President Sisi's tenure, I do not believe these
relations threaten the strong and longstanding U.S.-Egypt partnership.
U.S. assistance to Egypt has long played an important role in Egypt's
economic and military development, and Egypt continues to demonstrate
that the United States is Egypt's preferred partner for arms sales and
to address its most pressing challenges.
Question. If confirmed, how will you engage with the Egyptian
government to stress that these sorts of deals run against the spirit
of that partnership and, in the case of the Sukhois, make it liable for
sanctions under CAATSA?
Answer. The administration has repeatedly warned Egypt against
taking delivery of the Russian Sukhoi Su-35s because such an arms
transaction risks triggering CAATSA sanctions. If confirmed, I will
continue this warning to the highest levels of the Egyptian government
and reiterate that CAATSA is not aimed at undermining our partners'
defense or security capabilities; it is aimed at addressing Russia's
malign behavior by imposing costs and depriving it of the revenue,
access, and influence derived from defense and intelligence
transactions. I also will stress the central role U.S. military
cooperation and assistance has played in Egypt's military development,
maritime and border security, and counterterrorism efforts as well as
in regional security.
Question. Gulf States like Saudi Arabia and the UAE have grown
increasingly involved in the Red Sea basin, building bases and ports
along the Red Sea corridor and the Horn of Africa and engaging
neighboring countries in a ``Red Sea forum.'' Please describe U.S.
national security interests in the Red Sea Corridor.
Answer. U.S. interests in the Red Sea region are anchored in
maritime security, including freedom of navigation through the Suez
Canal and the Bab al-Mandeb Strait. These sea lanes carry significant
volumes of international seaborne trade and oil shipments and are
strategic corridors for the Navy in support of operations in the Gulf
and the Indo-Pacific theater. The United States also seeks to limit
Iranian malign regional influence, counter piracy and terrorism, and
limit Chinese and Russian malign influence in the region. We work
closely with partners on both sides of the Red Sea to encourage
cooperative efforts to promote regional stability. We also have an
interest in maintaining access to Camp Lemonnier and associated posture
locations in Djibouti.
Question. Has the U.S. been invited to participate in a ``Red Sea
forum''? If so, what has been the response?
Answer. The United States has not been invited to participate in a
``Red Sea forum'' by any governments or international organizations in
the region. The State Department has participated in informal dialogues
and forums organized by the United States Institute of Peace (USIP) and
National Defense University's Near East--South Asia (NESA) Center and
Africa Center for Strategic Studies (ACSS). The Department has worked
with these entities to ensure that the results of these discussions can
inform policy deliberations toward the Red Sea region.
Question. What role do you think the U.S. should play in such a
``Red Sea forum''?
Answer. Any role for the United States in a ``Red Sea forum''
should ensure that it functions as an inclusive mechanism to promote
regional security and stability in a way that advances our interests in
the region and limits the ability of Russia and China to expand their
regional influence. We encourage dialogue and cooperation among Middle
Eastern and African states and welcome constructive, coordinated
engagement by Gulf states in the Horn of Africa. We will continue to
work with Gulf states to support the transition to a civilian
government in Sudan and promote efforts in Somalia to enable the AU
Mission in Somalia transition plan.
Question. I am troubled by the minor role that the State Department
is playing in facilitating discussions and/or negotiations between
Egypt and Ethiopia over construction of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance
Dam (GERD). Please explain how the Treasury Department has come to lead
this engagement, when the issues involved and technical expertise are
clearly within the purview of and located at the State Department.
Answer. The Department of State has been deeply involved in the
planning for the GERD meeting hosted by Secretary of the Treasury
Mnuchin. The Department will continue to be directly engaged, as long
as the three governments of Egypt, Ethiopia, and Sudan believe our
involvement is useful and appropriate.
Question. Please describe the intended role of the Treasury
Department, including the commitment to providing a neutral
environment; and mitigating circumstances should these talks fail/fall
apart.
Answer. I defer to the Department of the Treasury regarding their
role.
Question. Please describe the role that the State Department has
played in these talks, and the role that the State Department is
expected to play going forward.
Answer. I understand that the Department has been engaging at
various levels to move these countries toward a mutually acceptable,
sustainable resolution while ensuring parity in our engagements between
the countries. The Department has participated as an observer in the
most recent Treasury-organized GERD talks and will continue to serve as
an observer throughout these talks. The Department continues to provide
background information and policy recommendations to the Department of
the Treasury. The Department of State will continue to engage as long
as the three countries find our involvement useful and appropriate.
Question. I am concerned by Under Secretary of State for Political
Affairs David Hale's testimony on November 20 that the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has not removed its hold on $105 million in
FMF for Lebanon. However, as shown by Secretary Pompeo's release of
Ukraine FMF over the objections of OMB, the State Department can
release funds in spite of OMB objections. While there are concerns
about Hezbollah's role in the LAF, I understand that the interagency,
with the exception of OMB is in consensus that FMF to support the
Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) serves U.S. national security interests.
Please confirm that OMB is opposed to releasing these funds and
that neither the State Department nor other members of the
interagency are opposed.
Answer. The Secretary remains committed to the Lebanese Armed
Forces (LAF) and views that support as a key element of our Lebanon
strategy. The U.S. government's assistance helps to ensure a LAF free
of Hizballah's influence and one able to secure Lebanon's borders,
defend its sovereignty, and preserve its stability.
Question. What reasons have been given for the hold?
Answer. The budget process involves a continual review of all
assistance programs to ensure we are meeting U.S. foreign policy
objectives and optimizing value for the American taxpayer.
Question. If the State Department is not bound by OMB objections to
the release of funds, as shown with Ukraine's FMF, why has the State
Department not released the funds and when can we expect them to be
released?
Answer. Strengthening the capacity of the Lebanese Armed Forces is
critical to securing Lebanon's borders, defending its sovereignty, and
preserving its stability.
Question. Have there been any disruptions to either the delivery of
weapons systems or current or potential sales to the LAF? If not, at
what point do you anticipate any disruptions and what would those
disruptions be?
Answer. To date, no Lebanese expenditures or purchases of military
materiel have been delayed.
Question. Turkey's taking delivery of Russian S-400s clearly counts
as a significant transaction that merits sanctions under CAATSA Section
231. However, no sanctions have been placed. With countries like Egypt
and Serbia also considering purchasing Russian military equipment, this
failure to follow the CAATSA law undermines our diplomats' ability to
dissuade them from these purchases. Why has State not yet made a
determination on whether the Turkish government's acceptance of S-400s
constitutes a significant transaction?
Answer. I cannot prejudge a sanctions decision prior to a
determination by the Secretary of State, nor can I preview a timeline
for a CAATSA decision. The Secretary has made clear he is committed to
implementing CAATSA and that he will comply with the law.
The administration is not waiting for the outcome of CAATSA
deliberations to take strong action. The decision to unwind Turkey from
the F-35 program makes clear how seriously we take this issue. As
President Trump told President Erdogan during his recent visit,
resolving the S-400 issue is vital to achieving progress on other
elements of the bilateral relationship.
Question. When will this determination be made?
Answer. I cannot preview a timeline for a sanctions determination
by the Secretary of State. The Secretary has made clear he is committed
to implementing CAATSA and that he will comply with the law. Any
decision to impose sanctions requires a thorough, complex deliberative
process conducted on a case-by-case basis to ensure that the law is
followed and that possible consequences of various courses of action
are assessed. We intend to get this right rather than rushing a
decision.
Question. Have other parts of government, including the White
House, attempted to influence State's determination?
Answer. Any decision to impose sanctions requires a thorough,
complex deliberative process conducted on a case-by-case basis to
ensure that the law is followed and that possible consequences of
various courses of action are assessed. The current sanctions
deliberations have involved robust interagency discussions.
Question. If confirmed, how will you engage with the governments of
India, Egypt, Serbia, and other countries considering significant
military transactions with Russia to convince them not to do so?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue the Department's vigorous
global implementation of CAATSA Section 231. The Department always
emphasizes that the law is not aimed at undermining our partners'
defense or security capabilities, but rather at addressing Russia's
malign behavior by imposing costs and depriving it of the revenue,
access, and influence it derives from defense and intelligence
transactions. If the Department identifies a transaction of potential
concern before it occurs, it seeks to engage partner states as far in
advance as possible to help ensure they do not engage in sanctionable
activity. As a result of our CAATSA section 231 implementation efforts,
U.S. allies and partners have taken action to forego many billions of
dollars in arms purchases from Russia.
Question. How are our European partners responding to Iran's
nuclear developments? What steps are you taking to ensure international
coordination on efforts to constrain Iran's nuclear ambitions?
Answer. The UK, France, and Germany have all expressed concern with
Iran's recent decisions to advance its nuclear program through
increased uranium enrichment and research efforts in advanced
centrifuge design. Cooperation with European allies and partners to
address the range of threats posed by Iran remains robust and we are in
regular communication with our allies and partners regarding our Iran
policy and how to increase pressure on Iran for its nuclear
escalations. I understand that the U.S. welcomed the E3's September 23
statement urging Iran to reverse its nuclear developments and accept
negotiations on a framework for its nuclear and missile programs.
Question. How do you believe China and Russia will interact with
Iran once restrictions against arms imports set in the JCPOA begin to
fall away?
Answer. If confirmed, I will defer to the intelligence community
for an assessment of Chinese and Russian intentions of transacting arms
deals with Iran upon the expiration of the U.N. arms embargo. However,
continuing the U.N. arms embargo on Iran beyond the current expiration
of October 2020 is a priority for this administration. We do not
assess, based on Iran's malign activity and its role in supporting
militias across the region, that conventional arms restrictions on Iran
should be removed. If confirmed, I will ensure that the Department
continues to work with our partners on the UNSC to build support for an
extension of the arms embargo. In addition, we will utilize other tools
available to us in our efforts to both block Iran from acquiring the
weapons currently restricted under the existing U.N. arms embargo, as
well as to prevent the supply, sale, or transfer of arms and related
material from Iran.
Question. As I, along with the Chair of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee and the Chair and Ranking Member of the Senate
Armed Services Committee, wrote in an op-ed, Turkey's taking delivery
of Russian S-400s clearly counts as a significant transaction that
merits sanctions under CAATSA Section 231. However, no sanctions have
been placed.
Why has State not yet made a determination on whether the Turkish
government's acceptance of S-400s constitutes a significant
transaction?
Answer. I cannot pre-judge a sanctions decision prior to a
determination by the Secretary of State, nor can I preview a timeline
for a CAATSA decision. We intend to get this right rather than rush a
decision. The Secretary has made clear he is committed to implementing
CAATSA and that he will comply with the law.
The administration is not waiting for the outcome of CAATSA
deliberations to take strong action. The decision to unwind Turkey from
the F-35 program makes clear how seriously we take this issue. As
President Trump told President Erdogan during his recent visit,
resolving the S-400 issue is vital to achieving progress on other
elements of the bilateral relationship.
Question. When will this determination be made?
Answer. I cannot preview a timeline for a sanctions determination
by the Secretary of State. The Secretary has made clear he is committed
to implementing CAATSA and that he will comply with the law. Any
decision to impose sanctions requires a thorough, complex deliberative
process conducted on a case-by-case basis to ensure that the law is
followed and that possible consequences of various courses of action
are assessed. We intend to get this right rather than rushing a
decision. I further note that the announcement in September 2018 of our
previous decision to impose sanctions on a Chinese entity under CAATSA
took place months after the delivery to China of Su-35 fighter jets and
S-400 equipment.
Question. Have other parts of government, including the White
House, attempted to influence State's determination?
Answer. Any decision to impose sanctions requires a thorough,
complex deliberative process conducted on a case-by-case basis to
ensure that the law is followed and that possible consequences of
various courses of action are assessed. The current sanctions
deliberations have involved robust interagency discussions.
Question. Ahead of the Erdogan-Putin talks in Sochi, what
discussions did the United States have with the Turkish government
regarding the planned content of those talks? How does the State
Department assess the compatibility of that agreement with U.S.
interests?
Answer. U.S. objectives in Syria remain the enduring defeat of ISIS
and al-Qa'ida, a political solution to the Syrian conflict in line with
U.N. Security Council Resolution 2254, and the removal of all Iranian-
backed forces from Syria. We shared these objectives with Turkey. We
remain skeptical about Russia's commitment to upholding its
responsibilities as outlined in the October 22 Russia-Turkey
arrangement for northeast Syria. The October 17 U.S.-Turkey joint
statement has saved lives and limited violence. No subsequent
arrangements made with other countries replace or modify Turkey's
commitments under its arrangement with the United States. We remain
ready to re impose sanctions should Turkey fail to uphold commitments
outlined in the Joint Statement.
Question. I am deeply concerned by Turkey's decision to drill
exploratory wells in the Republic of Cyprus's Exclusive Economic Zone
(EEZ). I appreciate that the State Department has urged Turkey to halt
its drilling, but that does not seem to have impacted Turkey's actions.
Has State Department communicated directly with the Turkish government
on this issue, and at what level is that communication happening? What
consequences has the State Department told Ankara could occur if it
does not stop its illegal drilling?
Answer. Turkey's drilling operations escalate tensions in the
Eastern Mediterranean and erode trust in the region. Secretary Pompeo
and other senior officials expressed concern publicly and privately
about Turkey's exploration and drilling activities and made clear we
consider Turkey's actions damaging and provocative. We clearly stated
to Turkey and to others in the region longstanding U.S. policy on the
right of the Republic of Cyprus to develop natural resources and that
the resources of Cyprus and its EEZ should be shared equitably among
the communities.
Question. The European Union has imposed aid cuts and suspended
high-level talks with Ankara due to its illegal drilling in Cyprus's
EEZ, and has threatened harsher sanctions in the future. What
discussions has the State Department had with the EU regarding its
planned and future response to Turkey's illegal drilling? The U.S. has
taken no action to date in response to Turkey's activities in the EEZ.
What measures are being considered?
Answer. We regularly raise with EU partners longstanding U.S.
policy on the right of the Republic of Cyprus to develop resources in
its EEZ. We continue to support the development of an equitable
solution for sharing the benefits of Cyprus' hydrocarbon resources
between the two communities. We have warned publicly and privately that
Turkey's drilling and exploration operations are provocative and raise
tensions. The Department, on August 19, issued a statement terming
Turkish drilling activities within the territorial sea of Cyprus
``unlawful.'' We urge all states to settle maritime disputes peacefully
and in accordance with international law and to make every effort to
avoid jeopardizing the reaching of a final maritime agreement.
Question. 1.5 million Armenians perished during the Ottoman
Empire's systematic campaign to eliminate the Armenian population.
Attempts to deny that this campaign happened, or to pretend it was
anything other than a genocide not only deny a clear truth, but also
make it impossible to learn from this horrific part of history and
prevent it from ever happening again. Other than Turkey's objections,
what factors have prevented the U.S. government from recognizing the
reality of the Armenian Genocide?
Answer. The U.S. government acknowledges and mourns the 1.5 million
Armenians who were deported, massacred, and marched to their deaths at
the end of the Ottoman Empire. Each year, on April 24, the U.S.
government commemorates the Meds Yeghern, one of the worst mass
atrocities of the 20th century. We welcome efforts of Armenians and
Turks to acknowledge and reckon with their painful history.
Question. Recently, a number of humanitarian organizations have
highlighted the impact of U.S. counter-terrorism and sanctions policies
as inhibiting humanitarian action in conflict settings.
What do you see as the major obstacles facing humanitarian actors
in reaching populations in need in conflict affected
environments?
Answer. The greatest obstacles preventing humanitarian actors from
reaching populations in conflicts are the myriad security challenges
posed by both state and non-state armed groups, as well as unduly
delayed or denied permission for humanitarian personnel and/or goods,
restricted access to populations, and limitations on life-saving
activities. If confirmed, I will encourage the U.S. government's
support for humanitarian organizations in insecure areas while
maintaining accountability for U.S. taxpayer funds and respecting
applicable domestic and international law. For example, the Treasury
Department may, in appropriate circumstances, issue licenses to
authorize the provision of assistance that may otherwise implicate U.S.
sanctions authorities.
Question. What do you see as the State Department's responsibility
with respect to partner forces who are impeding humanitarian assistance
abroad?
Answer. If confirmed, I will support the U.S. government's long-
standing policy to promote compliance with the law of armed conflict by
the foreign militaries we train and to promote access to humanitarian
assistance that is not unduly impeded. The State Department closely
monitors reports of undue impediments to rapid humanitarian response
and raises verified reports with the relevant government. It is also
important to emphasize adherence to the law of armed conflict and
taking all feasible measures to protect civilians, including
humanitarian personnel, and civilian objects.
Question. How will you work with DoD and allied government to
ensure partner forces in Yemen (and Nigeria and elsewhere) are meeting
their obligations under International Humanitarian Law to facilitate
safe passage civilian populations and for humanitarian assistance?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure the Department continues to
work closely with DoD to promote compliance with the law of armed
conflict by the foreign militaries we train and encourage best
practices for the protection of civilians. This includes taking reports
of civilian casualties and impediments to humanitarian response
seriously and intervening with partner governments and military
leadership to adjust training, operations, and accountability
mechanisms as necessary. I support emphasizing to both civilian and
military leadership the importance of adherence to the law of armed
conflict and taking all feasible measures to protect civilians,
including humanitarian personnel, and civilian objects.
Question. How will you work with humanitarian agencies to ensure
they `don't get in their own way', when it comes to their
responsibilities and opportunities to provide lifesaving assistance to
populations in need?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue the Department practice to
encourage our international and non-governmental partners to provide
humanitarian assistance based on their mandates, technical capacities,
geographic reach, and comparative advantage under international
humanitarian coordination mechanisms such as U.N. Humanitarian Response
Plans, which provide a comprehensive assessment of humanitarian needs
at the regional or country level and present coordinated and
prioritized response plans. By providing the most accurate assessment
of needs and how best to meet them, these plans mobilize resources
focused on the people, sectors, and areas that need them the most and
promote coordinated and effective humanitarian response.
Question. All international staff of humanitarian NGOs have
evacuated from northeast Syria, but local Syrian staff remain--many
work for U.S. implementing partners and continue to deliver programming
and work to meet humanitarian need. Many have already been displaced
multiple times and most have few options to relocate to seek safety for
themselves and their families. They find themselves in increasing
danger--from Turkish advances from the north and from advancing
government of Syria troops from the south--including threats of
conscription, detention, or worse.
What steps is the administration taking to ensure the safety and
security of local humanitarian workers in Syria?
Answer. The United States is committed to supporting the safety and
security of humanitarian aid workers inside Syria. The U.S. government
funds partner organization duty of care policies in Syria to assess
risks to staff and provide funding to support staff members who need to
depart quickly or lose their jobs. As the situation in northeast Syria
continues to unfold, the Department will remain flexible with our
partners and with our funding, and it will use the full range of
diplomatic tools available to advocate for the safety of our partners
and humanitarian workers in Syria.
Question. If you were to become Acting Secretary of State, would
you utilize the emergency authorities of the Arms Export Control Act to
bypass Congress to export arms without prior timely consultation with
this committee?
Answer. If confirmed, I will fully comply with the provisions of
the Arms Export Control Act and only consider exercising this option in
the event of an emergency. The Department respects Congress' oversight
role in the arms transfer process and commits to continued consultation
with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and House Foreign Affairs
Committee.
Question. Do you believe that the May 24th emergency declaration
for 22 arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the UAE was necessary to deter
Iran from attacking either country, as was claimed by the Secretary of
State at the time? If so, was it successful?
Answer. I was not involved in these matters as Special
Representative for North Korea but believe that accelerating the
delivery of defense equipment to our partners, in particular that
related to air and missile defense, was both vital to reassuring to our
partners of our support in the face of increasing Iranian malign
activities and an important step to improve their readiness while
deterring Iran.
Question. Do you agree that continuing arms sales to countries that
use them in human rights abuses, including violations of the law of
armed conflict, can do more harm to the national security of that
country, and to U.S. national security, foreign policy, and
reputational interests, than discontinuing or conditioning those sales?
Answer. The United States considers all such issues consistent with
applicable law and policy, including the Conventional Arms Transfer
Policy. Our goals with arms sales include promoting the national
security and foreign policy interests of the United States.
Question. Congress amended the Arms Export Control Act in 2002 to
give Congress more oversight over the export of firearms to foreign
countries, and to enact joint resolutions of disapproval on firearms
sales that were unwise or dangerous. As part of this oversight process,
for example, sales of firearms proposed by State to President Erdogan's
thuggish bodyguards--after they had beaten peaceful protestors in
Washington--were halted.
Why does the State Department now seek to take away that oversight
role from Congress by moving these firearms to the Commerce
Department?
Answer. The Department is focused on maintaining a U.S. Munitions
List (USML) that controls those items that provide the United States
with a military or intelligence advantage. This supports a competitive
defense industrial base while ensuring that the Department's resources
are focused on the export of technologies that pose a threat to
America's military edge. This effort removed a significant number of
items from the USML and transferred them to the export jurisdiction of
the Department of Commerce. Further to your concerns, under the final
rule notified to Congress earlier this month, semiautomatic firearms
will continue to require export licenses and remain subject to foreign
policy review, including for human rights concerns.
Question. As part of that proposed transfer of export of firearms
to Commerce, the technical information to 3D print nearly-undetectable
guns will also go to Commerce, which has informed committee staff on
multiple occasions that it cannot effectively control the Internet
posting of such information by its own export regulations, unlike on
State U.S. Munitions List, which controls that information now.
Do you believe that it is a good idea to allow the global Internet
dissemination of 3D printing gun blueprints? Would that make
foreign air travel safer or less safe for Americans? Would that
make U.S. embassies and consulates abroad safer or less safe?
Answer. The Department of Commerce drafted rules, which were
provided to Congress, that would control the technology to manufacture
3D firearms under its export control system. Commerce maintains a
fulsome compliance and enforcement system to support the export
controls it administers. Further, I understand the Department of State
utilizes a multilayered approach to respond to emerging threats in
order to protect our facilities and employees, providing a secure
environment for the conduct of U.S. diplomacy. I understand the
Department will continue to review new technologies to develop
effective mitigation strategies.
Question. Earlier this year, I sent a letter to the Secretary of
State asking about several reports of American citizens providing
defense services abroad under suspicious circumstances, including Erik
Prince providing training to Chinese security services; an American
acting as a military officer for the UAE; and more nefarious services
in Yemen. I asked if these persons had State licenses under the
International Trafficking in Arms Regulations, and if not, were there
any investigations into these reported activities. The response from
the Assistant Secretary of Legislative Affairs told me, in effect, to
mind my own business; the information was, quote, ``non-public'' and
``potentially proprietary'', and State would inform Congress if there
were any results of any investigations.
Do you agree that it is none of Congress's oversight business to
ensure that the laws of the United States are being faithfully
implemented by the Department of State? If you do not agree,
how do you propose we verify that State is doing its job?
Answer. As a matter of policy and practice, the Department does not
confirm or deny the existence of investigations into possible
violations of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR)
arising from direct commercial sales transactions. I would note,
however, we do routinely brief Congress on administrative settlements
resolving such investigations upon their conclusion, and I certainly
commit to continuing this established practice if confirmed.
Question. China's rise presents something new and different, and
outside our experience of the past 240 years.a nation with an economy
equal or greater than our own, and a competitor across every dimension
of power. I agree with President Trump that China is a serious threat
to the United States. And while I would welcome the emergence of a
China that follows established international economic rules, and
supports international institutions, laws, and norms..I am very
concerned that that does not appear to be the China that we are seeing.
But more immediately troubling, for all the tough talk out of the Trump
administration on China, I simply do not see the evidence that your
administration's approach to China is working to change China's
behavior. Merely being more confrontational with China does not make us
more competitive with China.
China's aggressive maritime activities in the South China Sea,
including recent incursions into Vietnamese, Filipino and
Malaysian waters, and on-going building of infrastructure that
could easily be turned to military use continues unchecked.
China has yet to make any significant concessions on any of the
deep structural issues that lie at the heart of our trade and
economic imbalance. Instead, China is going toe-to-toe with us
in a ``good'' in an ``easy to win'' trade war and our economy
is suffering.
China's ``belt and road'' continues to expand and make in-roads
around the world.
China continues to provide support for North Korea even as North
Korea continues to move forward with its missile and nuclear
programs unconstrained.and with the United States no longer
conducting necessary military exercises to assure readiness on
the Peninsula.
China's digital authoritarianism continues apace, with ever-greater
repression at home and soup-to-nuts systems fully installed for
dictators and despots around the globe.
China's great leap backwards on human rights and governance is
gathering momentum, with the administration conspicuously
silent as the people of Xinjiang and Tibet suffer, and Chinese
civil society space is crushed.
Beijing continues to squeeze Taipei, including the loss of several
of Taiwan's diplomatic allies on Trump's watch. Can you point
me to any significant area of success where the Trump
administration has successfully engineered a change in Chinese
policy or behavior on security, trade, human rights, diplomatic
or other issues?
Answer. This administration is committed to countering the People's
Republic of China's counterproductive behavior, while defending
American interests and values. The administration succeeded in securing
China's commitment to schedule fentanyl as a controlled substance, and
in November, China carried out its first fentanyl-related prosecution.
We obtained Chinese support for unprecedented DPRK-related U.N.
Security Council Resolutions, which brought Pyongyang to the
negotiating table. We have taken concrete actions to respond to the
repression in Xinjiang and are strengthening partner capacity to resist
Beijing's interference in their maritime activities. We support Taiwan
as it resists efforts to constrain its appropriate participation on the
world stage.
Question. If you can't point to any evidence that the current
policy is working, what alternative or new ideas do you plan to propose
to get China right if you are confirmed as Deputy Secretary of State?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to vigorously implement the
administration's policy of strategic competition with the People's
Republic of China (PRC), as outlined in the President's 2017 National
Security Strategy. Through this policy, we are holding the PRC
accountable for its counterproductive behavior, defending American
interests and values, and bolstering our partners' ability to resist
the PRC's coercive actions. I will work to build on the concrete
progress we have already achieved towards these goals, including with
respect to counternarcotics, the DPRK, the South China Sea, Taiwan,
human rights, and other priority issues.
Question. Chinese companies such as Huawei and ZTE are global
competitors in the electronics and telecommunications industries. As
part of their expanding efforts, these companies are investing in
emerging markets and building out 5G infrastructure globally. While 5G
alternatives to Huawei are available, such as Ericsson or Samsung, the
United States itself does not have an integrated 5G alternative. One
key concern surrounding cyber and U.S. national security is its impact
on nuclear weapons. As we modernize our nuclear systems, they
additionally become increasingly linked with the cyber domain,
potentially opening our deterrent capabilities to new vulnerabilities.
How will the proliferation of these Chinese-enabled 5G technologies
impact U.S. and allied security interests? What is the U.S.
doing to combat China's growing influence in the
telecommunications field?
Answer. I take the national security issues associated with 5G
technology very seriously and, if confirmed, will continue to make this
a high priority for the Department. The United States is advocating
with our allies and partners for telecommunications networks that are
secure and free from suppliers that are subject to foreign government
control or undue influence, which poses risks of unauthorized access
and malicious cyber activity.
Question. Does the administration have a plan to aid U.S.
development of 5G? How can the United States be a main player on 5G
when we are not at the forefront of the infrastructure itself?
Answer. If confirmed, I will support the Department's continued
international engagement with partners and allies on the risks of
untrusted vendors in 5G networks. I will continue to emphasize that
there are trusted end-to-end network alternatives to Chinese companies
Huawei and ZTE, namely Ericsson, Nokia, and Samsung. While these
companies are not American, they are headquartered in democratic
countries with the rule of law and contain a significant amount of
U.S.-origin equipment in their supply chains.
Question. What is Huawei's role in the mass incarceration and re-
education of Uyghurs and other ethnic minorities in Xinjiang province?
How is the U.S. holding China, and Huawei, accountable, for the human
rights abuses occurring in Xinjiang?
Answer. I am alarmed by the People's Republic of China (PRC)'s
campaign of repression against Uighurs and other members of Muslim
minority groups in Xinjiang, which includes mass arbitrary detentions
in camps and pervasive, high-tech surveillance. The PRC, with the
active support of multiple companies, uses technologies to undermine
fundamental freedoms by gathering and exploiting data in Xinjiang and
beyond. The administration is taking concrete action. I understand that
the State Department announced in October visa restrictions on Chinese
government and Communist Party officials believed to be responsible
for, or complicit in, the detention or abuse of Uighurs, Kazakhs, or
other members of Muslim minority groups in Xinjiang. I understand that
the Commerce Department added 28 Chinese governmental and commercial
organizations to the Department of Commerce Entity List in light of
their connection to Xinjiang abuses. If confirmed, I will work with the
interagency to use all tools available to discourage those responsible
from committing these human rights abuses.
Question. What is your interpretation of the authorities the
administration retains in regards to use of force in the cyber domain?
What constitutes an attack in the cyber domain? How does the
administration define so-called ``grey area'' activities within the
context of use of force authorities? Are there mechanisms for
attribution for such an attack?
Answer. The United States may exercise its inherent right of self-
defense in response to cyber activities that amount to an armed attack
or imminent threat thereof. In determining whether a cyber operation
would constitute a use of force, we would consider whether the direct
physical injury and property damage resulting from the cyber event look
like that which would be considered a use of force if produced by
kinetic weapons. Decisions to attribute malicious cyber activity are
made on a case-by-case basis, using a combination of technical and non-
technical means and with input from the entire government. The United
States has been exploring mechanisms to promote coordinated joint
attributions of malicious cyber activity with our international
partners.
Question. What are the administration's efforts at curbing attacks
through the digital domain on the United States and our partners? Is
the administration considering engaging in arms control conversations
with other countries on standards and norms of conduct in the cyber
domain?
Answer. We work on a whole-of-government basis to counter, contest,
respond to, and deter cyber threats to the United States and its
partners. This includes international efforts to share information,
build capacity, and defend forward. The Department is building
cooperation among likeminded countries to hold states accountable when
they act contrary to the consensus framework for responsible state
behavior in cyberspace, one we have championed for more than a decade.
A focus on norms of behavior, coupled with efforts to expose and
contest behavior inconsistent with these norms, will be more effective
than arms control (i.e., bans on development or use of capabilities) at
reducing the risk of conflict stemming from a cyber incident.
Question. What is the U.S. doing to ensure our deterrent capability
is not deleteriously affected by cyber intrusions? Does the U.S. need
to rethink our nuclear command and control structure as we face a new
digital atmosphere and rising great power competition geopolitically?
Answer. Securing our military and sensitive industrial networks
against cyber intrusions is an urgent requirement that both government
and the private sector must take seriously. As far as this relates to
our nuclear command and control structure, I would refer you to the
Department of Defense.
Question. You may or may not be aware that every year for the past
three years under this administration we have faced a real crunch when
it comes to the congressional notification process at the end of the
fiscal year. This creates risk for the sustainability and
implementation of many of our foreign assistance programs and
diplomatic efforts. We have been voicing our concerns on this ever
year, with ever-greater urgency. Finally, this past year--just a few
months ago--the Department's mishandling of the process--aided and
abetted by OMB-- created a car crash in which tens of millions of
dollars appear to have been effectively lost. We actually don't know
the full extent of the damage yet because the Department itself doesn't
seem to fully know or understand what transpired--which is not a great
indicator of capable or competent management, no matter how much
swagger it has. I would like your commitment, if confirmed, that you
will pay personal attention to this matter and make sure that at the
end of this upcoming fiscal year we are not yet again subject to a
frantic and hysterical last-minute process that undermines the proper
functioning of the Department of State.
Answer. If confirmed, I will be personally involved in the budget
process to ensure the Department is effectively leveraging its
resources to meet the foreign policy objectives of the United States. I
will work with the relevant bureaus to obligate funds appropriated by
Congress consistent with the Department's operating plans,
Congressional notifications, and applicable laws.
Question. You may be aware that earlier this year both the Chairman
and I sent a letter to the Secretary expressing our concern that the
administration was considering a rescissions package that would have
unconstitutionally prevented congressionally-appropriated funds from
being spent. If Congress passes an appropriation, and it is signed into
law, will you commit to carry out the congressional mandate and intent,
through the funds that we appropriate, and for the purpose in which
Congress has appropriated those funds?
Answer. If confirmed, I commit to working with the relevant bureaus
to obligate funds appropriated by Congress consistent with applicable
laws.
Question. Regardless of the mechanism that the executive branch
chooses, if the President wants to rescind or cancel funds that
Congress has previously appropriated and the President has signed into
law, Congress still must agree to cancel out or rescind those funds. As
a longtime budget staffer, is it your understanding that if Congress
does not agree or act in some way to rescind or cancel funds, the
executive branch agency must spend the appropriated funds for their
original purpose?
Answer. If Congress does not act on a rescission proposal by the
administration within the statutory period, the Department and USAID
would take appropriate measures to obligate funds appropriated by
Congress consistent with applicable laws.
Question. Should the President choose to try and rescind or cancel
funds that Congress has previously appropriated and which have been
enacted into law, do you commit to communicate any such request to this
committee and providing a briefing regarding the rationale for such a
request?
Answer. If confirmed, I will communicate with the committee
regarding formal administration proposals to rescind or cancel funding.
Question. I am deeply concerned about the efforts by the Trump
administration over the past three years to slash upwards of 30 percent
from the Function 150 budget. If it were not for congressional
pushback, these cuts would have gravely undermined the ability of the
United States to pursue an effective national security strategy. What
are your views on the importance of robust diplomacy and soft power
tools to lead U.S national security policy and strategy, supported by
our hard power?
Answer. The administration is committed to restraining overall non-
defense discretionary spending, including for the State Department and
USAID. The Department remains committed to ensuring the effective use
of U.S. taxpayer dollars, driving efficiencies, and working on behalf
of the American people to advance national security objectives and
foreign policy goals. If confirmed, I look forward to continuing
discussions with Congress on funding for our diplomacy and foreign
assistance programs.
Question. What are the implications for our ability to be able to
continue to provide global leadership if the administration's budget
proposals are fully enacted?
Answer. The Department's FY 2020 budget request factors in the
administration's commitment to restraining overall non-defense
discretionary spending, including international affairs programs
resources. Therefore, the FY 2020 request is a reflection of U.S.
national priorities while remaining within an overall budget topline.
The request upholds U.S. commitments to key partners and allies through
strategic, selective investments that enable America to retain its
position as a global leader, while relying on other nations to make
greater contributions toward shared objectives, including advancing
democracy worldwide.
Question. What steps will you take, if confirmed, to assure that
the Function 150 budget is fully resourced?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to working across the
interagency and with each bureau across the Department to ensure
alignment of available resources with strategic priorities and to
address potential gaps in foreign assistance programs. I am committed
to putting in place the appropriate oversight to ensure the Department
meets its responsibility to use taxpayer dollars wisely and
effectively. If confirmed, I look forward to continuing discussions
with Congress on funding for diplomatic and foreign assistance programs
and working to ensure the Department has the right systems, personnel,
and infrastructure in place to execute these programs effectively.
Question. At this time, outstanding U.S. contributions to the U.N.
regular budget and U.N. peacekeeping are about $3.5 billion. In
addition, on peacekeeping, I have not heard whether any of the CIPA
money referred to in a September 13, 2019 CN has been obligated to the
U.N. yet. Knowing the U.N. is in real financial crisis and must stop
hiring and holding after-hours meetings and may be short on salaries
next month, why is the State Department slow-walking the funds when it
should be available now?
Answer. I understand that the Department is in the process of
paying $855 million in peacekeeping assessments. These payments should
be complete by the first week of December. Once the payments are
complete, the Department will have paid all but three U.S. peacekeeping
assessments received through September for the current U.N.
peacekeeping financial year. The Department is paying these assessments
at the rate of 25 percent, as specified by section 404(b) of the
Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995. The
Department is also in the process of making a $300 million payment for
the U.N. regular budget, which should be complete by the end of
November.
Question. Why has the State Department not yet paid our
peacekeeping dues yet? Did rescission affect the ability of IO and
other State staff to process payments to the U.N.? Please provide
details on reasons for the delay.
Answer. I understand that the Department is in the process of
paying U.S. peacekeeping assessments for the current U.N. peacekeeping
financial year. Payment of the peacekeeping assessments was delayed in
part due to the OMB reapportionment exercise, and also because the
Department prioritized payments to the assessed regular budgets of the
U.N. and other major organizations. I understand that the financial
impacts of delays in the regular budget payments were significantly
greater than the impacts of the delays in the payment of peacekeeping
assessments.
Question. Ethiopia and Sudan are in the midst of political
transitions, which represent a once-in-a-generation opportunity for
democratic change for more than 100 million people in east Africa.
However, both transitions are extremely fragile. Sudan's economy is in
shambles, and the verdict is out on whether Prime Minister Hamdouk will
retain firm control of the government. Lt. Gen. Mohamed Hamdan
``Hemeti,'' a man widely believed to be responsible for human rights
abuses in Darfur, retains a significant amount of influence. In
Ethiopia, nearly three million people-and likely more--have been
displaced due to what observers on the ground have labeled ``ethnic
cleansing.'' Mass graves are said to have been uncovered, the result of
attacks across the country. Armed groups are active in some areas. If
confirmed, what specific actions and support will you prioritize to
help ensure Ethiopia and Sudan successfully transition to democracy?
Answer. If confirmed, I will prioritize working with Congress,
international partners, and the Friends of Sudan to provide the
technical, political, and economic support that Sudanese civilian
leaders require to reform the economy, deliver on demands for justice
and accountability, and prepare the groundwork for free and fair
elections. For Ethiopia, I will prioritize capacity building for the
justice sector that can establish rule of law and a renewed Ethiopian
security sector that can peacefully address the challenge of ethnic
conflict, rather than instill fear and oppression. I will continue
advancing U.S. support for Ethiopia's historic reforms, including by
supporting civil society organizations that can help can document and
address the gravest incidences of human rights abuses.
Question. What steps do you think the U.S. could take to bolster
Sudanese Prime Minister Hamdouk in his efforts to consolidate civilian
leadership in Sudan during the transition period?
Answer. For Sudanese Prime Minister Hamdouk to succeed, he will
need to demonstrate an ability to deliver on the Sudanese people's
demands for justice, peace, democracy, and economic recovery. Continued
U.S. diplomatic leadership in the Friends of Sudan partnership is
critical to mobilizing the political, economic, and technical support
required to deliver in these areas. If confirmed, I would equally
prioritize bilateral engagement with and financial support to the
Sudanese civilian government to create political and fiscal space to
enable it to enact economic reforms, expand human rights protections,
finalize and implement peace agreements in historically marginalized
areas, and move towards free and fair elections.
Question. What should the U.S. be doing to help Prime Minister Abiy
create an environment conducive to credible elections in Ethiopia next
year?
Answer. The Department has conducted assessments of the pre-
electoral environment to identify how best to support and prepare
Ethiopia's electoral commission for free, fair, and credible elections
in Ethiopia next year. Supporting civil society organizations will be
essential in ensuring Ethiopia's democratic transition, particularly
given their role in educating and training voters and in monitoring
elections next year. The United States will also continue to support
the electoral commission to prioritize and enact effective electoral
reforms, and to identify, prioritize, and address critical
vulnerabilities that could undermine the integrity of the 2020
electoral process.
Question. Will you commit to work with Congress to develop such an
approach similar to that the U.S. undertook to support Eastern Europe's
transition to democracy for East Africa?
Answer. If confirmed, I will commit to advancing policies that
support democratic principles and the aspirations of communities and
populations in East Africa. This will include supporting governments
such as Ethiopia and Sudan that have seen transformational changes,
speaking out against democratic backsliding in countries such as
Tanzania, and continuing to deploy tools that support credible and
transparent elections, promote civil society, and advance human rights
and democratic governance.
Question. Since the start of the civil war in South Sudan, nearly
400,000 people are estimated to have died. That number is likely
higher. The ceasefire signed in September 2018 has created a fragile
peace, allowing 594,000 displaced people to return home, increasing
food production, and enhancing humanitarian access. However, the
parties to the conflict once again delayed the formation of a unity
government, the third such delay since the so-called ``Revitalized''
peace agreement was signed. What are the obstacles to the formation of
a unity government and what is our strategy for helping the parties
move towards implementation of the Revitalized Peace agreement?
Answer. The obstacles to the formation of a unity government are
President Kiir and opposition leader Riek Machar, whose inability to
achieve this basic demonstration of political will for the people of
South Sudan calls into question their suitability to continue to lead
the nation's peace process. Neither has been willing to set aside
personal interests or compromise on key areas of disagreement,
including the number of states, political space for the opposition, and
the implementation of security provisions of the peace agreement. If
confirmed, I will support Secretary Pompeo's efforts to reevaluate the
U.S. relationship with the government of South Sudan and will continue
working bilaterally and with the international community to take action
against all those impeding South Sudan's peace process.
Question. If confirmed what specific diplomatic actions will you
take to ensure that the revitalized peace process is implemented?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Bureau of
African Affairs and other relevant bureaus to prioritize routine
senior-level diplomatic engagement on the South Sudan peace process. I
will also ensure that U.S. efforts are conducted in conjunction with
the leadership of Uganda, Kenya, Ethiopia, Sudan, the AU, and the
Inter-Governmental Authority on Development. Our leadership in helping
these regional actors devise a way forward is essential. I would also
work with our troika partners--the UK and Norway--to increase our
pressure on South Sudanese leaders, and through our U.N. and AU
missions to promote freedom of movement for the U.N. Mission in South
Sudan and to facilitate the establishment of the AU Hybrid Court for
South Sudan.
Question. What steps will you take, if confirmed, to help avert a
resumption of hostilities should this latest deadline for the formation
of a unity government not be met?
Answer. If confirmed, I would work closely with our Bureau of
African Affairs to place diplomatic pressure--in partnership with our
allies--on both President Salva Kiir and opposition leader Dr. Riek
Machar to recommit publicly and frequently to upholding the ceasefire,
to cease arms purchases, to end recruitment activities, and to
implement effectively the security sector reform components of the
peace agreement. I would also work through the U.S. Mission to the U.N.
to identify arms embargo violators and hold them accountable while
simultaneously working with UNSC allies to ensure the U.N. Mission in
South Sudan is prepared to protect civilians and afforded the freedom
of movement necessary to do so.
Question. The Gulf countries are influential actors in the Horn of
Africa. Analysts have expressed concern that the Gulf crisis may
exacerbate regional tensions in the Horn. Sudan, Somalia and Ethiopia
can easily be further destabilized. What actions will you take, if
confirmed, to ensure that our Ambassadors in Riyadh, Ankara, Abu Dhabi
and Doha are consistently delivering messages about the importance of
refraining from actions which for example undermine efforts to support
the formation of a strong federal state in Somalia, or which could
otherwise potentially play a destabilizing role in the Horn of Africa?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Bureau of Near
Eastern Affairs, the Bureau of African Affairs, and our ambassadors in
the region to ensure the United States is urging Gulf countries at all
levels to play a constructive role in advancing peace and stability in
the Horn. I will work to support the development of a mechanism to
manage commercial and security concerns related to the Red Sea. On
Somalia, I will continue to encourage our partners in the Gulf to
support federalism reforms; peaceful, inclusive, and democratic
national elections next year; the development of Somali security forces
to enable the AMISOM transition plan; and economic reforms that will
allow Somalia to enter the debt relief process next spring.
Question. The UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey have increased their
military presence along the coast of the Horn of Africa, expanding and
increasing activity throughout the Red Sea Corridor. What steps will
you take, if confirmed, to improve coordination of State Department's
strategies, programs, and policies implemented by the Africa and Near-
East-Asia bureaus relative to the Red Sea?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with my colleagues in the
Bureaus of Near Eastern, African, and European and Eurasian Affairs,
and our ambassadors in relevant countries engaged in the Red Sea
region, to ensure that our strategies, programs, and policies are well
coordinated in addressing issues throughout the Red Sea Corridor.
Working together, we can encourage these countries to play a
constructive role in advancing peace and stability in the Red Sea,
Gulf, and Horn of Africa.
Question. If confirmed, what steps will you take to secure access
to the Anglophone regions of Cameroon for international and domestic
observers to ascertain the veracity of the current accounts of
widespread government abuses against civilians in those regions? What
role do you see the United States as having in facilitating,
encouraging, and/or leading constructive dialogue between the
government of Cameroon, and opposing parties in the Anglophone region,
and what actions will you take if confirmed to help foster political
dialogue?
Answer. I will work with the Bureau of African Affairs to seek
unfettered access for humanitarian aid workers to the Anglophone
Northwest and Southwest Regions of Cameroon and to call for full and
independent investigations of abuses committed by both sides. The
United States calls for an end to violence on both the Cameroonian
government side as well as the side of the various armed separatist
groups. I will continue calling on both sides to enter into an open-
ended dialogue without pre-conditions and supporting the Swiss-led
dialogue initiative. Additionally, if confirmed, I will continue
support working closely with civil society organizations in Cameroon to
strengthen grass-roots peace builders.
Question. Security across the Sahel continues to devolve. Latest
reports show over 4 million displaced-- one million more than last
year. Violent extremism is expanding from Mali into Burkina Faso.
If confirmed, what steps will you take to develop a strategy to
deal with the challenge of worsening security and increasing
violent extremism across the Sahel?
Answer. Instability in the Sahel threatens U.S. national security
and undermines the Department's broader goals for the region. The
administration is committed to whole-of-government approaches to
addressing fragility in the region that harness our defense,
development, and diplomatic capabilities. If confirmed, I will support
the Department's ongoing efforts to develop a robust diplomatic
engagement framework for Sahel stabilization focused on bolstering
rights-respecting, citizen-responsive governance, improving
coordination internally and with our partners and other donors to
ensure complementarity of effort, and advancing cornerstone political
objectives, such as implementing the Algiers Accord in Mali.
Question. China and Russia have made concerted efforts to increase
their countries' political, security, and economic influence across
Africa, providing security services, loans and building infrastructure.
Russia has interfered with elections in Africa. The administration's
strategy in Africa recognizes this challenge, but little action has
been taken.
What specific actions will you take to if confirmed to counter
Russian and Chinese influence in Africa?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to monitor China's and
Russia's involvement in Africa and support efforts to counter malign
influences in line with U.S. national security interests and those of
our African partners. If confirmed, I will work hard to promote peace
and security and to increase U.S. trade and investment in Africa.
Countries around the globe can play a role as a source of capital and
knowledge for African development, but they must apply the highest
international standards of openness, inclusivity, transparency, and
governance.
Question. Several countries in Africa, notably Uganda, Zimbabwe,
Tanzania, and Burundi have seen the increasing closure of space for
local civil society, media/journalists, political opposition, and even
international NGOs.
What will you do if confirmed to ensure that we help protect
democratic space in countries in which human rights and
democratic freedoms are increasingly at risk?
Answer. Civil society continues to face challenges to its role in
representing and advocating for citizens, particularly where the
enabling environment is closing or closed. If confirmed, I am committed
to promoting and protecting the role of civil society as an essential
element of citizen-centered democratic governance. I will support the
development of the institutional architecture to support victims,
enhance access to justice and promote voices that encourage local
dialogue among Africans, respect the rule of law and support access to
justice, foster civil society, and recognize the critical role played
by independent media.
Question. I am concerned by the continued lack of normalcy in
Indian-administered Kashmir and by the difficulty in getting reliable
information on the situation on the ground. Has the State Department
tried to send U.S. diplomats to Indian-administered Kashmir since the
revocation of Article 370 on August 5th? If the Indian government has
blocked U.S. diplomats from entering the area, what reasoning have they
given for doing so?
Answer. Since India's August 5 decision to abrogate Article 370,
the Indian government has denied the Department of State's requests to
visit Jammu and Kashmir, citing security concerns. If confirmed, I will
support the Department of State's efforts to renew diplomatic visits,
including to the Kashmir Valley, to observe and report on developments
firsthand.
Question. What discussions has the State Department had with the
Indian government regarding the situation in Indian-administered
Kashmir, and at what level have these conversations taken place? How
does the State Department assess the credibility of Indian government
statements regarding the situation in Indian-administered Kashmir?
Answer. Since August 5, senior State Department officials in
Washington and New Delhi have consistently engaged the Indian
government to seek updated information regarding conditions on the
ground. Department officials are also working to represent the
interests of U.S. citizens and their families, urge respect for human
rights, and encourage the Indian government to ensure a rapid return to
normalcy, including by easing detentions and movement restrictions,
lifting communications blackouts, ensuring adequate access to food and
medicine, and fulfilling its commitment to hold local assembly
elections at the earliest opportunity. The Indian government has argued
that the revocation of Article 370 will result in better governance and
economic development for the people of Kashmir; however, the onus is on
the Indian government to fulfill that promise.
Question. What discussions has the State Department had with Indian
civil society, and particularly with civil society based in Indian-
administered Kashmir, regarding the situation there?
Answer. Since August 5, Department of State officials in Washington
and New Delhi have maintained close contact with a broad range of civil
society groups, journalists, religious leaders, and political
organizations, including individuals who are based in or travel
regularly to Kashmir. These meetings have helped Department officials
better understand conditions on the ground and perspectives regarding
ongoing political developments, including as they affect religious
minorities, women and youth, and other vulnerable populations.
Question. The vast majority of refugees are hosted in developing
countries, who have taken on a disproportionate share of the burden in
hosting displaced populations while continuing to have difficulty
meeting the needs or their own populations. This has resulted in a lack
of resources to help refugees during their prolonged displacement. For
example, many displaced children are unable to attend school and are
missing out on critical years of their educational development.
Further, many of these host countries are allies of the United States.
How will you answer to our allies who have been shouldering a
disproportionate share of the burden, while the U.S. draws back its
commitment, both in contributions and leadership?
Answer. The United States continues to be the single largest donor
of humanitarian assistance in the world, providing nearly $9.3 billion
in FY 2019. At the same time, humanitarian needs worldwide continue to
grow, beyond the capacity of any single donor to adequately respond. I
understand the Department supports, and if confirmed I would continue
to support, the World Bank's development of funding platforms to assist
refugee-hosting countries that have adopted policies to include
refugees in national development efforts, including education.
Question. SFRC minority has a hold on State CN 19 112, which
reduces staffing levels at Embassy Kabul. I understand that other
committees may also have holds on this CN. However, State has started
implementing the CN in spite of the hold by notifying Embassy staff
that their positions will be terminated and by declining to include
positions affected by the staffing cuts in the September 2019 ``bid
list.'' Sec. 7073(a) of the FY19 State and Foreign Operations
Appropriations Act prevents use of appropriated funds to ``implement a
reorganization, redesign, or other plan described in paragraph (2)''
without ``prior consultation.with the appropriate congressional
committees''.
How many positions that are targeted for elimination under the
Staffing Review are currently unfilled? How many are filled?
Answer. It is my understanding that since undertaking the Kabul
staffing review, the Department has provided extensive information,
including pre-notification consultations prior to submitting CN 19-112.
Following expiration of the CN period, the Department changed some
Kabul assignments, as has previously been briefed to the committee. The
Department's ``bid lists'' depend on service need and the Department's
global posture. The September 2019 bid list did not include certain
positions affected by the Kabul Staffing review; however, the
Department has not eliminated these positions nor made final decisions
regarding assignments.
Question. What is the Department's legal justification to start
implementing the Kabul Staffing CN in spite of the Congressional holds?
Answer. Since undertaking the staffing review of Kabul, the
Department has worked to provide extensive information to Congress,
including pre-notification consultations prior to submitting
congressional notification (CN) 19-112 on May 3, holding more than ten
separate briefings to our respective oversight committees, and
arranging phone calls between members and senior Department officials
on the CN itself. The Department has provided and continues to provide
responses to requests for information and questions raised during
consultations and briefings. Following the expiration of the CN period,
the State Department has changed the assignments of some staff who were
to go to Afghanistan in 2019 consistent with the congressional
notification, and a number of these steps have previously been briefed
to the committee.
Question. Which Department official made the decision to start
implementing the Kabul Staffing CN in spite of the Congressional holds?
Who else was involved in the decision-making?
Answer. Under the direction of the Secretary of State, I understand
that the Department has made adjustments to some Afghanistan
assignments and taken measures to ensure all impacted employees have
new assignments. The Department has not permanently eliminated the
positions or taken other similar actions regarding those positions.
Question. If confirmed as Deputy Secretary of State, will you
continue implementing the Embassy Kabul staffing cuts in spite of the
SFRC minority hold?
Answer. I understand that the Department has made some assignment
changes in Embassy Kabul but has not eliminated positions. If
confirmed, I will uphold the Department's commitment to working closely
with our Congressional committees to address any remaining concerns
regarding CN 19-112.
Question. If confirmed as Deputy Secretary of State, will you
commit to respecting Congressional holds and not implementing programs
or changes for which the Congressional notification is on hold?
Answer. If confirmed, I commit to working collaboratively with
Congressional committees to address concerns regarding Congressional
notifications.
Question. President Trump has repeatedly stated that Mexico will
pay for the border wall along the Southwest border of the United
States. Do you believe that Mexico should be required to pay for a
border wall?
Answer. I believe we should continue to cooperate closely with
Mexico to manage and protect our nearly 2,000-mile border and to combat
shared threats posed by transnational criminal organizations. If
confirmed, I will work to secure our borders by working with the
Mexican government to advance our shared security interests.
Question. Do you intend to formulate a strategy to make Mexico pay
for his proposed border wall between our countries?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to maintain an ongoing dialogue with
Mexico to ensure close coordination with respect to our joint efforts
to secure and modernize the border. Border infrastructure is one part
of a comprehensive approach to improve security at our southern border.
A strategy to secure our border should include working closely with
Mexico to prevent illegal immigration, human trafficking, and the
smuggling of drugs and other contraband across our shared border.
Question. Over the last few months, there have been a series of
``asylum cooperation agreements'' that the Department of Homeland
Security recently signed with Honduras (September 25, 2019), Guatemala
(July 26, 2019) and El Salvador (September 20, 2019). As far as we can
determine, none of these agreements have yet been transmitted to
Congress, as required by U.S. law, despite the fact that the 60-day
window for reporting appears to have passed for the Guatemala
agreement. Can you please explain why these congressionally mandated
reports have not yet been transmitted, and when we can expect them?
Answer. I have had no involvement with these issues in my capacity
as Special Representative for North Korea. However, I am advised of the
following:
Pursuant to 1 U.S.C. Sec. 112b, ``the Secretary of State shall
transmit to the Congress the text of any international agreement
(including the text of any oral international agreement, which
agreement shall be reduced to writing), other than a treaty, to which
the United States is a party as soon as practicable after such
agreement has entered into force with respect to the United States but
in no event later than sixty days thereafter.''
The agreements about which you asked did not enter into force
immediately upon signature. The Asylum Cooperation Agreement with
Guatemala entered into force on November 15, 2019, and will be
transmitted to Congress within 60 days of that date. Asylum Cooperation
Agreements with El Salvador and Honduras have not entered into force.
Should they enter into force in the future, they will be transmitted to
Congress within 60 days of the date of their entry into force.
Question. Do you commit to transmitting these agreements to
Congress?
Answer. As indicated in my previous answer, I am advised of the
following: The Asylum Cooperation Agreement with Guatemala entered into
force on November 15, 2019, and will be transmitted to Congress within
60 days of that date. The Asylum Cooperation Agreements with El
Salvador and Honduras have not entered into force. Should they enter
into force in the future, they will be transmitted to Congress within
60 days of the date of their entry into force.
Question. What is your assessment of security conditions in El
Salvador and do you believe the country is able to provide safety and
security to asylum seekers if they are sent to El Salvador?
Answer. I understand an individual cannot be removed to a country
in which the individual would be persecuted or tortured. The Attorney
General and the Secretary of Homeland Security must certify that all
countries with which the United States signs Asylum Cooperation
Agreements, including El Salvador, meet the requirements of 8 U.S.C.
Sec. 1158(a)(2)(A) prior to implementation of said agreements,
including that individuals will have access to a full and fair
procedure for adjudicating a claim for asylum or equivalent temporary
protection.
Question. What is your assessment of the Salvadoran asylum system?
Answer. El Salvador has a nascent asylum system. Through its
international humanitarian partners, the Department is providing
support to help strengthen the capacity of the Salvadoran asylum system
to allow migrants seeking protection to receive that protection closer
to home.
I understand that prior to implementing any Asylum Cooperation
Agreements, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security
must certify that a country meet the requirements of 8 U.S.C.
Sec. 1158(a)(2)(A), including that the individual will have access to a
full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent
temporary protection, and that individuals cannot be removed to a
country in which the individual would be persecuted.
Question. What is your assessment of security conditions in
Honduras and do you believe that the country is able to provide safety
and security to asylum seekers if they are sent to Honduras?
Answer. I understand no individual can be sent to a country in
which the individual would be persecuted or tortured. The Attorney
General and the Secretary of Homeland Security must certify that
Honduras meets the requirements of 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1158(a)(2)(A) prior to
implementation of the Asylum Cooperation Agreement, including that
individuals will have access to a full and fair procedure for
determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection.
Question. What is your assessment of the Honduran asylum system?
Answer. Honduras has a nascent asylum system. Through its
international humanitarian partners, the Department is providing
support to help strengthen the capacity of the Honduran asylum system
to allow migrants seeking protection to receive that protection closer
to home.
I understand that prior to implementing any Asylum Cooperation
Agreements, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security
must certify that a country meet the requirements of 8 U.S.C.
Sec. 1158(a)(2)(A), including that the individual will have access to a
full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent
temporary protection, and that individuals cannot be removed to a
country in which the individual would be persecuted.
Question. What is your assessment of security conditions in
Guatemala and do you believe that the country is able to provide safety
and security to asylum seekers if they are sent to Guatemala?
Answer. On November 15, the agreement the United States signed with
Guatemala entered into force following certification by the Attorney
General and the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
Sec. 1158(a)(2)(A) that individuals seeking asylum who are removed to
Guatemala will have access to a full and fair procedure for determining
their asylum claim or equivalent protection and following an exchange
of diplomatic notes. Individuals who would be persecuted or tortured in
Guatemala will not be sent to that country pursuant to this same
statutory provision.
Question. What is your assessment of the Guatemalan asylum system?
Answer. Guatemala and the United States signed an Asylum
Cooperation Agreement on July 26. The Attorney General and Secretary of
Homeland Security determined that Guatemala's asylum system provides
full and fair access to individuals seeking protection, as required by
U.S. law, prior to the ACA entering into force on November 15. The
first individual was sent to Guatemala under the agreement on November
21. While the ACA is a bilateral agreement, humanitarian assistance
efforts funded by the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration
complement its implementation through partners like the U.N. High
Commissioner for Refugees and International Organization for Migration.
The ACA helps address the humanitarian and security crisis at our
southern border, while fulfilling our mandate to provide protection and
resolve the plight of persecuted and uprooted people.
Question. If the administration fails to extend New START beyond
2021 and does not replace it with another arms control agreement, how
will Russia change its nuclear posture? Do you believe that Russia will
expand its nuclear arsenal in an unconstrained environment post-New
START?
Answer. While Russia is complying with the New START Treaty's
central limits on accountable weapons, Russia is currently expanding
and diversifying its large stockpile of nonstrategic nuclear weapons,
which are not covered by the New START Treaty. Russia is also pursuing
novel strategic weapons that do not fall under the treaty's existing
definitions and are thus unconstrained by the treaty's central limits.
These Russian developments, together with China's assessed buildup to
at least double the size of its current nuclear arsenal, inform both
the administration's ongoing evaluation of whether an extension of the
New START Treaty is in the U.S. national interest and the
administration's efforts to think more broadly about arms control, both
in terms of the countries and the weapon systems involved.
Question. Do you believe the United States will be more or less
secure if New START is not extended and no follow-on arms control
treaty is agreed to?
Answer. The administration's priority is to make the United States
more secure. One of our key considerations in evaluating arms control
efforts is whether such efforts advance U.S., allied, and partner
security. That is why we are both evaluating whether an extension of
the New START Treaty is in the U.S. national interest and thinking more
broadly about arms control, both in terms of the countries and the
weapon systems involved.
Question. One of the issues that detractors of New START repeatedly
bring up is Russia's new, exotic nuclear systems and how the Treaty may
not constrain these systems. As you are aware, Russia has already
stated that two systems, the Sarmat ICBM and Avengard Hypersonic Glide
Vehicle, will fall under New START. Furthermore, reports indicate that
the other systems of concern likely will not reach deployment during
the lifespan of the New START, even if it is extended. Considering the
circumstances surrounding these new systems, in your estimation, what
is the impact or non-impact of these systems on New START?
Answer. Russia is pursuing novel strategic weapons that do not fall
under the treaty's existing definitions and thus are unconstrained by
the treaty's central limits. Russia is also expanding and diversifying
its large stockpile of nonstrategic nuclear weapons, which are not
covered by the New START Treaty. These Russian developments,
unconstrained by the New START Treaty, increase threats to U.S.,
allied, and partner security. The question is therefore not what impact
or non-impact these systems have on the New START Treaty, but rather
what arms control efforts will advance U.S., allied, and partner
security in the face of the threats these systems pose.
Question. Do you think New START should be extended knowing the
circumstances of these exotic systems?
Answer. The administration has not yet made a decision about the
potential extension of the New START Treaty. The development of novel
new strategic systems and Russia's growing stockpile of nonstrategic
nuclear weapons, which are not covered by the New START Treaty,
together with China's nuclear buildup and how the Treaty's expiration
would affect U.S., Allied and partner security, all inform our ongoing
evaluation of whether an extension is in the U.S. national interest, as
well as our efforts to think more broadly about arms control, both in
terms of the countries and the weapon systems involved.
Question. In a post-New START environment, how would you address
constraining these systems?
Answer. As the administration has not yet determined whether to
extend the New START Treaty, it is premature to speculate about a post-
New START environment. However, the interest in constraining additional
weapons beyond those limited by past agreements is motivating the
administration's efforts to think more broadly about arms control. The
administration is also committed to ensuring the United States
possesses modern, flexible, resilient, and effective nuclear forces to
deter nuclear attack.
Question. Do you believe that extending New START would provide
additional time to negotiate methods for constraining these systems?
Answer. The administration has not yet made a decision about
potential extension of New START. Central to the U.S. review of
potential New START extension is whether an extension is in the U.S.
national interest and how the Treaty's expiration would affect U.S.,
Allied and partner security.
Question. President Trump has repeatedly stated that he seeks a
new, trilateral arms control agreement that includes both Russia and
China. What are the status of these negotiations? Are they occurring at
all?
Answer. Negotiations on a new, trilateral arms control agreement
have yet to start.
Question. As you know, the State Department currently does not have
a T Under-Secretary or AVC Assistant Secretary, the individuals who
would generally lead such negotiations. Consequently, who is leading
these trilateral negotiations?
Answer. Negotiations on a new, trilateral arms control agreement
have yet to start.
Question. Due to the drastically different arsenal and strategic
calculus held by China, do you believe it is feasible to bring China
into the same arms control regime as the United States and Russia, or
should the U.S. pursue alternative arms control measures to protect the
United States from Chinese nuclear weapons?
Answer. President Trump has charged his national security team to
think more broadly about arms control, both in terms of the countries
and the weapon systems involved. Bilateral treaties that cover limited
types of nuclear weapons or only certain ranges of adversary missiles
are insufficient to address the threat environment we face today.
China's expanding nuclear arsenal, estimated to more than double in the
next decade, poses increasing threats to the United States, our allies,
and partners. Neither U.S. nor Russian security are served by Chinese
nuclear forces remaining unconstrained.
Question. According to the administration, what is the current
status of the Open Skies Treaty?
Answer. The United States is a party to the Open Skies Treaty and I
understand that the United States continues to implement it and are in
full compliance with our obligations under the treaty, unlike Russia.
As Secretary Pompeo has said, ``The United States remains committed to
effective arms control that advances U.S., Allied, and partner
security; is verifiable and enforceable; and includes partners that
comply responsibly with their obligations.'' For so long as we believe
the Open Skies Treaty meets these criteria, the U.S. will remain in the
Treaty. The U.S. will continue to work with its Allies and partners on
all treaty related compliance and implementation issues related to the
Open Skies Treaty.
Question. Does the administration intend to withdraw from the Open
Skies Treaty, as earlier indicated?
Answer. The United States is a party to the Open Skies Treaty and I
understand that the United States continues to implement it and are in
full compliance with our obligations under the treaty, unlike Russia.
The United States remains committed to arms control agreements that
advance U.S., Allied, and partner security; are verifiable and
enforceable; and include parties that comply responsibly with their
obligations. The United States will continue to approach the Open Skies
Treaty from this perspective and work with its Allies and partners on
all treaty related compliance and implementation issues related to the
Open Skies Treaty.
Question. Current Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan told the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee last month that any decision to
withdraw from the Open Skies Treaty would require the unanimous support
of NATO ``to make sure we don't do damage to our NATO alliance.'' Do
you agree with this statement? Sullivan also stated that the U.S.
ambassadors to NATO and the OSCE support the United States remaining a
party to the treaty. Is that also your understanding?
Answer. Deputy Secretary Sullivan told the committee the United
States' decision to remain in or withdraw from the treaty should be
made only after close consultation with our Allies and other
participants in the treaty. The United States remains committed to arms
control agreements that advance U.S., Allied, and partner security; are
verifiable and enforceable; and include parties that comply responsibly
with their obligations.
Question. Do you believe it is in the security interests of the
United States to remain party to the Open Skies Treaty?
Answer. The United States is a party to the Open Skies Treaty, and
I understand that the United States continues to implement it and are
in full compliance with our obligations under the treaty, unlike
Russia. The United States remains committed to arms control agreements
that advance U.S., Allied, and partner security; are verifiable and
enforceable; and include parties that comply responsibly with their
obligations. The United States will continue to approach the Open Skies
Treaty from this perspective and continue to work with our Allies and
partners on all compliance and implementation issues related to the
Open Skies Treaty.
Question. Have you discussed Open Skies with our Allies? Do they
believe in the value of the Treaty?
Answer. If confirmed, I will to work closely with our Allies and
partners on all Open Skies Treaty related compliance and implementation
issues.
Question. What is the current status of denuclearization
negotiations with North Korea, especially in the aftermath of the
Stockholm meeting?
Answer. President Trump remains committed to making progress toward
the Singapore Summit commitments, which include transforming relations,
building lasting peace on the Korean Peninsula, and complete
denuclearization of the DPRK. We work closely with the international
community to send a unified message that North Korea must engage with
the United States to achieve these commitments. We have not seen
concrete evidence that North Korea has made the choice to denuclearize,
but we still believe that Pyongyang can make this choice.
Question. What actions do you believe North Korea intends to take
if the U.S. and North Korea do not come to some agreement before Dec.
31? Do you believe North Korea will resume ICBM and nuclear testing?
Answer. President Trump remains committed to making progress toward
the Singapore Summit commitments, which include transforming relations,
building lasting peace on the Korean Peninsula, and complete
denuclearization of the DPRK. We work closely with our allies and
others around the world as we seek to eliminate the threat posed to the
United States and our allies by North Korea's weapons of mass
destruction and ballistic missile programs. If confirmed as Deputy
Secretary, I will continue to champion diplomatic approaches to the
tough challenges our nation faces to ensure that America remains
prosperous, secure, and strong.
Question. Do you believe that a peace agreement would contribute to
the achievement of goals outlined at the Singapore summit?
Answer. Our goal is to achieve the final, fully verified
denuclearization of the DPRK. The United States remains ready to take
simultaneous and parallel actions on the commitments our leaders made
at the Singapore Summit. That includes transforming the U.S.-DPRK
relationship; establishing a lasting and stable peace on the Korean
Peninsula; complete denuclearization of the DPRK; and making progress
on the recovery of remains. We also look forward to cooperating to
build a bright economic future for the North Korean people, the region,
and the world.
Question. What are some of the specific, meaningful steps towards
denuclearization that North Korea could take for the United States to
consider a partial lifting of sanctions?
Answer. We have had extensive conversations with the DPRK about the
contours of final, fully verified denuclearization, as committed to by
Chairman Kim in Singapore. In our talks with the DPRK, the United
States brought creative ideas and previewed a number of new initiatives
that would allow us to make progress in each of the four pillars of the
Singapore Joint Statement. We also reviewed events since the Singapore
summit, and the importance of more intensive engagement to solve the
many issues of concern for both sides. The Department is committed to
keeping you and other members of Congress updated on the
administration's efforts.
Question. Mr. Biegun, I asked the following questions for the
record of Assistant Secretary Cooper after his SFRC hearing of July 10,
2019. More than four months later, I have yet to see any response to
these questions, despite multiple inquiries by my staff. Therefore, I
ask them of you: In May, the Secretary of State declared an
``emergency'' with regard to 22 arms sales to Saudi Arabia and UAE.
What is the State Department's operative definition of an
``emergency''?
Answer. It is my understanding that there were emergency
circumstances that necessitated, in the national security interests of
the United States, the immediate issuances of Letters of Offer and
Acceptance and Export Licenses. These circumstances were set forth in
the detailed justification for the determination, which was provided to
Congress on May 24 consistent with section 36 of the Arms Export
Control Act.
Question. Did the Legal Adviser's office opine on what an
``emergency'' is? If so, was that opinion in writing? If so, will you
provide a copy of that written opinion to the committee? If not, what
legal privilege is State claiming to exercise that prevents it, or
enables it, from providing that written opinion to the committee?
Answer. I cannot speak to deliberative, pre-decisional
communications that may be subject to Executive Branch confidentiality
interests. However, as a general matter, the Department's practice for
every Congressionally notified Foreign Military Sale or Export License
package is for the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs to consult with
the Office of the Legal Adviser prior to notifying Congress.
Question. Why did the State Department not inform Senator Menendez
or his staff that an emergency declaration for these arms sales was
being contemplated, or was going to be invoked, prior to May 24, 2019?
Answer. I was not involved in the internal decision-making process
leading up to the May 24 emergency certification.
Question. Did anyone from State Department inform any Member or
staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee prior to May 24, 2019,
about consideration of, or a decision made, to make the emergency
declaration issued by the Secretary of State on May 24, 2019?
Answer. I was not involved in the internal decision-making process
leading up to the May 24 emergency certification.
Question. How many FMS Letters of Offer and Acceptance have been
concluded, and how many have been transmitted for consideration, to the
governments of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates?
Answer. I have been briefed that of the 11 FMS sales advanced via
the May 24 Emergency Certification, Letters of Offer and Acceptance for
nine have been offered to Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Six offers have
been signed.
Question. How many of the 13 commercial sales have begun delivery?
Which ones? What percentage of deliveries have been made so far of the
total authorized in each sale?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Department issued the
related licenses for these sales shortly after it notified Congress. It
is the Department's understanding that several of these export
authorizations--for which there is an underlying signed contract--have
moved forward for delivery. Detailed delivery information resides with
the exporting companies.
Question. Many of these sales could take months or years to be
delivered, isn't that right? If so, and these sales are important to
build Saudi and UAE capacity to defend against a threat from Iran, does
the expediting of these sales via an emergency declaration also give
Iran an incentive to attack sooner, before the months and years pass
for these weapons to be brought to bear against them? Was the
subsequent attack by Iran on Saudi oil facilities partially the result
of these sales, or where these emergency sales essentially irrelevant
to Iran's considerations in launching that attack?
Answer. Iranian malign activity poses a threat to the stability of
the Middle East and to United States security interests at home and
abroad; equipping our partners to be the first line of defense against
such Iranian activity remains a critical U.S. national security
interest.
Question. What date was the first discussion in the State
Department regarding invoking an emergency determination for these
sales?
Answer. I was not involved in the internal decision-making process
leading up to the May 24 emergency certification.
Question. When, specifically, did the Secretary decide to use an
emergency declaration for these sales?
Answer. I was not involved in the internal decision-making process
leading up to the May 24 emergency certification.
Question. Did State Department personnel discuss declaring an
emergency for these sales with the Secretary before the Secretary
briefed the Senate and the House on May 21 and 22?
Answer. I was not involved in the internal decision-making process
leading up to the May 24 emergency certification.
Question. PM Assistant Secretary Cooper testified at a House
hearing that the decision memo to the Secretary was prepared, quote,
``right before we issued the declaration.'' On what date, specifically,
was that memo prepared?
Answer. I was not involved in the internal decision-making process
leading up to the May 24 emergency certification.
Question. What does ``right before'' mean? An hour? 8 hours? 24
hours?
Answer. I was not involved in the internal decision-making process
leading up to the May 24 emergency certification.
Question. Is that why the Secretary didn't follow the law and make
individual justifications for each of the 22 sales, as required by law?
He just didn't have the time to find out what the law was and whether
he was complying with it?
Answer. It is my understanding that he Secretary's emergency
certification was consistent with the relevant provisions of the Arms
Export Control Act. The justification transmitted to Congress as part
of the certification applied to each of the 22 cases.
Question. Did the office of the Legal Advisor produce a written
legal analysis, determination, and/or recommendation that the Secretary
actually had the authority to invoke an emergency for these sales?
Answer. I cannot speak to deliberative, pre-decisional
communications that may be subject to Executive Branch confidentiality
interests. However, as a general matter, the Department's practice for
every Congressionally notified Foreign Military Sale or Export License
package is for the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs to consult with
the Office of the Legal Adviser prior to notifying Congress.
Question. If so, what was the date of that legal analysis,
determination and/or recommendation?
Answer. As a general matter, the Department's practice for every
Congressionally notified Foreign Military Sale or Export License
package is for the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs to consult with
the Office of the Legal Adviser prior to notifying Congress.
Question. Will State Department provide a copy of that written or
any related legal analysis, determination and/or recommendation to the
committee? If not, what legal privilege is State claiming to exercise
that prevents it, or enables it, from providing such written legal
analysis, determination and/or recommendation to the committee?
Answer. I cannot speak to deliberative, pre-decisional
communications that may be subject to Executive Branch confidentiality
interests.
Question. Can you explain why the Secretary invoked an emergency on
Friday, May 24--the Friday before a weeklong Memorial Day recess? Why
not one day prior? Why not three days prior, when the Secretary had
briefed the Senate on the Iran threat?
Answer. I was not involved in the internal decision-making process
leading up to the May 24 emergency certification.
Question. PM Assistant Secretary Cooper's written testimony also
claims that the emergency certification was also intended to preserve,
quote, ``strategic advantage against near-peer competitors.'' Is this
the new standard for the State Department for congressional oversight,
that it cannot be tolerated if it in any way undermines this
``strategic advantage''?
Answer. The United States is the partner of choice for Saudi
Arabia, the UAE, and other Gulf states. The State Department seeks to
ensure perceived U.S. unreliability does not translate into partner
preference for near-peer competitors such as Russia and China.
Question. Does the Secretary now want to sell anything to any
dictator for a strategic business advantage?
Answer. The Department assesses all arms transfers consistent with
applicable law and policy, including the Conventional Arms Transfer
Policy.
Question. In pushing through these sales and circumventing
Congress, doesn't it send a dangerous message to authoritarian regimes
and autocrats everywhere that legislative oversight doesn't matter to
Secretary Pompeo, the State Department, and the Trump administration,
as when it is inconvenient, the administration will just ignore it and
declare an ``emergency''?
Answer. I understand that the Department provided a detailed
justification for the determination on May 24 consistent with section
36 of the Arms Export Control Act. The Department assesses all arms
transfers consistent with applicable law and policy, including the
Conventional Arms Transfer Policy.
Question. Section 36(c)(2) of the Arms Export Control Act arguably
does not give the President or the Secretary the authority to declare
an emergency for commercial sales for countries that are not members of
NATO and are not Israel, Australia, South Korea, Japan or New Zealand.
What is State's legal basis for why the Secretary can use authority
not explicitly present in the statute?
Answer. The Secretary's certification met the requirements in this
provision in light of the opening paragraph of section 36(c)(2), which
is the key provision addressing the implications of an emergency
certification.
Question. Would U.S. companies issued export licenses that are not
legal under U.S. law be legally liable for violating U.S. export laws?
Answer. U.S. companies are entitled to rely on the terms of export
licenses issued to them.
Question. The law is very clear that the President has to provide
individual justifications for each arms sale that is the subject of an
invocation of an emergency determination. Yet, the Secretary only
provided one, overarching boilerplate justification of the history of
Iran's malign activities, for all 22 separate sales, as disparate as
they are.
Does this in State's opinion comply with the AECA requirement to
submit individual justifications for each sale? Why?
Answer. The Secretary's emergency certification was consistent with
the relevant provisions of the Arms Export Control Act. The
justification transmitted to Congress as part of the certification
applied to each of the 22 cases.
Question. Is the Department investigating allegations that the UAE
transferred MRAP vehicles to others in Yemen without U.S. permission?
Answer. Yes. The Department is investigating the allegations that
the UAE transferred MRAP vehicles to entities in Yemen without U.S.
permission.
Question. Approximately when did this investigation begin? Was it
before the Secretary's May 24th declaration of an emergency?
Answer. The State Department began investigating equipment
transfers shortly after media allegations surfaced in February 2019.
Question. Why did the Secretary think it was a good idea to bypass
the 30-day Congressional review period and expedite the process of
getting these arms to UAE, some of which they could also retransfer
without permission? Does he not care if U.S. arms are illicitly
transferred or misused? Or does he care, but just not enough to slow
down the process, as required by statute, for Congressional review?
Answer. The Secretary extended the informal review period that
precedes formal notification by weeks, even months, to accommodate
fulsome Congressional review of the pending cases. When the situation
in the Gulf became dramatically worse, the Secretary acted in a manner
that was fully respectful of statute, consistent with the law, and was
acutely mindful of the concerns you outline.
Question. Provide a detailed individual justification as to how the
marketing, sale, and on-going support of ScanEagle and Integrator
Unmanned Aerial Systems and support for future Intelligence,
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) requirements for the UAE Armed
Forces will enable the UAE to counter a specific physical military
threat or actual military attack from Iran, and please include a
description of the specific physical military threat.
Answer. The ScanEagle and Integrator platforms are unarmed Unmanned
Aerial Systems (UAS), which provide the UAE armed forces with a key
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) capability. The
provision of this equipment will help ensure the UAE has the means to
defend itself and deter the growing threat posed by Iran's malign
activities in the region.
Question. Provide a detailed individual justification as to how the
sale of RQ-21A Blackjack UAVs for intelligence, surveillance and
reconnaissance to the UAE will enable the UAE to counter a specific
physical military threat or actual military attack from Iran, and
please include a description of the specific physical military threat.
Answer. The RQ-21 Blackjack UAS will provide the UAE armed forces
with an advanced ISR capability. The provision of this equipment will
help ensure the UAE has the means to defend itself and deter the
growing threat posed by Iran's malign activities in the region.
Question. Provide a detailed individual justification as to how the
sale of Aircraft Follow On Logistics and Support Services for the Saudi
Air Force, including repair and spare parts, will enable Saudi Arabia
to counter a specific physical military threat or actual military
attack from Iran, and please include a description of the specific
physical military threat.
Answer. Saudi Arabia's fleet of F-15 fighters and other U.S.-origin
aircraft are highly important assets in ensuring Saudi Arabia maintains
air superiority over Saudi territory. Without U.S. sustainment
services, logistical services, and spare and repair parts, mission
readiness rates for the Royal Saudi Air Force would decline. The
provision of these services and equipment will help ensure Saudi Arabia
has the means to defend itself and deter the growing threat posed by
Iran's malign activities in the region.
Question. Provide a detailed individual justification as to how the
sale of USMC Training for UAE Presidential Guard in unit operations
such as operating the Javelin Anti-Tank Weapon System; plan, conduct
and supervise individuals in Rappelling and Fast Roping from a static
structure; Special Operations Basic Course and in operation of Special
Forces Weapon Systems used within the Presidential Guard, will enable
the UAE to counter a specific physical military threat or actual
military attack from Iran, and please include a description of the
specific physical military threat.
Answer. The Presidential Guard provides an important ground and
special operations warfighting capability for the UAE, similar to the
role of the Marine Corps within the U.S. military. Continuing the U.S.
Marine Corps Training Mission with the UAE Presidential Guard builds
the capacity and professionalism of one of the UAE's premier fighting
forces. The provision of this training will help ensure the UAE has the
means to defend itself and deter the growing threat posed by Iran's
malign activities in the region.
Question. Provide a detailed individual justification as to how the
continuance of spare and repair parts and contractor support for the
Tactical Air Surveillance Support System in Saudi Arabia will enable
Saudi Arabia to counter a specific physical military threat or actual
military attack from Iran, and please include a description of the
specific physical military threat.
Answer. The Tactical Air Surveillance System aircraft provides the
Saudi armed forces with a key ISR capability. The provision of this
equipment will help ensure Saudi Arabia has the means to defend itself
and deter the growing threat posed by Iran's malign activities in the
region.
Question. Provide a detailed individual justification as to how the
sale of Aircraft Follow Logistics On and Support Services Services for
the Saudi Air Force, including repair and spare parts, will enable
Saudi Arabia to counter a specific physical military threat or actual
military attack from Iran, and please include a description of the
specific physical military threat.
Answer. Saudi Arabia's fleet of F-15 fighters and other U.S.-origin
aircraft are highly important assets in ensuring Saudi Arabia maintains
air superiority over Saudi territory. Without U.S. sustainment
services, logistical services, and spare and repair parts, mission
readiness rates for the Royal Saudi Air Force would decline. The
provision of these service and equipment will help ensure Saudi Arabia
has the means to defend itself and deter the growing threat posed by
Iran's malign activities in the region.
Question. Provide a detailed individual justification as to how the
sale Advanced Precision Kill Weapons System rockets to the UAE will
enable the UAE to counter a specific physical military threat or actual
military attack from Iran, and include a description of the specific
physical military threat.
Answer. The Advanced Precision Kill Weapons System is a laser
guidance system for 2.75 inch rockets. The UAE has requested this
capability to fill a legitimate precision ground attack capability
requirement and the provision of this equipment will help ensure the
UAE has the means to defend itself and deter the growing threat posed
by Iran's malign activities in the region.
Question. Provide a detailed individual justification as to how the
sale of Javelin anti-armor Guided Missiles to the UAE will enable the
UAE to counter a specific physical military threat or actual military
attack from Iran, and include a description of the specific physical
military threat.
Answer. Anti-Tank Guided Missiles such as Javelin are a key
component in conventional ground operations against an adversary
operating tanks or other armored vehicles. The provision of this
equipment will help ensure the UAE has the means to defend itself and
deter the growing threat posed by Iran's malign activities in the
region.
Question. Provide a detailed individual justification as to how the
sale Additional equipment for AH-64E Apaches, including 1 new
helicopter, to the UAE will enable the UAE to counter a specific
physical military threat or actual military attack from Iran, and
include a description of the specific physical military threat.
Answer. AH-64E Apache attack helicopters provide an important
defense capability to the UAE armed forces, which already operate
Apache helicopters. The provision of this equipment will help ensure
the UAE has the means to defend itself and deter the growing threat
posed by Iran's malign activities in the region.
Question. Provide a detailed individual justification as to how:
(A) the authorization of coproduction and manufacture in Saudi Arabia
of Paveway Pre-Amp Circuit Card Assemblies (CCA), Guidance Electronics
Assembly (GEA) CCAs, and Control Actuator System (CAS) CCAs for all
Paveway variants; (B) the authorization of coproduction and manufacture
in Saudi Arabia of Paveway II Guidance Electronics Detector Assemblies
(GEDA) and Computer Control Groups (CCG); and (C) the transfer of up to
64,603 additional kits, partial kits, and full-up-rounds will enable
Saudi Arabia to counter a specific physical military threat or actual
military attack from Iran, and include a description of the specific
physical military threat.
Answer. Precision-Guided Munitions such as Paveway provide an
important air force capability. The provision of this equipment will
help ensure Saudi Arabia has the means to defend itself and deter the
growing threat posed by Iran's malign activities in the region.
Question. Provide a detailed individual justification as to how the
sale of Integration, installation, operation, training, testing,
maintenance, and repair of the Maverick AGM-65 Weapons System and the
Paveway II, Paveway III, Enhanced Paveway II, and Enhanced Paveway III
Weapons Systems to the UAE will enable the UAE to counter a specific
physical military threat or actual military attack from Iran, and
include a description of the specific physical military threat.
Answer. Precision-Guided Munitions such as Paveway provide an
important air force capability. The provision of this equipment will
help ensure the UAE has the means to defend itself and deter the
growing threat posed by Iran's malign activities in the region.
Question. Provide a detailed individual justification as to how the
sale of installation, integration, modification, maintenance, and
repair services for F110-GE- 132 gas turbine engines for use in F-16
Aircraft for use by the UAE in the amount of $50,000,000 or more will
enable the UAE to counter a specific physical military threat or actual
military attack from Iran, and include a description of the specific
physical military threat.
Answer. Continued support for the UAE's F-16s, including F-110
Engine services, contributes to the UAE's ability to maintain air
superiority over its territory and deter Iranian attacks. The provision
of this equipment will help ensure the UAE has the means to defend
itself and deter the growing threat posed by Iran's malign activities
in the region.
Question. Provide a detailed individual justification as to how the
sale of Manufacture, production, test, inspection, modification,
enhancement, rework, and repair of F/A-18E/F and derivative series
aircraft panels to Saudi Arabia will enable Saudi Arabia to counter a
specific physical military threat or actual military attack from Iran,
and include a description of the specific physical military threat.
Answer. Delays to this case impacted F/A-18 aircraft manufacture
for the U.S. Navy and other international partners. Advancing this sale
is an act of strategic reassurance, demonstrating U.S. support during a
crisis, in keeping with our regional partnerships and desire to remain
the security partner of choice.
Question. Provide a detailed individual justification as to how the
sale of assistance to Saudi Arabia's Ministry of Defense Transformation
Project will enable Saudi Arabia to counter a specific physical
military threat or actual military attack from Iran, and include a
description of the specific physical military threat.
Answer. It is important for U.S. national interests that we support
the modernization and professionalization of the Saudi ministry of
defense and armed forces. The provision of this training will help
ensure Saudi Arabia has the means to defend itself and deter the
growing threat posed by Iran's malign activities in the region.
Question. Provide a detailed individual justification as to how the
authorization for a technical assistance agreement with the UAE to
support the preparation, shipment, delivery, and acceptance of the
Guidance Enhanced Missiles (GEM-T) (Patriot) will enable the UAE to
counter a specific physical military threat or actual military attack
from Iran, and include a description of the specific physical military
threat.
Answer. Air defense is critical for the UAE in the face of regional
threats. The provision of this equipment will help ensure the UAE has
the means to defend itself and deter the growing threat posed by Iran's
malign activities in the region.
Question. Provide a detailed individual justification as to how the
transfer of technical data and defense services in order to provide
technically qualified personnel to advise and assist the Royal Saudi
Air Force (RSAF) in maintenance and training for the RSAF F-15 fleet of
aircraft will enable Saudi Arabia to counter a specific physical
military threat or actual military attack from Iran, and include a
description of the specific physical military threat.
Answer. Saudi Arabia's fleet of F-15 fighters and other U.S.-origin
aircraft are highly important assets for Saudi Arabia. Without U.S.
sustainment services, logistical services, and spare and repair parts,
mission readiness rates for the Royal Saudi Air Force would decline.
The provision of these services and equipment will help ensure Saudi
Arabia has the means to defend itself and deter the growing threat
posed by Iran's malign activities in the region.
Question. Provide a detailed individual justification as to how the
authorization to retransfer of 500 Paveway II laser guided bombs to
Jordan will enable Jordan to counter a specific physical military
threat or actual military attack from Iran, and include a description
of the specific physical military threat.
Answer. Precision-Guided Munitions such as Paveway provide an
important air force capability. The provision of this equipment will
help ensure Jordan has the means to defend itself and deter the growing
threat posed by Iran's malign activities in the region.
Question. Provide a detailed individual justification as to how the
export of 15,000 120mm M933Al 120mm mortar bombs to the Saudi Arabian
Royal Land Forces will enable Saudi Arabia to counter a specific
physical military threat or actual military attack from Iran, and
include a description of the specific physical military threat.
Answer. Artillery capabilities, such as 120mm mortar shells, are an
important defense requirement for all ground forces preparing for
conventional combat operations. The provision of this equipment will
help ensure Saudi Arabia has the means to defend itself and deter the
growing threat posed by Iran's malign activities in the region.
Question. Provide a detailed individual justification as to how the
export of 100 M107Al, .50 caliber semi-automatic rifles and 100 sound
suppressors to the UAE for end use by the General Headquarters, UAE
Armed forces will enable the UAE to counter a specific physical
military threat or actual military attack from Iran, and include a
description of the specific physical military threat.
Answer. Small arms capabilities, such as .50 caliber rifles, are an
important defense requirement for all ground forces preparing for
conventional combat operations. The provision of this equipment will
help ensure the UAE has the means to defend itself and deter the
growing threat posed by Iran's malign activities in the region.
Question. Provide a detailed individual justification as to how the
export of defense articles, including data and defense services, to
support the performance of maintenance and repair services of F-110
engines for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Ministry of Defense will enable
the Saudi Arabia to counter a specific physical military threat or
actual military attack from Iran, and include a description of the
specific physical military threat.
Answer. Saudi Arabia's fleet of F-15 fighters and other U.S.-origin
aircraft are highly important assets in ensuring Saudi Arabia maintains
air superiority over Saudi territory. Continued support for the Saudi
aircraft, including F-110 engine services, is essential to these
objectives. The provision of these services and equipment will help
ensure Saudi Arabia has the means to defend itself and deter the
growing threat posed by Iran's malign activities in the region.
Question. Provide a detailed individual justification as to how the
transfer of defense articles, defense services, and technical data to
support the integration of the FMU-152A/B Joint Programmable Bomb Fuze
system into the UAE Armed Forces General Headquarters' fleet of
aircraft and associated weapons will enable the UAE to counter a
specific physical military threat or actual military attack from Iran,
and include a description of the specific physical military threat.
Answer. Precision-Guided Munitions (PGM) provide an important air
force capability. FMU-152 fuzes are a critical component of the UAE's
PGM stockpile. The provision of this equipment will help ensure the UAE
has the means to defend itself and deter the growing threat posed by
Iran's malign activities in the region.
Question. On August 7, 2019 I sent a letter to the Secretary
regarding the U.S.-Mexico Joint Declaration (JD) and Supp. Agreement
(SA). Because I had not received the written responses I had requested,
I resubmitted the questions as Question for the Record to Deputy
Secretary John Sullivan. Some of Deputy Secretary Sullivan's responses
were non-responsive, incomplete or otherwise unacceptable. As such, I
am resubmitting the following questions and look forward to fulsome,
accurate and transparent written responses to each question, including
all sub-parts to each question. I note in particular that Answer 212
submitted by Deputy Secretary Sullivan, on November 5, 2019, was
erroneous and unacceptable. Answer 212 indicated that Deputy Secretary
Sullivan could not respond to questions about the C-175 process
because, in his view, doing so would implicate internal executive
branch deliberations. The C-175 process is designed to implement
statutory requirements under the Case Act. The questions posed above
are submitted as part of routine congressional oversight in relation to
the State Department's compliance with the Case Act and pursuant to
Senate Foreign Relations Committee jurisdiction over treaties and
international agreements. The mere connection to internal deliberations
of the executive branch does not serve as a basis to withhold this
information from the committee, and doing so is inconsistent with
routine practice and precedent between the Department and the
committee.
Please indicate whether the JD alone is binding under international
law.
Answer. I have had no involvement with these issues in my capacity
as Special Representative for North Korea and am not in a position to
provide any additional information on these questions.
I understand that administration officials have previously briefed
the Foreign Relations Committee staff on issues related to the Joint
Declaration and Supplementary Agreement. If confirmed, I commit to
supporting future briefings on this important topic, as appropriate.
Question. Please identify the characteristics of the JD from which
it can be concluded that both the United States and Mexico regard the
JD as binding under international law.
Answer. I have had no involvement with these issues in my capacity
as Special Representative for North Korea and am not in a position to
provide any additional information on these questions.
I understand that administration officials have previously briefed
the Foreign Relations Committee staff on issues related to the Joint
Declaration and Supplementary Agreement. If confirmed, I commit to
supporting future briefings on this important topic, as appropriate.
Question. Please indicate which specific provisions of the JD
impose binding obligations on either the U.S., Mexico, or both.
Answer. I have had no involvement with these issues in my capacity
as Special Representative for North Korea and am not in a position to
provide any additional information on these questions.
I understand that administration officials have previously briefed
the Foreign Relations Committee staff on issues related to the Joint
Declaration and Supplementary Agreement. If confirmed, I commit to
supporting future briefings on this important topic, as appropriate.
Question. Please indicate whether the SA alone is binding under
international law.
Answer. I have had no involvement with this issue in my capacity as
Special Representative for North Korea and am not in a position to
provide any additional information on these questions.
I understand that administration officials have previously briefed
the Foreign Relations Committee staff on issues related to the Joint
Declaration and Supplementary Agreement. If confirmed, I commit to
supporting future briefings on this important topic, as appropriate.
Question. Please identify the characteristics of the SA from which
it can be concluded that both the United States and Mexico regard the
SA as binding under international law.
Answer. I have had no involvement with these issues in my capacity
as Special Representative for North Korea and am not in a position to
provide any additional information on these questions.
I understand that administration officials have previously briefed
the Foreign Relations Committee staff on issues related to the Joint
Declaration and Supplementary Agreement. If confirmed, I commit to
supporting future briefings on this important topic, as appropriate.
Question. Please indicate which specific provisions of the SA
impose binding obligations on either the U.S., Mexico, or both.
Answer. I have had no involvement with these issues in my capacity
as Special Representative for North Korea and am not in a position to
provide any additional information on these questions.
I understand that administration officials have previously briefed
the Foreign Relations Committee staff on issues related to the Joint
Declaration and Supplementary Agreement. If confirmed, I commit to
supporting future briefings on this important topic, as appropriate.
Question. Please identify and explain in detail the specific
factors that the Department analyzed in arriving at the position that
the JD and SA collectively are binding under international law.
Answer. I have had no involvement with these issues in my capacity
as Special Representive for North Korea and am not in a position to
provide any additional information on these questions.
I understand that administration officials have previously briefed
the Foreign Relations Committee staff on issues related to the Joint
Declaration and Supplementary Agreement. If confirmed, I commit to
supporting future briefings on this important topic, as appropriate.
Question. Please provide a detailed explanation, with relevant
examples, of the legal theory by which the Department believes it is
possible for a subsequent instrument, such as the SA, to render a
change in the legal character of a prior instrument that was not itself
previously considered binding under international law.
Answer. I have had no involvement with these issues in my capacity
as Special Representative for North Korea and am not in a position to
provide any additional information on these questions.
I understand that administration officials have previously briefed
the Foreign Relations Committee staff on issues related to the Joint
Declaration and Supplementary Agreement. If confirmed, I commit to
supporting future briefings on this important topic, as appropriate.
Question. Please indicate whether the Department's analysis of the
binding nature of the JD, SA, and the JD and SA collectively is
consistent with the practice and precedent of the United States on
international agreements and arrangements, or if the analysis departs
from the practice and precedent of the United States in this area. If
it does differ, please explain the following: how it differs; why the
executive branch departed from U.S. practice and precedent; whether the
executive branch's position on the JD, SA, and SA and JD collectively
is a one-time departure from U.S. practice and precedent, or whether
the departure represents a shift in executive branch practice; and
whether the executive branch has made the government of Mexico (GOM)
aware of any departure in practice and precedent.
Answer. I have had no involvement with these issues in my capacity
as Special Representative for North Korea and am not in a position to
provide any additional information on these questions.
I understand that administration officials have previously briefed
the Foreign Relations Committee staff on issues related to the Joint
Declaration and Supplementary Agreement. If confirmed, I commit to
supporting future briefings on this important topic, as appropriate.
Question. During the course of the negotiations of the JD and SA,
what was the position of the United States on whether the JD, the SA,
and the JD and SA collectively were binding under international law?
Answer. I have had no involvement with these issues in my capacity
as Special Representative for North Korea and am not in a position to
provide any additional information on these questions.
I understand that administration officials have previously briefed
the Foreign Relations Committee staff on issues related to the Joint
Declaration and Supplementary Agreement. If confirmed, I commit to
supporting future briefings on this important topic, as appropriate.
Question. Upon finalizing the JD and SA, what was the position of
the United States on whether the JD, the SA, and the JD and SA
collectively were binding under international law?
Answer. I have had no involvement with these issues in my capacity
as Special Representative for North Korea and am not in a position to
provide any additional information on these questions.
I understand that administration officials have previously briefed
the Foreign Relations Committee staff on issues related to the Joint
Declaration and Supplementary Agreement. If confirmed, I commit to
supporting future briefings on this important topic, as appropriate.
Question. Acting Legal Adviser String appeared to indicate in his
July 24 testimony that questions of whether the JD and SA were binding
under international law were still being considered within the
executive branch. If the United States did not have a position on the
question of whether the instruments were binding during the negotiation
or when the instruments were finalized, please explain why that would
be the case.
Answer. I have had no involvement with these issues in my capacity
as Special Representative for North Korea and am not in a position to
provide any additional information on these questions.
I understand that administration officials have previously briefed
the Foreign Relations Committee staff on issues related to the Joint
Declaration and Supplementary Agreement. If confirmed, I commit to
supporting future briefings on this important topic, as appropriate.
Question. Did the position of the United States on whether the
instruments were binding change from the outset of the negotiations to
the date the instruments were finalized or at any point between the
date the instruments were finalized to the July 29 communication from
the Department to SFRC staff. If yes, please explain the substance of
the change(s)--i.e. from what to what--and the reason(s).
Answer. I have had no involvement with these issues in my capacity
as Special Representative for North Korea and am not in a position to
provide any additional information on these questions.
I understand that administration officials have previously briefed
the Foreign Relations Committee staff on issues related to the Joint
Declaration and Supplementary Agreement. If confirmed, I commit to
supporting future briefings on this important topic, as appropriate.
Question. When was the position that the JD and SA collectively
constitute a binding agreement under international law conveyed to the
GOM?
Answer. I have had no involvement with these issues in my capacity
as Special Representative for North Korea and am not in a position to
provide any additional information on these questions.
I understand that administration officials have previously briefed
the Foreign Relations Committee staff on issues related to the Joint
Declaration and Supplementary Agreement. If confirmed, I commit to
supporting future briefings on this important topic, as appropriate.
Question. What is the Department's understanding of the position of
the GOM on the following:
Whether the JD is binding for purposes of international law,
Whether the SA is binding for purposes of international law, and
Whether the JD and SA collectively are binding for purposes of
international law.
[Please note that the preceding questions are not a request for the
Department to speak on behalf of the GOM; rather we are
interested in the Department's understanding of the GOM's
position.]
Answer. I have had no involvement with these issues in my capacity
as Special Representative for North Korea and am not in a position to
provide any additional information on these questions.
I understand that administration officials have previously briefed
the Foreign Relations Committee staff on issues related to the Joint
Declaration and Supplementary Agreement. If confirmed, I commit to
supporting future briefings on this important topic, as appropriate.
Question. If the GOM does not share (and never has shared) the
executive branch position that the JD and SA collectively are binding
under international law, would that change the executive branch
position that the JD and SA collectively are binding? If no, please
explain.
Answer. I have had no involvement with these issues in my capacity
as Special Representative for North Korea and am not in a position to
provide any additional information on these questions.
I understand that administration officials have previously briefed
the Foreign Relations Committee staff on issues related to the Joint
Declaration and Supplementary Agreement. If confirmed, I commit to
supporting future briefings on this important topic, as appropriate.
Question. If the GOM does not share (and never has shared) the
executive branch position that the JD and SA collectively are binding
under international law, could the GOM be bound by any provision of
such instruments? If yes, please explain.
Answer. I have had no involvement with these issues in my capacity
as Special Representative for North Korea and am not in a position to
provide any additional information on these questions.
I understand that administration officials have previously briefed
the Foreign Relations Committee staff on issues related to the Joint
Declaration and Supplementary Agreement. If confirmed, I commit to
supporting future briefings on this important topic, as appropriate.
Question. Prior to the JD and SA, had the United States concluded
any international instrument related to immigration or migration and
asserted ``the President's constitutional authority for the conduct of
foreign relations'' or any other constitutional authority of the
President as the sole domestic legal basis for the instrument(s)?
Answer. I have had no involvement with these issues in my capacity
as Special Representative for North Korea and am not in a position to
provide any additional information on these questions.
I understand that administration officials have previously briefed
the Foreign Relations Committee staff on issues related to the Joint
Declaration and Supplementary Agreement. If confirmed, I commit to
supporting future briefings on this important topic, as appropriate.
Question. If yes, please provide a list of each instrument that
meets these criteria, the date it was concluded, and a statement of the
specific constitutional provisions that provide the asserted authority.
Answer. I have had no involvement with these issues in my capacity
as Special Representative for North Korea and am not in a position to
provide any additional information on these questions.
I understand that administration officials have previously briefed
the Foreign Relations Committee staff on issues related to the Joint
Declaration and Supplementary Agreement. If confirmed, I commit to
supporting future briefings on this important topic, as appropriate.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted to Stephen E. Biegun by Senator Todd Young
Question. Have you adhered to applicable laws and governing
conflicts of interest?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Have you assumed any duties or any actions that would
appear to presume the outcome of this confirmation process?
Answer. No.
Question. Exercising this committee's legislative and oversight
responsibility makes it important we receive testimony, briefings,
reports, and recordings, records and other information from the
executive branch on a timely basis. Do you agree, if confirmed, to
appear and testify before this committee when requested by the Chairman
and the Ranking Member?
Answer. If confirmed, I commit to appear before this committee upon
request, with the understanding that any such appearance would be
conducted in accordance with long-standing Department and Executive
Branch practice.
Question. Do you agree to provide documents, and electronic
communications in a timely manner when requested by this committee, its
subcommittees, and other appropriate committees of Congress and to the
requester?
Answer. Yes, with the understanding that any such effort would be
organized through the Department of State's Bureau of Legislative
Affairs and Office of the Legal Adviser and conducted in accordance
with long-standing Department and Executive Branch practice.
Question. Will you ensure that you and your staff complies with
deadlines established by this committee for the production of reports,
records, and other documents, including responding timely to hearing
questions for record?
Answer. Yes, with the understanding that any such effort would be
organized through the Department of State's Bureau of Legislative
Affairs and Office of the Legal Adviser and conducted in accordance
with long-standing Department and Executive Branch practice.
Question. Will you cooperate in providing witnesses and briefers in
response to congressional requests?
Answer. If confirmed, I commit to appear before this committee upon
request, with the understanding that any such appearance would be
conducted in accordance with long-standing Department and Executive
Branch practice.
Question. And finally, will those briefers be protected from
reprisal for their briefings?
Answer. If confirmed, I will maintain a policy of zero tolerance
for any retaliation, blacklisting, or other prohibited personnel
practices.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted
to Stephen E, Biegun by Senator Benjamin L. Cardin
Question. What are the most important actions you have taken in
your career to date to promote human rights and democracy? What has
been the impact of your actions?
Answer. Promoting human rights and democracy has long been
personally important to me and a priority in my career. After the fall
of the Soviet Union, I spent two years in Russia on a grant from the
National Endowment for Democracy working with the Russian government
and civil society to develop and implement a program of technical
assistance in support of democracy building activities, development of
electoral processes, and political expert exchange programs. As a
Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff member, I advocated for, and
the Senate approved, the expansion of NATO to former Warsaw Pact
countries that today are strong democracies that advocate for human
rights. For many years, I also served on the board of Freedom House in
support of its efforts to expand freedom and democracy around the
world. In my current capacity as Special Representative for North
Korea, we are seeking-along with the complete elimination of North
Korea's weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programs--a
fundamental transformation of the relationship between the United
States and North Korea that, if realized, would allow us to directly
address broader areas of concern, including the human rights abuses and
violations in North Korea. If confirmed, I will continue to enhance our
diplomatic efforts to advance the promotion of human rights and
democracy and defend democratic institutions against efforts to
undermine them, including by working with civil society and non-state
partners.
Question. What will you do to promote, mentor and support your
staff that come from diverse backgrounds and underrepresented groups in
the State Department?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the appropriate teams to
review the Department's human resources policies and programs to ensure
fair and transparent practices and equal access for all of our
employees. This includes reviewing career development programs and
promotion and advancement opportunities. I will work with my team to
determine where and how we can mitigate unconscious biases and provide
access to training that will support these efforts. I will also meet
with employees to discuss perceptions, explore where improvements are
needed, and work to correct any weaknesses or gaps. I am committed to a
diverse and inclusive workforce. The Department, without question, must
be a leader in promoting diversity and inclusion.
Question. What steps will you take to ensure each of the
supervisors in the State Department are fostering an environment that
is diverse and inclusive?
Answer. If confirmed, I will support and advance the work of the
Under Secretary for Management and the Director General in providing
managers with tools and services to foster an inclusive work
environment. This includes offering training on mitigating unconscious
bias and further integrating diversity and inclusion into training and
development for all employees, particularly supervisors, to ensure they
are aware of their roles and responsibilities to support inclusion in
the workplace. I am committed to a diverse and inclusive workforce to
strengthen the best diplomatic service in the world.
Question. Do you commit to bring to the committee's attention (and
the Inspector General of the State Department) any change in policy or
U.S. actions that you suspect may be influenced by any of the
President's business or financial interests, or the business or
financial interests of any senior White House staff?
Answer. I commit to comply with all relevant federal ethics laws,
regulations, and rules, and to raise concerns that I may have through
appropriate channels.
Question. Do you commit to inform the committee if you have any
reason to suspect that a foreign government, head of state, or foreign-
controlled entity is taking any action in order to benefit any of the
President's business or financial interests, or the interests of senior
White House staff?
Answer. I commit to comply with all relevant federal ethics laws,
regulations, and rules, and to raise concerns that I may have through
appropriate channels.
Question. Do you or do any members of your immediate family have
any financial interests in any country abroad?
Answer. My investment portfolio includes diversified mutual funds,
which may hold interests in companies with a presence overseas, but
which are exempt from the conflict of interest laws. While I currently
hold financial interests in the Ford Motor Company, which has interests
in various foreign countries, I have committed to divesting these
interests if I am confirmed. I am committed to ensuring that my
official actions will not give rise to a conflict of interest. I will
divest any investments the State Department Ethics Office deems
necessary to avoid a conflict of interest. I will remain vigilant with
regard to my ethics obligations.
Question. Will you commit to maintaining an open line of
communication and provide information to myself and to the U.S.
Congress when requested?
Answer. If confirmed, I commit to appear before this committee upon
request, with the understanding that any such appearance would be
conducted in accordance with long-standing Department and Executive
Branch practice.
Question. Despite earlier statements by Secretary Pompeo, I'm not
convinced that Iran's alleged support to al-Qa'ida--a group whose
takfiri Sunni doctrine is completely at odds with Iran's revolutionary
Shiism--makes military action against Iran authorized under the 2002
AUMF. Furthermore, the network of Iran's proxy forces throughout the
Middle East and beyond suggests that any strikes against the regime
would be met by disproportionate attacks on U.S. interests worldwide. I
and a bicameral, bipartisan group of 27 other legislators highlighted
the need earlier this year for the National Defense Authorization Act
to include a prohibition against unconstitutional war with Iran.
Section 1229 of the draft 2020 NDAA reiterates the need for the
President to seek congressional authorization ``before engaging in war
with Iran,'' and clarifies that ``Nothing in the [2002 AUMF] may be
construed to provide authorization for the use of military force
against Iran.'' What might be the international legal ramifications if
the United States were to undertake retaliatory, preventive, or
preemptive strikes against Iran without a U.N. Security Council
mandate?
Answer. As Secretary Pompeo has noted, the administration's goal is
to find a diplomatic solution to Iran's activities, not to engage in
conflict with Iran. The Department of State has great respect for
Congress's role in authorizing the use of military force. The
administration has not, to date, interpreted either the 2001 or 2002
Authorization for Use of Military Force as authorizing military force
against Iran, except as may be necessary to defend U.S. or partner
forces engaged in counterterrorism operations or operations to
establish a stable, democratic Iraq.
Question. Will you counsel the Secretary of State and members of
the National Security Council on their legal obligations according to
constitutional separation of powers when considering any military
operations targeting Iran?
Answer. I am committed to following the Constitution and all
applicable law regarding the use of force. As Secretary Pompeo has
noted, the administration's goal is to find a diplomatic solution to
Iran's activities, not to engage in conflict. The Department of State
has great respect for Congress' role in authorizing the use of military
force. The administration has not, to date, interpreted either the 2001
or 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force as authorizing military
force against Iran, except as may be necessary to defend U.S. or
partner forces engaged in counterterrorism operations or operations to
establish a stable, democratic Iraq.
Question. Given your prior work on NATO expansion as staff of this
committee and other relevant experience, do you believe that the U.S
should work to keep Turkey in the NATO alliance?
Answer. NATO is stronger with Turkey as a member. We have many
challenging issues with Turkey at present, but Turkey's status as a
NATO Ally is not--and should not be--subject to review within the
Alliance. One of Russia's key strategic goals is to drive a wedge
between NATO Allies; we need to do everything we can to maintain strong
cooperation within the Alliance. Turkey is strategically located on
NATO's periphery, controlling transit into the Black Sea. Turkey hosts
a U.S. radar system critical for NATO's ballistic missile defense
mission and the protection of U.S. troops in Europe and the Middle
East. This system, and the other Allied materiel hosted in Turkey, are
critical to the Alliance's military readiness.Question:How important is
U.S. support to Turkey's external defense and internal stability, and
to what extent does that support serve U.S. interests?
Answer. Turkey faces security threats ranging from domestic
terrorism to cross-border attacks from entities in Syria. Our
counterterrorism support to the Turkish government is crucial for
preventing and interdicting violent extremist threats. Turkey's
neighbors include Iran and Russia, from which the NATO Alliance faces
significant threat of attack.Our military and defense support to
Turkey, whose strategic location is on NATO's periphery, enables the
protection of U.S. troops in Europe and the Middle East. U.S. and NATO
support for Turkey--and for any other Ally--showcases our commitment to
European security in the face of Russian attempts to fracture the
Alliance.Question:If confirmed, how would the Department of State under
your leadership hold Turkey and its proxy forces in northern Syria to
account for gross violations of human rights carried out during the
October incursion--including under the authority of Syrian War Crimes
Accountability Act--after Trump hastily pulled U.S. troops from the
region?
Answer. Our actions in Syria are driven by our core objectives: the
enduring defeat of ISIS and al-Qa'ida; a political solution to the
Syrian conflict in line with United Nations Security Council Resolution
2254; and encouraging the removal of all Iranian-backed forces from
Syria. Turkey has a role to play there. The administration is deeply
troubled by reports suggesting Turkish-supported opposition groups
targeted civilians following Turkey's October 9, 2019 incursion. We
have urged Turkey to investigate reports and hold those responsible to
account. If confirmed, I will uphold U.S. commitment to promote
accountability and remain prepared to re-impose sanctions if Turkey
acts inconsistently with commitments in the October 17 joint
statement.Question:We have heard that Turkey's relationship with Russia
is ``transactional,'' but the relationship between these two countries
has certainly become closer in recent years. What would be the national
security and geopolitical implications if these relations continue to
improve?
Answer. Deepening Turkish relations with Russia--including but not
limited to the additional acquisition of Russian arms--would damage
NATO interoperability, further challenge Alliance consensus-building,
and undermine our overall efforts to keep Turkey aligned to the Euro-
Atlantic community. The United States is unwinding Turkey from the F-35
program following its receipt of the Russia-made S-400 system to
protect the platform's sensitive technology. Further limitations on
U.S. arms sales could push Turkey toward Russia and other alternate
suppliers.
Question. Does the administration intend on imposing CAATSA
sanctions against Turkey for its purchase of Russian S400s? What is the
status of administration discussions with Turkey regarding the
purchase?
Answer. I cannot pre-judge a sanctions decision prior to a
determination by the Secretary of State. The Secretary has made clear
he is committed to implementing CAATSA as required by law. The
administration is not, however, waiting for the outcome of CAATSA
deliberations to take strong action. The decision to unwind Turkey from
the F-35 program makes clear how seriously the U.S. takes this issue.
As President Trump told President Erdogan during his visit, resolving
the S 400 issue is vital to achieve progress on other elements of the
bilateral relationship.
Question. After the cancellation of peace negotiations by President
Trump in September--Trump said at the time the talks were ``dead''--an
October 17 United Nations report stated that Afghan civilians were
being killed in record numbers, with 2,563 civilians killed and 5,676
wounded in the first nine months of 2019. ISIS and Taliban insurgents,
the report further claimed, were responsible for 62 percent of these
casualties. A suspected militant attack on a mosque in eastern
Afghanistan the day after the report's release killed over 60
worshipers attending Friday prayers. If confirmed, what steps would you
implement as Deputy Secretary to pursue talks leading to a peace
settlement in Afghanistan?
Answer. The U.S. policy is to pursue an end to the war in
Afghanistan through a negotiated settlement that ensures terrorists can
never again use Afghan soil to threaten the United States or its allies
and protects the gains that Afghans have made in the past 18 years. As
the President and Secretary Pompeo have observed, the resumption of
peace talks and the start of intra-Afghan negotiations will require a
real reduction of violence in Afghanistan. I will support the
Department's efforts, led by Special Representative for Afghanistan
Reconciliation Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, to work with all parties to
create an environment that is conducive to the resumption of talks and
the start of intra Afghan negotiations.
Question. President Ashraf Ghani continues to assert a role for the
government of Afghanistan in peace negotiations, securing the Taliban's
release of two western hostages--including an American citizen--in
exchange for three senior members of the Haqqani Network. U.S.
Ambassador to Kabul John Bass called Ghani's decision to pursue the
exchange ``the latest in a series of courageous steps.to respond to the
overwhelming desire for peace among Afghans.'' The results of
Afghanistan's September presidential election, meanwhile, are still
unknown; the release of results has been delayed twice due to
unspecified technical issues. What role do you envision for the
government of President Ashraf Ghani in the resumption of peace
negotiations?
Answer. A durable political settlement to the conflict is only
possible through negotiations that would include the Afghan government,
the Taliban, and other key stakeholders, including women's groups and
other civil society leaders. Prior to their suspension, U.S. talks with
the Taliban had secured a commitment to begin these intra-Afghan
negotiations, and it is important that the Afghan government be
prepared should intra-Afghan negotiations restart soon. I believe it is
vital for President Ghani and other Afghan leaders to move ahead
immediately on forming an inclusive, national team that can effectively
engage in intra-Afghan negotiations.
Question. How should the U.S. government ensure that no momentum is
lost if election results show that Ghani was not re-elected?
Answer. The outcome of any election would not change the reality
that a durable political settlement in Afghanistan requires intra-
Afghan dialogue and negotiations that include the Afghan government,
the Taliban, and other Afghan stakeholders. The two leading
presidential candidates are President Ghani and Chief Executive Dr.
Abdullah, with both officials deeply involved in peace process decision
making. Only Afghans can decide how best to govern their own country;
the United States cannot be a substitute for any party in these talks,
but we can and should continue to advocate for all parties to
participate in dialogue and negotiations that could lead to a
settlement.
Question. As you note in your testimony, when you were staff on
this committee, you oversaw expansion of NATO after the end of the Cold
War. President Trump's criticisms of NATO, the EU, and some key
European countries have prompted concerns about the trajectory of
transatlantic relations. What are your views on the state of the
transatlantic alliance?
Answer. NATO remains the cornerstone of transatlantic security and
our NATO Allies are our partners of first resort. NATO provides a forum
for Allies to have frank discussions, work through disagreements, and
come to consensus about the threats we face and the best ways to
address them together. Allies have responded to Europe's changed
security environment by enhancing NATO's deterrence and defense
posture. Allies work together daily to counter disinformation and other
hybrid threats. Allies acknowledge the need to improve burden sharing
and meet NATO defense spending commitments and have increased spending
for five consecutive years. If confirmed, I will continue to engage our
European Allies on these issues as well as how we can address global
security concerns.
Question. How do you respond to European concerns that U.S.
decisions such as withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal and the Paris
climate agreement, or pulling out U.S. troops in Syria fighting the
Islamic State terrorist organization, undermine U.S. credibility as a
reliable partner?
Answer. Europe and NATO remain America's closest and most capable
partners and Allies. We are united by enduring values and shared
interests. The United States and Europe agree on far more than we
disagree, and the fundamentals of our relationship remain strong. While
there are occasional disagreements about how we approach these issues,
the United States recognizes that we have no better partners in the
world than our European Allies and we want to work with European
countries to narrow our differences, expand our areas of agreement, and
advance shared goals.
Question. As you note in your testimony, you worked on democracy-
building programming in Russia on a grant from the National Endowment
for Democracy. What is the state of democracy in Russia?
Answer. The most pressing challenges to democratic development in
Russia include impunity for gross violations of human rights, such as
extrajudicial killings and torture; rampant corruption and weak rule of
law; the lack of authentic political competition; violence and
discrimination against minorities; and restrictions on civil society,
religious freedom, public demonstrations, and the press.
Question. What are your views on how we can better support the
Russian people in their quest for democracy and human rights?
Answer. If confirmed, I will engage with Russian authorities and
members of civil society to urge respect for human rights and good
governance in Russia. I promise to work with allies and partners to
call on the Russian government, in both public statements and private
discussions, to uphold the rule of law and create an independent
judiciary in order to respect its citizens' rights and treat all
citizens equally under the law. If confirmed, I will encourage relevant
officials to engage a broad spectrum of Russian society, including
human rights activists, civil society, and religious minorities. We
must respond and defend our democratic processes with equal vigor, and
I intend to play a leadership role in these efforts.
Question. Especially since 2014, sanctions have been a central
element of U.S. policy to counter Russian malign behavior. In your
view, how effective have sanctions been in response to Russian
activities? How could they be used more effectively?
Answer. Our actions have sent a clear message to those who engage
in malign Russian activity. There is evidence that sanctions have
indeed imposed a cost on Russia and provide us leverage in our
diplomatic efforts. Any new Congressional sanctions under consideration
should continue to provide discretion and be framed with an eye towards
our critical transatlantic unity on this vital national security issue.
Question. Why has the administration not used the full range of
sanctions authorities Congress established in 2017 in the Countering
America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA)?
Answer. We are committed to comprehensive implementation of CAATSA
and have imposed sanctions under sections 224, 228, and 231. We have
also used the threat of sanctions as leverage to deter sanctionable
activity, including through use of CAATSA section 231 to deter or
disrupt Russian arms transactions worth billions of dollars, and
Sections 225 and 232 to deter participation in identified areas of
Russia's energy sector. The United States has sanctioned more than 300
individuals and entities for their involvement in Russia's malign
activities since January 2017, including sanctions imposed pursuant to
CAATSA. If confirmed, I will continue to consider the full range of
sanctions authorities Congress established under CAATSA.
Question. White House officials have indicated that the United
States does not need to make a decision about an extension of the New
START nuclear arms reduction treaty until next year, as the Treaty does
not expire until February 2021. Do you support an extension of New
START?
Answer. The administration has not yet made a decision about a
potential extension of the New START Treaty. Central to the U.S. review
of potential New START extension is whether an extension is in the U.S.
national interest and how the treaty's expiration would affect U.S.,
allied, and partner security in an evolving security environment.
Question. Should future strategic arms reductions with Russia be
considered? If so, should they cover a wider range of weapons and
countries?
Answer. The United States remains committed to effective arms
control that advances U.S., allied, and partner security; is verifiable
and enforceable; and includes partners that comply responsibly with
their obligations. The United States stands ready to engage with Russia
on arms control that meets these criteria. President Trump has charged
his national security team to think more broadly about arms control,
both in terms of the countries and the weapon systems involved.
Bilateral treaties that cover limited types of nuclear weapons or only
certain ranges of adversary missiles are insufficient to address the
threat environment America faces today.
Question. There is a growing body of evidence that shows poor
governance--marked by high corruption and lack of government
transparency--is a key driver of fragility and political instability in
many parts of the world today. Citizens frustrated by government
corruption, repression, and a loss of dignity and hope are more likely
to tolerate or support violent extremist groups such as Al Qaeda, ISIS,
and Boko Haram. Obviously, this jeopardizes both the United States and
its allies. Last April, I introduced legislation that identifies and
ranks countries according to their levels of corruption--which has been
favorably acted upon by the SFRC. I believe that moral leadership is an
asset. Can you reassure me and the committee that as Deputy Secretary
of State, you will work with me in regards to the legislation I
introduced and advocate for strong rules to ensure that our government
and private sector are operating in a transparent manner that makes it
more difficult for corrupt leaders to siphon off wealth that should be
benefiting all citizens of their country?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with you and the committee on
legislation to strengthen our efforts to combat corruption globally. I
will support the State Department's continued efforts to use all of its
tools to address corruption, including multilateral and bilateral
diplomacy, foreign assistance programs to support reforms, build
capacity of foreign partners, strengthen civil society, and ensure
robust implementation of anticorruption sanctions and visa restriction
authorities.
Question. I have remarked on more than one occasion on the worrying
trend of democratic backsliding among our NATO allies, most
significantly in Hungary, Poland, and Turkey. These trends are evident
in these states' recent moves to consolidate central power over
academia, the judiciary, and civil society organizations while stifling
criticism. Which specific tools in the diplomatic arsenal will be most
effective against these anti-democratic maneuvers and, if confirmed,
what is your plan and timeline to bring these tools to bear?
Answer. The State Department's track record of promoting democracy
and rule of law is important to me and, if confirmed, I intend to use
the tools at my disposal to continue to press for these core principles
around the world, including in countries that are our allies and
friends. The situation in every country is different, but our toolbox
includes speaking out publicly; speaking frankly in private with
government officials; engaging with civil society and a broad range of
political actors; assistance programs to promote democracy and rule of
law; and sanctions in appropriate cases.
Question. For three years now, the Trump administration has
proposed drastic cuts to the State, Foreign Operations, and Related
Programs (SFOPS) budget. The most recent FY 2020 request ($42.72
billion in discretionary funds) proposed a 21 percent cut to the FY
2019 enacted SFOPS funding level. I believe that our foreign affairs
and foreign assistance budgets are every bit as essential to ensuring
America's national security as funding for the Department of Defense,
the Intelligence Community, and law enforcement. What are your views on
the administration's previous budget proposals?
Answer. I support the President's priorities to defend national
security, assert U.S. leadership, foster opportunities for U.S.
economic interests, and ensure accountability to the U.S. taxpayer. If
confirmed, I look forward to continuing discussions with Congress on
funding for our diplomacy and foreign assistance programs, including
for FY 2020 and FY 2021. I will make the case to defend the resources
that the State Department needs.
Question. How do you view foreign assistance in terms of ensuring
U.S. national security?
Answer. I view foreign assistance as an effective tool, when
deployed correctly and used in concert with diplomacy and other tools
of statecraft, to advance U.S. national security. I support the use of
foreign assistance to advance the Department's strategic priorities
including protecting America's security at home and abroad, renewing
America's competitive advantage for sustained economic growth and job
creation, promoting American leadership through balanced engagement,
and ensuring effectiveness and accountability to the American taxpayer.
This use of foreign assistance allows us to engage effectively in great
power competition, support our friends and encourage greater burden
sharing, and strategically transition recipients of U.S. assistance
into full partners.
Question. This Congress I reintroduced the National Security
Diversity and Inclusion Workforce Act to address the concern that our
most recent statistics show that African-Americans, Latinos, Asians,
and other diverse communities only account for 6-25 percent of
diplomatic, intelligence, military, and other national security
workforces despite making up close to half of the U.S. current and
future workforce. And, very few are in senior ranks. This is not only a
jobs issue for our diverse communities, but also a long-term
recruitment, strength, strategic security, and diplomatic advantage
issue for our country. Senator Corker and I passed diversity
legislation for the State Department last Congress given we see
diversity as a key strength of our diplomacy. Please let us know how
you would plan to implement these diversity pipeline, recruiting,
hiring, promotion, and retention provisions that are now law at all
levels at State, especially given the ongoing losses of mid and senior
level personnel at State.
Answer. I support increasing the diversity of the State Department
workforce, and if confirmed, I will ensure the Department abides by
laws related to diversity recruitment. Diversity programs, such as our
Pickering and Rangel Fellowship programs, provide a pipeline into the
Foreign Service and typically account for 20-25 percent of the Foreign
Service Officer intake every year.
The Department will continue to review workforce demographics to
identify and correct potential barriers to the advancement of
underrepresented populations. In addition to tracking metrics of race,
ethnicity, and gender, I will support the Department's recent
initiatives to foster a culture of inclusion and respect.
Question. President Trump has reportedly directed his
administration to seek a new arms control agreement with Russia and
China. Administration officials have criticized New START for only
limiting U.S. and Russian deployed strategic nuclear weapons. I'm glad
that the president has recently announced that he wants to add Russian
non-strategic nuclear weapons in a future arms control agreement and
include China in an arms control discussion. But not at the expense of
or as a condition for extending New START. What is the administration's
strategy for achieving more comprehensive arms control deals with
Russia and China?
Answer. As detailed in the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review, Russia and
China are investing in a broad range of nuclear capabilities, including
nonstrategic nuclear weapons and dangerous and destabilizing new
strategic weapons, to hold the United States and our allies at risk.
China is also on track to at least double the size of its nuclear
arsenal over the next decade. Our arms control policies should be
responsive to the threats we face. We seek to reestablish the
conditions necessary for greater trust with the Russian Federation and
improved transparency with China.
Question. As far as you know, have negotiations begun? What is the
administration doing to motivate negotiations between the potential
parties to such an agreement?
Answer. Potential trilateral arms control negotiations have not yet
begun. The United States has sought a meaningful dialogue with China on
our respective nuclear policies, doctrine, and capabilities in pursuit
of a peaceful security environment and stable relations. State
Department officials regularly meet with Russian officials bilaterally
and multilaterally to discuss matters relating to strategic stability.
We will continue these discussions as appropriate in the interest of
U.S. national security.
Question. Would China, which has only about 300 total nuclear
warheads compared to the roughly 6,200 total warheads possessed by the
United States and 6,500 possessed by Russia, be allowed to build up to
the much higher New START levels were it to join the treaty? Or would
the United States and Russia be required to reduce their forces to
China's level?
Answer. In any future trilateral agreement, specifics regarding
which weapon systems would be limited and how they would be limited are
key questions that would have to be agreed upon by all parties should
negotiations begin.
Question. What is the administration willing to put on the table in
talks with Russia and China on more comprehensive agreements?
Answer. President Trump has charged his national security team to
think more broadly about arms control, both in terms of the countries
and the weapon systems involved. As negotiations have not begun, it is
premature to speculate on the content and direction such discussions
might take.
Question. Wouldn't extending New START by five years buy additional
time to develop U.S. negotiating positions, address issues of mutual
concern that impact strategic stability, and avoid new risks from an
unconstrained and less transparent U.S.-Russian nuclear relationship?
Answer. The administration has not yet made a decision about a
potential extension of the New START Treaty, which does not expire
until February 2021. Our arms control policies and agreements should be
responsive to the threats we face. It is important to negotiate a new
trilateral arms control agreement that will constrain both Russia and
China. This will help prevent a dangerous arms race for far longer than
merely the few more years in which New START would exist, even if it
were extended. Whether we can negotiate such a new agreement depends on
the willingness of Russia and China to engage constructively with us to
deliver better security for the world, as called for by President
Trump.
Question. As special representative for North Korea, you are tasked
to lead efforts to negotiate a ``final, fully verified denuclearization
of North Korea.'' It appears that these negotiations have stalled. What
are the statuses of negotiations and how has your strategy vis-a-vis
engagement with North Korea changed since you were appointed last
August?
Answer. President Trump remains committed to making progress toward
the Singapore Summit commitments of transformed relations, building
lasting peace, and complete denuclearization. Since assuming the duties
of Special Representative for North Korea, I have worked closely on
this effort with our allies--including the Republic of Korea, Japan,
Australia, and NATO Allies--and others around the world, including
China, Russia, and members of the U.N. Security Council, the EU, and
the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). We have not seen
concrete evidence that North Korea has made the choice to de-
nuclearize, but we still believe that Pyongyang can make this choice.
If confirmed, I will continue to U.S. efforts to make progress on the
commitments President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un made in Singapore.
Our goal with North Korea is final, fully verified denuclearization,
and we remain fully committed to that outcome.
Question. It has been nearly six months since demonstrators in Hong
Kong first took to the streets advocating for repealing the extradition
legislation, dropping all charges against arrested protestors,
retracting the proclamation of protests as ``riots,'' establishing an
independent investigation into police brutality, and implementing the
election of Chief Executive and all Legco members by universal
suffrage. In June, Senator Rubio and I re-introduced our Hong Kong
Human Rights and Democracy Act, which reaffirms U.S. commitment to Hong
Kong's autonomy from China as well as towards its civil society. This
legislation was sent to the White House for signature on November 20.
Does the State Department support passage of the Hong Kong Human Rights
and Democracy Act?
Answer. I share Congressional concerns about efforts by Beijing to
erode the autonomy that underpins U.S. special treatment of Hong Kong.
I look forward to working with the relevant departments and agencies to
fully implement the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act.
Question. What would be the consequences and implications if the
Chinese government were to use their security forces to crackdown on
the protestors?
Answer. I am deeply concerned by the ongoing political unrest and
violence in Hong Kong. U.S. officials have repeatedly called for
restraint from all parties in Hong Kong and pointed out that the Hong
Kong government bears primary responsibility for bringing calm to Hong
Kong. The President has called for a humane resolution to the protests
and noted that the world fully expects that the People's Republic of
China will honor its commitments and obligations under the Sino-British
Joint Declaration and respect Hong Kong's social and economic systems,
as well as Hong Kong's executive, legislative, and independent judicial
power.
Question. The 2017 U.S. National Security Strategy describes China
as a ``competitor.'' The 2018 U.S. National Defense Strategy refers to
China as a ``strategic competitor.'' The 2019 National Intelligence
Strategy puts China in the category of ``adversaries.'' What are the
implications, if any, of these different labels?
Answer. Our national strategies reflect the a dministration's
consensus view of threats to our national interests. The 2017 National
Security Strategy states, ``China is using economic inducements and
penalties, influence operations, and implied military threats to
persuade other states to heed its political and security agenda.'' The
2018 U.S. National Defense Strategy states: ``The central challenge to
U.S. prosperity and security is the reemergence of long-term, strategic
competition by what the National Security Strategy classifies as
revisionist powers. gaining veto authority over other nations'
economic, diplomatic, and security decisions.'' These descriptions are
consistent with the threat posed by the government of the People's
Republic of China.
Question. To what degree do you think U.S. labels feed into China's
strategic decision-making?
Answer. The U.S. government develops its national strategies
according to its own assessments of its national interests, threats to
those interests, and actions and behaviors by third-country governments
and other actors. The United States does not choose the language in our
strategies with regard for the impact on another country's strategic
decision-making.
Question. In August 2018, a U.N. panel said it was ``alarmed'' by
reports of mass detentions and mass surveillance in Xinjiang. It
recommended an end to extralegal detentions and the immediate release
of detainees. In his October 2018 speech, Vice President Pence asserted
that Uyghurs were being subjected to ``around-the-clock brainwashing''
and that survivors see the camps as an effort to ``stamp out the Muslim
faith.'' Are U.S. officials pressing PRC officials about human rights
issues in Xinjiang, and, if so, through what means and in what venues?
Answer. I remain deeply concerned by the People's Republic of
China's (PRC) abuses of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of
Muslim minority groups in Xinjiang. U.S. officials have consistently
pressed the PRC at high levels to end its repression of ethnic and
religious minority groups and to release all those who have been
arbitrarily detained. The U.S. has also taken concrete steps in this
regard. On October 8, 2019, the Department announced visa restrictions
on PRC government and Communist Party officials who are believed to be
responsible for, or complicit in, the unjust detention or abuses of
Uighurs, ethnic Kazakhs, or other members of Muslim minority groups in
in Xinjiang. If confirmed, I will work to sustain this pressure.
Question. Is the United States government involved in any
coordinated international activity on behalf of Uyghurs in Xinjiang?
Answer. The Department of State is leading extensive multilateral
efforts to galvanize international condemnation of the People's
Republic of China's policies in Xinjiang. On March 13, 2019, we co-
hosted an event at the U.N. in Geneva to highlight the crisis. During
President Trump's Global Call to Protect Religious Freedom at the U.N.
General Assembly on September 23, 2019, Jewher Ilham testified to
China's abuses of Uighurs. On September 24, 2019, Deputy Secretary
Sullivan co-hosted an event on the crisis in Xinjiang on the sidelines
of the U.N. General Assembly. On October 29, 2019 the United States
joined a group of 23 other countries in signing a joint statement on
Xinjiang at the U.N. General Assembly's Third Committee. If confirmed,
I will continue to support these efforts.
Question. What is the status of U.S. considerations regarding
imposing Global Magnitsky Act sanctions on Xinjiang officials?
Answer. The People's Republic of China's (PRC) detention of more
than one million individuals in Xinjiang since April 2017 is
illustrative of the worsening human rights situation in China. If
confirmed, I will commit to working with the interagency to use all
tools available as appropriate, including the possibility of imposing
Global Magnitsky Act sanctions, to pressure PRC officials responsible
for these human rights abuses into ending this campaign of repression.
Question. In 2017, over a million Rohingya fled persecution at the
hands of the Myanmar military, in what the United Nations Fact Finding
Mission Report has called genocide, crimes against humanity and more.
The United States has yet to make a legal determination as to what
crimes occurred--despite the State Department leading an evidentiary
fact-finding report to help the State Department come to that
conclusion. Do you believe that the crimes committed against the
Rohingya constitute genocide or crimes against humanity?
Answer. I am appalled by the Burmese military's human rights abuses
against Rohingya and members of other ethnic and religious minority
groups. If confirmed, I will ensure the Department remains focused on
accountability for those responsible, seeking justice for victims,
advocating for unhindered humanitarian access, and promoting reforms
that will prevent the recurrence of atrocities and other human rights
violations and abuses across Burma. Further, if confirmed, I will
continue to assess all available information and make recommendations
to the Secretary to continue to advance justice and accountability for
atrocities and abuses committed across Burma, including those against
Rohingya.
Question. Recently, the administration called the chief commander
of the Myanmar military Ming Aung Hlaing a gross human rights violator
for his involvement and command and control responsibility over the
atrocities that happened in 2017 and before that. The State Department
only announced a visa ban--and fell short of the larger calls from
Congress, the United Nations Fact Find Mission recommendations and
human rights organizations calling for financial targeted sanctions.
Senior military officials were already banned from coming into this
country through the JADE Act. What steps is the administration taking
in imposing real costs to the Burmese military and in imposing
financial sanctions on the highest-levels of the senior military
officials?
Answer. If confirmed, I will prioritize promoting accountability
for those responsible for these abuses and violations of human rights
and ensuring justice for victims. I will aim to continue U.S.
leadership of the international response to the crisis and efforts to
deter further atrocities. In this regard, I will consider all policy
tools at our disposal, including sanctions. Further, I would work
closely with the U.N. and like-minded countries and regional partners
to press the government of Burma to grant unhindered access to U.N.
mechanisms, including the International Investigative Mechanism for
Myanmar, the U.N. Special Rapporteur, and the U.N. Special Envoy.
Question. The U.S. government contributed more than $10 billion via
Plan Colombia to support the Colombian government in fighting back
organized crime and to help put an end to fifty years of conflict with
the FARC guerrillas. Those hard-fought gains are now at risk of being
lost due to renewed violence in the countryside, the spillover effects
of Venezuela's humanitarian crisis, and inaction on the part of the
Colombian government to implement the peace accords with the FARC. To
what extent has the peace process been affected by the assassination of
human rights activists and by the August 2019 decision of some
prominent FARC former leaders to abandon the accord?
Answer. Colombia has made important progress to implement the 2016
peace accord. The Duque administration is committed to this
undertaking, though the challenges to fully consolidate peace remain
complex. The United States is deeply concerned by attacks on social
leaders and raised this issue at the October 2019 U.S.-Colombia High
Level Dialogue. I am encouraged by President Duque's efforts to improve
protection, strengthen investigations, and prevent violence against
these leaders. Former FARC leaders Ivan Marquez and Jesus Santrich are
criminal outliers who lack popular support and do not represent most
ex-combatants. The Colombian government, FARC political party, and
international community all repudiated their call for a return to arms.
Question. What is the Trump administration doing to address these
recent setbacks to Colombia's peace process?
Answer. The United States strongly supports the efforts to secure a
just and durable peace in Colombia. During the October 2019 U.S.-
Colombia High Level Dialogue, senior officials from both governments
explored ways to strengthen accord implementation. The Duque
administration has made progress on ex-combatant reincorporation,
emphasized the importance of rural development, and taken steps to
reduce attacks on social leaders. U.S. assistance to Colombia continues
to provide vital support to all these efforts. We are also assisting
Colombia to provide essential support for conflict victims, and to
expand state presence and institutions to strengthen the rule of law,
especially in vulnerable conflict-affected regions.
Question. At this time, what should the U.S. prioritize in its
support for peace accord implementation?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to prioritize U.S. assistance
to advance peace implementation in Colombia and to align our support
with the strategic geographic areas that Colombia has defined as
critical to these efforts. Bilateral U.S. assistance to Colombia
comprises three broad lines of effort, all critical to the Duque
administration's efforts to secure a durable peace: (1) consolidating
and expanding progress on security and counternarcotics; (2) expanding
state presence and institutions to strengthen the rule of law and rural
economies, especially in conflict-affected areas; and (3) promoting
justice and other essential services for marginalized communities,
human rights defenders, and conflict victims.
Question. The political and economic crisis in Venezuela under the
authoritarian rule of Nicol s Maduro has intensified over the past two
years, resulting in mass migration to neighboring countries. Interim
President Guaid" has ruled out a return to negotiations with Maduro,
but he is approaching a year since he took office as President of the
National Assembly and has yet to gather enough support to wrest Maduro
from power. How do recent changes in the geopolitical landscape of
Latin America bode for a resolution to the ongoing crisis in Venezuela
(elections in Argentina, interim government in Bolivia, protests in
many countries, etc.)?
Answer. The changes in the geopolitical landscape in Latin America
remind us of the importance of preserving democracy, human rights, and
basic freedom in our hemisphere and highlight the interconnected nature
of our neighboring countries. We hope this will continue to unite the
region in support of democracy. The Department remains committed to
helping interim President Guaido shore up the support of current
partners and expand the international coalition of supporters. The Lima
Group--active supporters of a resolution to the crisis for more than
two years--the Organization of American States (OAS), and the Rio
Treaty (TIAR) are examples of regional coordination mechanisms
dedicated to resolving the crisis in Venezuela.
Question. How should the U.S. engage Russia and China on Venezuela?
Should we be convincing them to reduce their participation in the
region? Or asking them to contribute to the humanitarian response?
Answer. We must continue to increase pressure, publicly and
privately, on Russia and China to cease their support for the former
Maduro regime. We have condemned Russian and Chinese interference in
Venezuela and will continue to encourage our partners to do the same.
The U.S. government has designated firms, vessels, and state-owned
enterprises participating in the transport of Venezuelan oil to Cuba,
giving away a natural resource at the expense of the Venezuelan people.
If confirmed, I will work with the Treasury Department to make
additional sanctions designations, as appropriate. We encourage all
donations for humanitarian efforts in Venezuela and will encourage
donors to adhere to international standards.
Question. What more can be done to help garner the requisite
international support for humanitarian efforts in Venezuela?
Answer. The United States continues to raise awareness about the
Venezuela regional crisis, including through the recent International
Solidarity Conference hosted by the European Union, United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees, and the International Organization for
Migration in Brussels. This conference garnered over $100 million in
additional funding for the regional humanitarian response from European
donors, in addition to an additional pledge of $10 million from the
United States. We continue to call on other donors to provide
additional humanitarian assistance through neutral and independent
implementing partners and to explore ways to further raise the profile
of the crisis throughout the international community.
Question. To what extent, if at all, are economic sanctions and
other actions intended to undercut the Maduro regime increasing health
threats, causing malnutrition, or worsening general insecurity?
Answer. Maduro's failed economic policies, not sanctions, caused
the malnutrition and worsening security situation in Venezuela. The
Venezuelan economy has been collapsing due to the corruption and failed
policies of the former Chavez and Maduro regimes since long before the
United States began imposing sanctions on malign actors associated with
the former Maduro regime. These sanctions promote accountability. The
former Maduro regime has gutted Venezuela's health, agriculture, and
social systems. Targeted sanctions have been directed against Maduro
and his allies and have explicitly exempted food, medicine, and
clothing intended to relieve human suffering.
Question. Cameroon is beset by twin crises: An ongoing
counterinsurgency in the north against Boko Haram militants that has
led to an estimated 271,000 Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) as well
as a separatist struggle in the predominantly English- speaking
Northwest and Southwest Provinces that resulted in 542,000 IDPs and
credible allegations of gross human rights abuses by government
Security Forces and separatist militias. If confirmed, how will the
Department's African Affairs bureau moderate its engagement with
Yaounde, multilateral fora, civil society organizations, and allies
like France to counteract violence in Cameroon?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Bureau of African
Affairs to continue to assess the situation in Cameroon closely. We
will continue to work with partners to support the Swiss-led mediation
process, and implement recommendations from those dialogues. It is also
important that we continue to engage with civil society working to
promote peace, and through multilateral fora to urge both the
government of Cameroon and separatists groups to come to a non-military
solution and hold accountable those responsible for human rights abuses
and violations. I will also support, if confirmed, continued U.S.
government-sponsored humanitarian assistance to IDPs, as well as our
efforts to work with the government of Cameroon to counter Boko Haram
and ISIS-West Africa.
Question. If confirmed, how do you propose to provide Cameroon the
Security Assistance its forces need to fight Boko Haram while making
sure that no support flows to security forces violating the human
rights of civilians in the Northwest and Southwest Provinces?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Bureau of African
Affairs and the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor to
continue robust Leahy vetting of all potential recipient units to
ensure that U.S. assistance is not provided to security forces where
there is credible information that the unit has committed a gross
violation of human rights. I will also ensure, if confirmed, that all
U.S. security programs in Cameroon continue to undergo thorough
monitoring and evaluation.
Question. If confirmed, what would your policy be for strengthening
good governance and democracy in sub-Saharan Africa?
Answer. I strongly believe that democratic institutions, rule of
law, and human rights are the foundation for peace, stability, and
security, and drive inclusive economic growth. If confirmed, I will
continue to work in partnership with African governments, regional
organizations, and civil society to strengthen institutions, protect
political space and fundamental freedoms, promote justice, and ensure
respect for human rights on the continent.
Question. Which U.S. incentives would be most effective in
countering overtures by Russia and China in sub-Saharan Africa?
Answer. The United States offers a different model of partnership
through its investment in the countries and peoples of sub-Saharan
Africa. The U.S. does so with programs that save lives, bring
electricity access, build economic opportunity, give African youth the
tools to contribute to their economies, support women's economic
empowerment, and promote peace and security. To complement this, the
administration has launched Prosper Africa to increase two way trade
and investment between the United States and Africa. It will respond to
the challenge of mercantilist or exploitative economic policies
employed by China and Russia, while continuing to insist that American
economic actors on the continent adhere to the highest standards of
transparency, anti-corruption, debt sustainability, and human rights.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted to Stephen E. Biegun by Senator Ted Cruz
Iran
Question. As you know, because of the Iran deal and U.N. Security
Council Resolution 2231, next year the international arms embargo
against Iran will expire. Our rivals in China and Russia are eagerly
anticipating being able to sell the full spectrum of weaponry to Iran.
As you also know, there is a way to stop that from happening. The
resolution includes a snapback mechanism that is open to any of the
original participant states, as defined by the resolution itself. There
is no legal problem with going to the United Nations, invoking the
snapback mechanism, and restoring international sanctions against Iran.
What is the State Department's legal analysis regarding whether the
United States can invoke the snapback mechanism described by
paragraphs 10-15 of United Nations Security Council Resolution
2231, which reverses the terminations described in paragraph
7(a) of that resolution?
Answer. The requirements for initiating snapback under UNSCR 2231
are that (i) a ``JCPOA participant State'' (ii) notify the U.N.
Security Council (iii) of an issue it believes constitutes
``significant non-performance'' of commitments under the JCPOA. As the
United States is an original JCPOA participant identified in paragraph
10 of UNSCR 2231, there is a legally available argument we can assert
that the United States can initiate the snapback process under UNSCR
2231 by submitting a notification to the Security Council of an issue
that the United States believes constitutes significant non-
performance. UNSCR 2231 does not define ``significant non-
performance.''
Question. If the State Department concludes it either cannot or
will not invoke the snapback mechanism in UNSCR 2231, what policy will
you pursue to ensure the arms embargo does not expire?
Answer. Continuing the U.N. arms embargo on Iran beyond the current
expiration of October 2020 is a priority. This administration does not
assess, based on Iran's ongoing malign activity and its current role in
supporting non-state actors across the region, that conventional arms
restrictions on Iran should be removed. If confirmed, I will ensure
that the Department continues to work with our partners on the Security
Council to build support for an extension of the arms embargo. We will
continue to coordinate with likeminded partners and use other tools
available to us in our efforts to both prevent Iran from acquiring
currently restricted weapons, as well as to prevent the supply, sale,
or transfer of arms and related material from Iran.
Question. Sudan is a state sponsor of terrorism. Nevertheless,
after 30 years of President al-Bashir's brutal reign, Sudan is facing
an inflection point. The Sudanese people have put their lives on the
line to pursue a civilian-led government, one that reflects their
aspirations for democracy, justice, and peace. Earlier this year,
Senator Durbin and I passed a resolution in the Senate, urging for a
swift transition of power from the military to a civilian-led
authority. While a power-sharing arrangement between the military and
opposition is in place for a transition, there are many issues that
remain. Meanwhile there are voices suggesting that we should rush to
lift the designation on Sudan of being a state sponsor of terrorism.
Please describe the criteria that you think should be used in
evaluating whether to change this designation? Can you commit
to ensuring that any sanctions relief or re-categorization for
Sudan happens only to the extent that they meet the long-
standing benchmarks that this administration has been asking
for?
Answer. To remove Sudan's State Sponsor of Terrorism designation,
the Sudanese government must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
United States that it meets the statutory and policy criteria for
rescission. When considering rescission, the Department of State
reviews the relevant government's activities to assess whether it is
supporting acts of international terrorism as defined by established
statutory criteria. The country must also provide credible assurances
that it will not support such acts in the future. Moving forward,
priority areas of U.S. engagement with Sudan will continue to include
addressing certain terrorism-related claims, counterterrorism, the
promotion of democracy and human rights, humanitarian access, conflict
resolution, and economic reform.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted to Stephen E. Biegun by Senator Jeanne Shaheen
Question. Congress has continued to express its concerns regarding
OIG reports that several political appointees in the State Department
have acted improperly toward career officials on the basis of their
perceived political or ideological views. The November 2019 OIG report
outlined evidence of inappropriate practices, which it characterized as
``disrespectful and hostile treatment of employees, accusations against
and harassment of career employees premised on claims that they were
`disloyal' based on their perceived political views, and retaliation
associated with conflicts of interest.''
While at the Department, were you aware of the allegations outlined
by the Inspector General, particularly regarding senior
leadership's response or any attempts to remedy the situation?
Answer. These matters fell outside my responsibilities. My only
awareness of these allegations came from knowledge of the August 2019
and November 2019 reports after the OIG released them and from reading
general press reporting on these issues. Regarding the August 2019
report, I understand the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs
submitted a comprehensive corrective plan to the OIG within the 60-day
timeframe set out in the report and has put in place measures to ensure
the IO bureau is carefully executing the plan.
Question. During our meeting, you commented that Secretary Pompeo
has asked for you to focus your attention on addressing some of the
personnel and management issues plaguing the Department at this time.
You mentioned you did not view many of these problems as management
issues, but rather as leadership issues. From a leadership perspective,
where in your opinion has the Department failed to address personnel
problems and what would you have done differently?
Answer. A leader has the ability to influence, motivate, and
empower others to contribute to the success of the team. If confirmed,
I will be committed to promoting a workplace of exceptional
professionalism and respect. I will undertake a review of personnel
issues that have arisen in order to assess what leadership and/or
management problems may need to be addressed, including any issues of
possible misconduct. I will commit to work with my leadership team and
employees throughout the Department to promote a culture that values
and respects all employees, promotes inclusion, and models the
Department's leadership and management principles.
Question. How would you respond if others inside or outside of the
State Department raised similar allegations with you?
Answer. I take all allegations and criticism from employees
seriously. Candid engagement with employees is critical to success. I
always welcome the opportunity to do better. If confirmed, I plan to
work with my colleagues, both in Washington and at our missions all
over the world, to identify and resolve deficiencies, innovate
solutions, and ensure the Department remains a place where people want
to work.
Question. What would you do to ensure that senior personnel are
treating career employees in a manner consistent with federal laws and
regulations governing the management of State Department personnel?
Answer. I view my Foreign and Civil Service colleagues at the State
Department in the highest regard. If confirmed, I will work with the
Under Secretary for Management and the Director General to ensure that
personnel practices are consistent with all laws and regulations and
that Department managers follow merit system principles and fulfill
their obligations in leading our workforce. I know the Department has
taken significant steps in the last two years to enhance its training
in leadership, combatting harassment, and unconscious bias. If
confirmed, I plan to look at the results of those efforts to identify
and address any remaining gaps or areas for improvement.
Question. If confirmed, could you describe the types of actions you
will take to address morale and lingering feelings of distrust in the
offices identified in the OIG report, in addition to the State
Department office handling Ukraine affairs?
Answer. If confirmed, I will commit to working to boost morale at
the Department's domestic offices, including the office handling
Ukraine affairs, and at our diplomatic missions around the world. I
plan to work with the Department's senior leadership to ensure that our
employees and families have the support they need to carry out our
critical mission. I understand that Director General Perez' new Talent
Action Plan for the Department has begun several new workplace
flexibilities that have been well received and that I will support. If
confirmed, I will fight to ensure that a strong, well-resourced
workforce is at the forefront of U.S. diplomacy.
Question. The OIG's review also addressed the failure to fill a
high number of vacancies throughout the Department, and the negative
effect this has had on core Department operations. How would you help
fill these vacancies and remedy the negative impacts identified by the
OIG and Congress?
Answer. Under Secretary Pompeo's leadership, I understand that the
Department made tremendous progress on staffing in 2019. Addressing the
deficit of Civil Service professionals is a top management priority.
The Department finalized an agreement with the Defense Finance and
Accounting Service to outsource the fulfillment of pending recruitment
requests and is utilizing Shared Certificates, Direct Hiring
Authorities, Veterans-only announcements, and other non-competitive
authorities to address staffing shortfalls. Foreign Service Officer and
Consular Fellow staffing reached an all-time high earlier this year and
if confirmed, I will seek to maintain this level of Foreign Service
employment in future.
Question. Over the last several years, Congress has been monitoring
closely and responding to a number of worrisome developments in U.S.-
Russia policy. Despite the rise in Russia's destabilizing activities
against the United States and its allies, it seems as though President
Trump disregards Russia's malign actions and seeks to pursue a one-
sided normalization with Putin. Of particular concern to me is Russia's
interference in our electoral process, and the effect it will have on
next year's elections. In July 2019, FBI Director Christopher Wray told
the Senate Judiciary Committee that ``the Russians are absolutely
intent on trying to interfere with our elections.'' In October 2019,
Facebook reported that it removed a Russia-based network of Facebook
and Instagram accounts (together with three Iran-based networks)
engaged in disinformation campaigns targeting U.S. presidential
candidates.
Given the Russian government's long list of problematic activity,
what do you believe are Russian President Vladimir Putin's
intentions with respect to its relationship with the United
States and President Trump?
Answer. I anticipate that Russia will continue to try to promote
Moscow's strategic interests, stoke internal division, and erode faith
in U.S. democratic institutions in the lead up to the 2020 elections.
The Department of State works closely with other departments and
agencies, as well as with allies and partners, to protect our nations
against potential interference in our election processes. If confirmed,
I will continue to raise concerns about Russia's destabilizing activity
with Russian leadership at every opportunity. Our policy toward Russia
will not change until Moscow takes demonstrable steps to end this
activity.
Question. What do you think would be Russia's objectives in trying
to interfere in the 2020 U.S. presidential election?
Answer. While efforts may spike around elections, Russian influence
campaigns seeking to promote Moscow's strategic interests, stoke
internal division, and erode faith in U.S. democratic institutions
occur without interruption. We must respond and defend our democratic
processes with equal vigor, and I intend to play a leadership role in
these efforts.
Question. How do you view U.S. efforts to counter Russian
aggression? What can we be doing better?
Answer. The Department of State works closely with other agencies
on a whole-of-government response that combines diplomatic,
intelligence, financial, and law enforcement lines of effort to expose
and impose costs for Russian malign influence. Most recently, on
September 30, the administration imposed sanctions against Russian
actors that attempted to influence the 2018 U.S. midterm elections,
including increasing pressure on Russian oligarch and Internet Research
Agency financier Yevgeniy Prigozhin's physical assets. If confirmed, I
will make clear to senior Russian counterparts that this activity is
unacceptable and that we will continue to hold Russia accountable if
this continues.
Question. I recently met with NATO Secretary General Jens
Stoltenberg and he touted the benefits of New START. What have U.S.
allies, particularly in Europe, told your State Department colleagues
about how New START reinforces their security?
Answer. The extension of New START is a topic of discussion with
our Allies. We will continue to take into account allied and partner
views as we decide next steps on a potential extension of the Treaty.
The Department of State remains committed to continued engagement with
diplomatic counterparts on this important issue.
Question. What is your assessment of how U.S. allies would react if
New START goes away with nothing to replace it?
Answer. New START does not expire until February 2021, and the
administration has made clear its interest in seeking a new agreement
with China and Russia. Speculating on allies' possible reactions to a
hypothetical outcome would be premature.
Question. How does the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Syria affect
Russia's military and diplomatic role in Syria and the broader Middle
East?
Answer. The administration will use diplomatic and economic
leverage to ensure that Russia cannot single-handedly dictate Syria's
future. We actively support the U.N.-facilitated political process,
ensuring that Russia cannot use its own separate formats to seize the
initiative from the U.N. We have imposed a series of sanctions on
Russian companies for their material support to the Assad regime. At
the same time, we are finding ways in which we can work with Russia.
For example, de-confliction mechanisms have enabled both U.S. and
Russian forces to conduct D-ISIS operations without creating
unnecessary risk of unintended incidents. Meanwhile, some U.S. and
Coalition forces will remain in northeast Syria to continue the D-ISIS
mission.
Question. I was pleased that in March of this year, President Trump
finally moved to fill the critical position of Ambassador at Large for
Global Women's Issues. As you may know, the Office of Global Women's
Issues has been without an Ambassador since January 20, 2017. While the
career civil servants who work in that office are undoubtedly devoted
to the mission, there are concerns that the office is understaffed and
its role within State is not prioritized. Will you commit to the full
staffing of the Office with qualified and experienced individuals with
a history of productive engagement on gender equality?
Answer. First, let me make clear that the State Department remains
committed to continuing the important work of advancing the status of
women and girls globally through our diplomatic and programmatic
activities. It is a fundamental tenet of foreign policy that when women
are able to participate politically and economically to the same degree
as men, societies are more prosperous, stable, and secure. If
confirmed, I will ensure the office is appropriately staffed and
continues to leverage all available resources and Department tools to
advance this goal.
Question. How will you work with Secretary Pompeo and other State
officials to ensure that the Office of Global Women's Issues is engaged
in the formulation of State Department policy?
Answer. I support the full empowerment of women and girls as a
priority for this administration. The Secretary's Office of Global
Women's Issues plays a central role in ensuring the Department has the
know-how and the appropriate processes to strategically incorporate
women's issues into policies and programs. The Office harnesses
bilateral and regional diplomacy, multilateral diplomacy, public
diplomacy, and programming to encourage counterparts in other countries
to support the advancement of the status of women and girls. If
confirmed, you have my commitment to work with Secretary Pompeo to
ensure that women's issues remain a priority for the formulation and
implementation of U.S. foreign policy.
Question. Will you commit to empowering the Ambassador-at-Large for
Global Women's Issues to have the authority needed to carry out the
mission of the Office throughout the State Department? What steps will
you take to ensure the position is enabled to do so?
Answer. The Secretary's Office of Global Women's issues through the
leadership of the Ambassador-at-Large advances the Department's work to
empower women and girls socially, politically, and economically in the
communities and societies in which they live. If confirmed, I commit to
working with the confirmed Ambassador-at-Large to advance
administration priorities such as the Women's Global Development and
Prosperity Initiative and the U.S. Strategy on Women, Peace, and
Security.
Question. In the last two years, we have witnessed the decline of
U.S. diplomatic and military presence in the Middle East, most
problematically in the places that most need U.S. intervention and
leadership. Given the wide array of challenges in the region, what do
you define as core U.S. interest in the Middle East, and how do you
intend to prioritize/promote these interests under this administration?
Answer. The security and stability of the Middle East and North
Africa remain a critical and enduring U.S. national interest. Core U.S.
interests in the region include stopping terrorist organizations and
states that sponsor terrorism from threatening the United States and
our partners, preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction, ensuring the free flow of global commerce and strategic
natural resources, and working with our closest partners, including
Israel, to bolster regional security. Sustaining U.S. engagement and
championing American values are top priorities as we address the
challenge to U.S. interests posed by malign Iranian influence, ISIS,
and efforts by China and Russia to expand their influence in this
strategic region.
Question. How do you view the administration's Syria policy?
Answer. I support the goals of the administration's Syria policy,
which consist of three priorities: the enduring defeat of ISIS and al-
Qa'ida, a political solution to the Syrian conflict in line with U.N.
Security Council Resolution 2254, and the removal of all Iranian-backed
forces from Syria. I share the view that there can be no military
solution to the Syrian conflict; there can only be a political solution
that respects the rights and dignity of the Syrian people. This
proposition applies to all aspects of the Syrian conflict.
Question. What actions should the United States take to improve the
outcome in Syria?
Answer. For more than eight years, the regime of Bashar al-Assad
has waged a war against the Syrian people, resulting in half a million
deaths and the displacement of more than 11 million Syrians. But there
is no military solution to the Syrian conflict; there is only a
political solution. I fully support the administration's approach of
using all available political and economic tools to pressure the Assad
regime to advance a political process based on U.N. Security Council
Resolution 2254. I also support the administration's efforts to deliver
real reforms with a real impact for all Syrians, including those living
in the diaspora, while maintaining a U.S. military presence in
northeast Syria to ensure the enduring defeat of ISIS.
Question. How important is the U.S.-Turkey relationship, and what
do Turkey's purchase of a Russian S-400 system and its incursion into
northern Syria mean for the bilateral relationship?
Answer. A strong U.S.-Turkey relationship is crucial for achieving
U.S. foreign policy goals, including countering Russian and Iranian
malign influence and ensuring the lasting defeat of ISIS. Turkey's
purchase of the S-400 defies our shared commitments as NATO Allies, and
resolving the S-400 issue is key to achieving progress elsewhere in the
bilateral relationship. We strongly opposed Turkey's unilateral
invasion of northeast Syria. The October 17 joint statement negotiated
by Vice President Pence and Secretary Pompeo is working. We remain
ready to re-impose sanctions should Turkey fail to act in line with its
commitments outlined in the arrangement.
Question. Does the administration plan to enforce CAATSA sanctions
for the S-400 purchase?
Answer. I cannot pre-judge a sanctions decision prior to a
determination by the Secretary of State. The Secretary has made clear
he is committed to implementing CAATSA and that he will comply with the
law.The administration is not waiting for the outcome of CAATSA
deliberations to take strong action. The decision to unwind Turkey from
the F-35 program makes clear how seriously we take this issue. As
President Trump told President Erdogan during his recent visit,
resolving the S-400 issue is vital to achieving progress on other
elements of the bilateral relationship.
Question. Would you recommend the Secretary overturn the decision
to ban F-35 sales to Turkey as long as they are in possession of the S-
400 system?
Answer. I agree with the decision to unwind Turkey from the F-35
program after Turkey began to take receipt of the S-400 system. As
Secretaries Pompeo and Esper have repeatedly made very clear to Turkey,
the S-400 and F-35 cannot coexist.
Question. In April 2019, Kim Jong Un issued an end-of-year deadline
for diplomacy with the United States. This deadline has been reiterated
on multiple occasions by North Korean officials. North Korea has
repeatedly called on the United States to change its negotiation stance
and to meet Pyongyang's demands in order to reach a diplomatic
settlement that is favorable to both sides. If Washington and Pyongyang
fail to reach a diplomatic agreement regarding North Korea's nuclear
weapons program before December 31, 2019, what actions do you believe
North Korea will take and how might these actions affect the security
of our allies and of the United States?
Answer. President Trump remains committed to making progress toward
the Singapore Summit commitments, which include transforming relations,
building lasting peace on the Korean Peninsula, and complete
denuclearization of the DPRK. We work closely with the international
community to send a unified message that North Korea must engage with
the United States to achieve these commitments. The United States does
not have a deadline, we have a goal with North Korea: final, fully
verified denuclearization. We remain fully committed to that outcome.
Question. Does the State Department expect that South Korea will
meet the Trump administration's demand for a five-fold increase in
annual contributions for hosting U.S. military forces in the country?
Answer. The U.S.-ROK alliance remains the linchpin of regional
stability and security throughout the Indo-Pacific region for the
benefit of both of our peoples. We are currently involved in
negotiations for the 11th Special Measures Agreement that will
facilitate the Republic of Korea defraying the costs of stationing U.S.
forces on the peninsula. The amount we requested aims to offset some of
the U.S. costs and reduce the burden on the American taxpayer. As
negotiations are ongoing, I cannot predict the final amount both sides
will agree upon but we remain focused on reaching an acceptable outcome
that strengthens the alliance between our two countries.
Question. What plans does the administration have to safeguard the
military intelligence agreement, and/or improve Japan-South Korea
relations?
Answer. Our relationships with the Republic of Korea and Japan are
among our most important alliances and are vitally important in the
face of shared regional challenges, including North Korea, in the Indo-
Pacific and around the world. We will continue to encourage the
Republic of Korea and Japan to engage in sincere discussions to ensure
a lasting solution to historic issues. I strongly believe that defense
and security issues should remain separate from other areas of the ROK-
Japan relationship. If confirmed as Deputy Secretary, I will continue
to pursue bilateral and trilateral security cooperation with the
Republic of Korea and Japan in recognition of our shared interests.
Question. Unlike the North Korea policy that we discussed in our
meeting, which employs both carrots and sticks, U.S. policy towards
Iran has relied on a ``maximum pressure'' campaign that is heavily
dependent on sanctions. Do you believe our Iran policy would benefit
from the same internal strategies you use in your discussions around
North Korea (no idea is a bad idea, balancing of diplomacy with
sanctions)?
Answer. We have made clear to the Iranian regime that we are open
to diplomacy and are willing to negotiate without preconditions. We
have put on the table for Iran full sanctions relief, as well as the
re-establishment of full diplomatic and commercial relations with the
United States as part of a comprehensive agreement to permanently
address Iran's nuclear program, their ballistic missile program, and
Iran's malign influence throughout the Middle East.
Question. Given Iran turning away from its JCPOA nuclear
commitments and increased aggressive actions against the Gulf states
and in the Strait of Hormuz, is now the time to take into account and
debate the differing views and ideas across the branches of government
and in the interagency?
Answer. I will approach with an open mind the many challenges Iran
poses to the United States and the world. I look forward to engaging
with Congress and the relevant interagency partners on how to best
achieve our objectives. Iran is facing an unprecedented economic crisis
as a result of the maximum pressure campaign. Iran therefore must
choose between funding its terror proxies abroad or stabilizing its
economy. Iran can change course, engage in diplomacy with us, and make
a different set of choices that will allow Iran to benefit from
behaving as a normal country in a manner consistent with international
law.
Question. Many European leaders are dismayed by President Trump's
hostility towards the U.S.-EU partnership, and his transactional view
of the NATO alliance. How will you respond to European concerns that
U.S. decisions, such as withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal and the
Paris climate agreement, or pulling U.S. troops from Syria, undermine
the United States as a credible partner?
Answer. The United States and Europe agree on far more than we
disagree, and the fundamentals of our relationship remain strong. The
United States recognizes that we have no better partners in the world
than our European Allies and we want to work with European countries to
narrow our differences, expand our areas of agreement, and advance
shared goals. We are facing many global challenges and the most
effective way to respond is to do as we have always done, discuss,
sometimes disagree, and ultimately come to a shared vision of a future
in pursuit of peace and stability.
Question. Current Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan told the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee last month that the decision to
withdraw from the Open Skies Treaty would require the unanimous support
of NATO ``to make sure we don't do damage to our NATO alliance.'' Do
you agree with this statement?
Answer. Deputy Secretary Sullivan told the committee any decision
to remain in or withdraw from the treaty should be made only after we
have closely consulted with our allies and other participants in the
treaty. The United States remains committed to arms control agreements
that advance U.S., allied, and partner security; are verifiable and
enforceable; and include parties that comply responsibly with their
obligations.
Question. Sullivan also stated that the U.S. ambassadors to NATO
and the OSCE support the United States remaining a party to the treaty.
Is that also your understanding?
Answer. The United States remains committed to arms control
agreements that advance U.S., allied, and partner security; are
verifiable and enforceable; and include parties that comply responsibly
with their obligations.
Correspondence Relating to the House of
Representatives' 2019 Impeachment Inquiry
------
Letter from Deputy Secretary of Defense David L. Norquist
to Daniel Levin, White & Case LLP \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ [Note: Included in the hearing record at the request of Senator
Tim Kaine.]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Letter from Assistant Attorney General Steven A. Engel, Office of
Legal Counsel to Pat A. Cipollone, Counsel to the President \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ [Note: Included in the hearing record at the request of Stephen
E. Biegun as part of his answer to an additional question for the
record.]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Letter from Counsel to the President Pat A. Cipollone to Hon. Nancy
Pelosi, Hon. Eliot L. Engel, Hon. Adam B. Schiff, and Hon. Elijah E.
Cummings, Members of the U.S. Congress \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ [Note: Included in the hearing record at the request of Stephen
E. Biegun as part of his answer to an additional question for the
record.]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
NOMINATIONS
----------
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2019
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in
Room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Marco Rubio,
presiding.
Present: Senators Rubio [presiding], Gardner, Romney,
Young, Cardin, Shaheen, Udall, and Kaine.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARCO RUBIO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator Rubio. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will
come to order.
I want to welcome the nominees that are before us today. We
are going to consider four nominations: the Honorable Todd
Chapman to be the U.S. Ambassador to the Federative Republic of
Brazil, Mr. John Hennessey-Niland to be the U.S. Ambassador to
the Republic of Palau, Ms. Dorothy Shea to be the U.S.
Ambassador to the Lebanese Republic, and Mr. Donald Wright to
be the U.S. Ambassador to the United Republic of Tanzania.
We have nominees here from different regions of the world,
but each one of these is important. If you are confirmed, you
are going to play a very important role in advancing our
nation's foreign policy objectives and in protecting our
national security interests and our values in these four
countries.
Briefly to touch on the four nations that you have been
nominated to serve in, with Brazil, it is a very important U.S.
ally on both trade and on security. And the current government
that is led by President Bolsonaro has worked to strengthen its
ties with the U.S. on a number of issues. That includes
security cooperation. We have collaborated on drug trafficking,
on arms trafficking, on cyber crime, money laundering,
financial crimes, and on terrorism. And in July, the Trump
administration designated Brazil as a major non-NATO ally,
which provides privileged access to the U.S. defense industry.
It also includes increased military exchanges and exercises and
training. And that only scratches the surface. So it is
critical that we continue to strengthen U.S.-Brazil trade
relations as well as counterterrorism laws to monitor foreign
terrorists utilizing Brazil's airport in its capital of Sao
Paulo as a hub into the Americas.
And Palau is a strategic location in the Western Pacific.
It is especially vulnerable to Chinese pressure. In 2018, for
example, Beijing banned its citizens from visiting Palau as
tourists in an effort to pressure them to sever ties with
Taiwan. They have remained strong. They have not succumbed to
this bullying, and they should be applauded for that. Mr.
Hennessey-Niland, I am interested to hear how you plan to
strengthen our relations with that nation and how you plan to
push back against these Chinese efforts.
Lebanon presents its own set of challenges but also
opportunities. The challenges are well known: an unstable
security situation, an economy that is collapsing. And now this
has led to mass protests, as well as a nation that now hosts
one of the largest refugee populations in the world. So, Ms.
Shea, if you are confirmed, you will be heading there at an
important moment in their history. And as we see protesters
that are crossing sectarian divides to demand an end to rampant
corruption within the government, it is our hope that Lebanon
will implement critical reforms to pull itself out of this
economic crisis.
Meanwhile, Hezbollah, a strong ally of Iran and a U.S.-
designated terrorist organization, remains a threat to the
security of that nation and to its internal stability. They
also remain, of course, a regional threat, particularly to our
ally Israel, and they are more capable than they have ever been
from a military standpoint.
So we will need to continue to work closely with Lebanon to
bolster its ability to protect its borders, to advance regional
stability and security, and to address all the issues that are
associated with hosting over 1 million refugees from Syria.
Finally but not least is Tanzania, which has long been a
U.S. partner and is critical to regional stability in East
Africa. However, we have seen a concerning decline in human
rights in a democratic space, and we should raise these issues
with the government as they risk hindering important economic
security and development objectives. So, Mr. Wright, I look
forward to hearing what your priorities will be, if confirmed,
and when it comes to countering Chinese influence and in
supporting different development goals in the country.
So, again, I think the goal of all members of this
committee is a U.S. that remains engaged globally, but in order
to do that, we need Ambassadors who are committed to faithfully
implementing U.S. policy and fostering strong relationships in
their host countries.
So, again, I want to thank you and your families for your
commitment to our country, for your willingness to serve it.
And now I recognize the ranking member.
STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MARYLAND
Senator Cardin. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
We do have a really impressive panel here today
representing all parts of the globe. So we thank them. You have
a lot in common. We have three career diplomats that are here,
and we thank you for your years of service to our country. We
have one professional nominee who has served our nation very
well in several capacities and brings that type of public
commitment to this nomination. So in all four cases, we have
individuals who have very impressive backgrounds, and we thank
you very much for your willingness to continue to serve our
nation.
I also want to acknowledge the families that are here
because it is a family sacrifice, and we recognize that you
cannot do this without a supportive family. So we thank all of
you for your willingness to do this.
I must point out in Ms. Shea's case you bring another
qualification here being a Pearson Fellow to former Senator
Dick Lugar. We all respect the manner in which he went about
making those selections, and it is not an easy process. And it
was an incredible opportunity for you, but he has also, we have
been told, praised very much your service as a Pearson Fellow.
In all four cases, as the chairman has pointed out, we have
serious issues. We are dealing with countries that are
important to the United States for different reasons, but in
all cases, the way that we do development assistance needs to
be targeted towards U.S. objectives. And how we go about doing
this, we are looking at how we are going to modify development
assistance to accomplish our goals. How can we better target
those funds? And I hope we will get a chance to talk about
that.
Environmental stewardship is going to be very important in
all four of the countries we are talking about. Palau--
obviously, what is happening to that island is a major concern
to its future existence. And Brazil, the Amazon, the
rainforest, the fact that so much of the rainforest is in
Brazil, and that Brazil was on a path to really do great
conservation work, which has been dramatically changed by this
current administration. How are we going to deal with those
issues?
So we have also promoting human rights. All four countries.
And I hope that you will go into how we are going to improve
and increase human rights in all of the countries that are
involved in today's hearing.
In Lebanon, we know there has been a challenge on
governance. We know that Hezbollah presents a security
challenge to the United States. We know that we have borders
that need to be more secure as to how we are going to deal with
those secure borders, preventing Iran from influencing the
terrorist activities within Lebanon. But at the same time,
there are legitimate protests within that country as to the
welfare of the people. They have to get their economy back on
track. How do they do that in a way that does not create unrest
among the citizens as we look to how we achieve those
objectives?
In Tanzania, a country very important to us in Africa,
human rights is a major concern. This is a country that has
been challenged on good governance for a long time. How do we
deal with those issues in that country?
So Palau. I will be interested as to how we are moving
forward with the compact. This is a country that we have a
really special relationship with, one that has been mutually
beneficial, including the security of the island, as well as
the United States' security interests. As we look toward the
new plateau of 2025, how are we going to move forward in those
countries?
So, Mr. Chairman, we have four different countries, but we
have professional nominees and we look forward to a
conversation as to how we can use the tools we have available
in America to further our national security interests as it
relates to counterterrorism, as it relates to environment, and
as it relates to promoting American values of human rights. I
look forward to our discussion.
Senator Rubio. Thank you.
I am going to introduce the four nominees. Then we are
going to start with the opening statements from my right to
left, from your left to right.
Mr. Chapman is a career member of the Senior Foreign
Service. He most recently served as the Ambassador to the
Republic of Ecuador.
Ms. Shea is a career member of the Senior Foreign Service
and currently serves as the Deputy Chief of Mission of the
United States embassy in Cairo, Egypt.
Dr. Wright is career member of the Senior Executive Service
and is the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health and Director
of the Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion at the
Department of Health and Human Services.
And Mr. Hennessey-Niland is a career member of the Senior
Foreign Service and currently serves as the Political Counselor
at the U.S. embassy in Australia.
Thank you again all for being here. We look forward to your
opening statements. We will begin with you, Mr. Chapman.
STATEMENT OF HON. TODD C. CHAPMAN, OF TEXAS, TO BE AMBASSADOR
EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA TO THE FEDERATIVE REPUBLIC OF BRAZIL
Ambassador Chapman. Thank you, Chairman Rubio, Ranking
Member Cardin, and honorable members of this committee. Thank
you for this immense privilege of appearing before you today as
the nominee to serve as the next U.S. Ambassador to the
Federative Republic of Brazil.
I am grateful to President Trump and Secretary Pompeo for
the trust and confidence they have shown in me through this
nomination.
Firstly, I would like to recognize and honor my wonderful
family. Words are simply insufficient to capture my love,
admiration, and appreciation for my wife Janetta and her
commitment to service wherever God has led us around the world.
Love you, Honey. I am also grateful for our two sons, Joshua
and Jason, the dynamic duo, and our amazing daughter-in-law
Brooke for their constant love, support and encouragement, all
watching from Denver. As a family, we have shared in the
adventures, the excitement, and the joys, and yes, sometimes
the challenges of the lifestyle and service that a Foreign
Service career brings. And through it all, we have been richly
blessed.
I am proud to be a career member of the United States
Foreign Service. During these 29 years, I have served five
Presidents on four continents in seven U.S. embassies. Most
recently, I was U.S. Ambassador to Ecuador and participated in
a most rewarding time of dynamic renewal in the U.S.- Ecuador
bilateral relationship.
Representing our great nation to other great nations is an
undertaking I proudly embrace. If confirmed, this would be an
opportunity to continue my long personal history with Brazil.
In 1974, when just 11 years old, I moved with my family to Sao
Paulo, and I completed junior high and senior high school there
in Sao Paulo. I eventually would return to Brazil as Deputy
Chief of Mission from 2011 to 2014.
Thus, with this background, I am confident in the promise
and opportunities which an ever-closer U.S.-Brazil relationship
can offer to our citizens and to the world. The United States
and Brazil have the western hemisphere's largest economies, the
largest militaries, populations, and territories. We share
democratic values, a long history of cooperation, and an over
$100 billion two-way trading relationship. Therefore, when
President Trump and President Bolsonaro met in March this year,
they set out an ambitious agenda for this relationship. In
their joint statement, they committed, quote, to ?building a
new partnership between their two countries focused on
increasing prosperity, enhancing security, and promoting
democracy, freedom, and national sovereignty.?
This is the agenda and implementation is underway.
Expanding commercial opportunities for our private sectors,
facilitating travel both ways, promoting scientific and
economic cooperation, and developing innovative ways to
collaborate on the environment. Working together regionally as
well, we share an interest in restoring democratic rule in
Venezuela, supporting the democratic transition in Bolivia, and
countering Cuban influence in the region. Indeed, the U.S.-
Brazil partnership already extensive and broad is ripe for
growth.
If confirmed, I will protect the interests of the over
240,000 U.S. citizens who currently reside in Brazil and the
over 500,000 citizens who visit Brazil each year. And if
confirmed, I will be honored to lead the 1,400-plus Brazilian
and American professionals who comprise Mission Brazil and who
are working effectively to operationalize and develop this
bilateral agenda.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, members of this
committee, if confirmed, I commit to doing my very best to
represent the very best of the United States to the people and
government of Brazil. And if confirmed, I look forward to
working closely with this distinguished committee to enhance
the strong partnership between these two great democracies.
I sincerely thank you for this opportunity to appear before
you today, and I look forward to your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Chapman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Todd C. Chapman
Chairman Rubio, Ranking Member Cardin, and honorable members of
this committee, thank you for the privilege of appearing before you
today as the nominee to serve as the next U.S. Ambassador to the
Federative Republic of Brazil. I am grateful to President Trump and
Secretary Pompeo for the trust and confidence they have shown in me
through this nomination.
Firstly, I would like to recognize and honor my wonderful family.
Words are insufficient to capture my love, admiration, and appreciation
for my wife Janetta and her commitment to service wherever God has led
us around the world. I am also so grateful for our two sons, Joshua and
Jason, the dynamic duo, and our amazing daughter-in-law Brooke, for
their constant love, support, and encouragement. As a family, we have
shared in the adventure, excitement, joys, and sometimes the hardships,
associated with this Foreign Service career and lifestyle, and through
it all we have been richly blessed.
I come before you today as a career member of the United States
Foreign Service, a professional corps of which I am proud to be a part.
During my 29 years with the U.S. government, across five Presidential
administrations, I have served in seven U.S. embassies throughout Latin
America, Africa and Asia, as well as multiple assignments here in
Washington, DC. From Bolivia to Costa Rica, and Mozambique to
Afghanistan, I advanced a wide variety of U.S. interests and
collaborated with partner nations to reach shared goals. Most recently,
I served as U.S. Ambassador to Ecuador from early 2016 to June of this
year and participated in a rewarding time of dynamic renewal in the
U.S.-Ecuador bilateral relationship.
Representing our great nation to other great nations is an
undertaking I proudly embrace.
If confirmed, this would be an opportunity to continue my long
personal history with Brazil. In 1974 when just 11 years old, I moved
to Sao Paulo with my family, where I completed junior high and high
school. After college I returned to Sao Paulo two different times to
work in the private sector, and it was there that I took the Foreign
Service Exam at the U.S. Consulate General in Sao Paulo, literally on
the dare of a friend. It would then take me over twenty years to return
to Brazil as Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Brasilia
from 2011-2014.
With this background, I am confident in the promise and
opportunities which an evercloser U.S.-Brazil relationship can offer to
our citizens and to the world. The United States and Brazil have the
Western Hemisphere's two largest economies, militaries, populations and
territories. We share democratic values, a long history of cooperation,
and an over $100 billion dollar two-way trading relationship.
Therefore, when President Trump and President Bolsonaro met in
Washington in March this year, they set out an ambitious agenda for the
bilateral relationship. In their Joint Statement, the Presidents
declared their commitment to, and I quote, ``building a new partnership
between their two countries focused on increasing prosperity, enhancing
security, and promoting democracy, freedom, and national sovereignty.''
Implementation of this agenda is underway. Important
accomplishments have already been made, including Brazilian
ratification of a joint Technology Safeguards Agreement, expansion of
trade opportunities for our private sectors, visa free-travel for U.S.
citizens heading to Brazil and a pilot program for Brazil to join the
Global Entry Program to facilitate participants' travel to the U.S. In
the important area of environmental protection and biodiversity
conservation, our two governments worked together with private sector
partners to launch the $100 million dollar Althelia Biodiversity Fund
Brazil aimed at supporting investment in sustainable development
projects in the Amazon in partnership with local communities.
Brazil's global influence and aspirations are frequently fully
consistent with U.S. national security objectives. Working together on
shared concerns--such as restoring democratic rule in Venezuela,
countering the malevolent influences of Cuba, and supporting the
democratic transition in Bolivia--exemplifies how the U.S.-Brazil
partnership, already extensive and broad, is ripe for growth.
In such an expansive relationship with a consequential partner like
Brazil, there will always be areas that require broader dialogue. I
commit to advancing respectful dialogues on the economy, the
environment, human rights and irregular migration, with the goal of
improving mutual understandings and reaching beneficial outcomes.
If confirmed, I will also be honored to protect the interests of
the over 240,000 U.S. citizens who reside in Brazil, the 500,000 U.S.
citizens who visit Brazil each year, and to serve as Chief of Mission
with the over 1,400 American and Brazilian professionals who comprise
Mission Brazil and are working effectively to develop and
operationalize this bilateral agenda.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, committee members, if confirmed,
I commit to doing my very best to represent the very best of the United
States of America to the government and people of Brazil. I would look
forward to working collaboratively with the distinguished members of
this committee, the U.S. Congress, and your professional staff to
achieve U.S. policy goals in Brazil and to enhance the strong and
enduring partnership between these two great democracies.
I sincerely thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today and I welcome your questions and observations.
Thank you.
Senator Rubio. Thank you.
Mr. Hennessey-Niland?
STATEMENT OF JOHN HENNESSEY-NILAND, OF ILLINOIS, A CAREER
MEMBER OF THE SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE, CLASS OF COUNSELOR, TO BE
AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA TO THE REPUBLIC OF PALAU
Mr. Hennessey-Niland. Chairman Rubio, Ranking Member
Cardin, and distinguished members of the Committee on
Foreign Relations. It is an honor and a privilege to appear
before you.
I am grateful for the confidence the President and
Secretary Pompeo have placed in me as the nominee to be the
next U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Palau. If confirmed, I
look forward to working with you to advance our nation's
interests with respect to our bilateral relationship with
Palau, a key partner of the United States in the Indo-Pacific
region.
From a young age, I have always known that I wanted to
serve my country. Growing up abroad, I saw firsthand the
importance of American leadership. My dad worked for a number
of years overseas as a senior executive with Standard Oil of
Indiana. As a student at Tufts University and later at the
Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, in addition to my studies
and playing on the varsity soccer team, I focused on passing
the Foreign Service exam, and it has been an honor to serve as
a Foreign Service officer over the past 30 years.
My wife Julie is here with me today, and without her, I
would not be before this committee. She has been by my side
ever since we were graduate students together. She has done so
much to support our family, including countless moves and
giving up her own global career with AT&T so that I--we--could
serve our country. Our two sons, Connor and Aidan, could not be
with us today. They are both recent graduates and have found
gainful employment, which greatly pleases their parents.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hennessey-Niland. Connor has just completed a masters
degree in international politics at Trinity College in Dublin,
Ireland and is a research service coordinator. Aidan graduated
earlier this year with a B.A. in economics and government from
William and Mary and is the team operations coordinator for the
Pittsburgh Steelers.
I have sought throughout my career to represent the United
States to the best of my ability and to embody the principles
and values of this great nation. I recognize that while service
is a personal commitment, it is very much a shared endeavor. I
believe my background as a Charge D'Affaires and Deputy Chief
of Mission, as a Director at the National Security Council, and
as a Foreign Policy Advisor to the U.S. military demonstrates
diplomatic experience and the capability to serve as a Chief of
Mission. My work in the Pacific, currently as the Acting Deputy
Chief of Mission and previously as the Political Counselor at
the U.S. Mission in Australia, and earlier in my career as the
Political and Economic Section Chief in Suva, Fiji exemplifies
the substantive knowledge of the region that may be
particularly helpful in leading the U.S. embassy in Palau.
The opportunity, in particular, to serve as the foreign
policy advisor alongside our U.S. Marines at MARFORPAC, first
as part of the command team of General John Toolan and later
with General David Berger, now the Commandant of the Marine
Corps, has been particularly meaningful in my development as a
Foreign Service officer and a leader.
Our military ties to Palau run deep. Many citizens of Palau
have served in the U.S. military. Their service is a reminder
of our nation's enduring commitment to peace and security in a
dynamic and critical part of the world.
The relationship between Palau and the United States,
forged in the field of battle, continues to be strong, as is
the U.S. commitment to our Compact of Free Association with
Palau. Recognizing our unique relationship with Palau, we
consult closely on foreign policy matters, and the U.S. has
full responsibility and authority for security and defense
matters. Palau also shares our core values, supporting
democracy and human rights, and continues to maintain strong
diplomatic ties with Taiwan.
If confirmed, I pledge to work closely with President
Remengesau and his government to deepen and strengthen the ties
between Palau and the United States. With a large and
increasing number of U.S. government agencies engaged in
projects in Palau, coordination and leadership of U.S.
government initiatives will be a personal priority to ensure a
whole-of-government approach to our mission and to ensure
transparency and accountability for all our programs in Palau.
I pledge to this committee to promote and to protect U.S.
interests and our people in Palau to the best of my ability and
to ensure the strongest possible relationship with Palau, such
a key partner of the United States in the Indo-Pacific.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member,
distinguished members of the committee, for this opportunity to
speak with you today and answer your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hennessey-Niland follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Hennessey-Niland
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and distinguished members of the
Committee on Foreign Relations, it is an honor and a privilege to
appear before you today. I am grateful for the confidence the President
and Secretary Pompeo have placed in me as the nominee to be the next
U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Palau. If confirmed, I look forward
to working with you to advance our nation's interests with respect to
our bilateral relationship with Palau, a key partner of the United
States in the Indo Pacific region.
From a young age, I have always known that I wanted to serve my
country. Growing up abroad, I saw firsthand the importance of American
leadership. I recognize that I enjoyed a privileged upbringing thanks
to my parents. My dad worked for a number of years overseas as a senior
executive for Standard Oil of Indiana. As a student at Tufts University
and later at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy--in addition to
my studies and playing on the Varsity soccer team--I focused on passing
the Foreign Service exam and being selected as an American diplomat. It
has been an honor to serve over the past 30 years.
My wife Julie is here with me, and without her I would not be
before the committee today. She has been by my side ever since we were
graduate students together and she was the Residential Assistant in our
dorm. She has done so much to support our family, including countless
moves and giving up her own global career with AT&T, so that I could
serve our country. Our two sons, Connor and Aidan, could not be with us
today. They are both recent graduates and have both found gainful
employment--which greatly pleases Julie and me as their proud parents.
Connor has just completed a Masters Degree in International Politics at
Trinity College in Dublin, Ireland and is a Research Services
Coordinator for Qualtrics, an SAP company. Aidan graduated earlier this
year with a B.A. in Economics and government from the College of
William and Mary in Virginia and is the Team Operations Coordinator for
the Pittsburgh Steelers.
I have sought throughout my career to represent the United States
to the best of my abilities and embody the principles and values of
this great nation. I recognize that while service is a personal
commitment, it is very much a shared endeavor. I believe my
background--as Charge D'Affaires and Deputy Chief of Mission, as a
Director at the National Security Council and as the Foreign Policy
Advisor to the U.S. Marine Corps Forces Pacific (MARFORPAC)--
demonstrates significant diplomatic experience and the capability to
serve as a Chief of Mission. My work in the Pacific--currently as the
Acting Deputy Chief of Mission and previously as the Political
Counselor at the U.S. Mission in Australia, as the Political and
Economic Section Head in our Embassy in Fiji--exemplifies a substantive
knowledge of the region that may be particularly helpful in leading the
U.S. Embassy in Palau. Personal experience with small teams in remote
areas--such as my assignment as head of a prosecutions unit with the
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the
International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda--has prepared me for the
challenges and opportunities of service at a small embassy in a distant
location. I believe my management of people and budgets has shown that
I have the positive attributes required to build successful
organizations and use resources appropriately and effectively. I
support a whole of mission approach and inclusive and innovative
practices that build on the diverse strengths and talents of our
officers and locally engaged staff.
The opportunity, in particular, to serve as the foreign policy
advisor alongside our U.S. Marines at MARFORPAC, first as part of the
Command Team of General John Toolan and later with General David
Berger, now the Commandant of the Marine Corps, has been particularly
meaningful in my development as a Foreign Service Office and a leader.
The power of inspiration, of leading by example, and understanding that
the strength of any organization is determined by the cohesion of the
unit and the clarity of its mission, are enduring lessons not just for
Marines. I saw these skills put into use daily at Camp H.M. Smith and
around the Pacific by the men and women assigned to the Indo Pacific
Command.
Our military ties to Palau run deep. The Battle of Peleliu lasted
for over 75 days from September to November 1944. U.S. Marines of the
1st Marine Division, and later soldiers of the U.S. Army's 81st
Infantry Division, fought to capture an airstrip on that small coral
island. By 1944, American victories in the Southwest and Central
Pacific had laid the groundwork for the campaign by General MacArthur
to return to the Philippines. However, before General MacArthur could
do so, the Palau Islands needed to be liberated from Japanese
occupation. In that key battle at Peleliu, our forces were ultimately
successful. Many citizens of Palau have subsequently served in the U.S.
military. Their service is a reminder of our nations' enduring
commitment to peace and security in a dynamic and critical part of the
world.
The relationship between Palau and the United States, forged in the
field of battle, continues to be strong, with the U.S. commitment to
our Compact of Free Association with Palau, as well as our Compacts
with the other two Freely Associated States--the Federated States of
Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands. As Deputy
Assistant Secretary of State Sandra Oudkirk testified before this
committee in July, our relationship with Palau has contributed to a
secure, stable and prosperous Western Pacific, which is a strategic
location for the United States in the larger Indo-Pacific region. As
DAS Oudkirk noted in her testimony, recognizing our unique, historic
and special relationship with the Freely Associated States, including
Palau, we consult closely on foreign policy matters and the U.S. has
full responsibility and authority for security and defense matters in
or relating to these three countries. Palau also shares our core
values, supporting democracy and human rights, and continues to
maintain strong diplomatic ties with Taiwan.
The United States and Palau enjoy a close and positive
relationship, anchored in shared history and values. In 1947, the
United Nations assigned the United States administering authority over
the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, including what is now
Palau, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of
Micronesia, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, which
the United States had liberated from Japanese occupation. In 1981,
Palau adopted its own constitution and in 1986 the governments of the
United States and Palau concluded a Compact of Free Association which
entered into force in 1994. This Compact of Free Association provides
the framework for much of our bilateral relationship with Palau.
If confirmed, I pledge to work closely with President Remengesau
and his government to deepen and strengthen the ties between Palau and
the United States. With a large and increasing number of U.S.
government agencies engaged in projects in Palau, coordination and
leadership of U.S. government initiatives will be a priority to ensure
a whole-of-government approach to our mission and to ensure
transparency and accountability for all our programs in Palau.
I'd like to reiterate the thanks expressed by Deputy Assistant
Secretary Oudkirk in her testimony to this committee in July, for
working to fulfill the commitment to Palau under the 2010 U.S.--Palau
Compact Review Agreement and the leadership of this committee in that
regard continues to be greatly appreciated. The implementation of the
Compacts with the Freely Associated States is closely watched by our
allies, partners, other Pacific Island countries and our competitors in
the region and is seen as a sign of our commitment to the Indo Pacific.
The Secretary announced on August 5 that we have begun negotiations on
agreements to amend certain provisions of the Compacts of Free
Association with the Federated States of Micronesia and the Marshall
Islands, and have begun Compact Review discussions with Palau. The
progress of these negotiations and future funding decisions will be an
important signal of our support to the region.
Our cooperation with Palau is comprehensive and extensive. The U.S.
Civic Action Team (CAT) headquartered at Camp Katuu, with its six-month
rotations of military engineers and Seabees, supports a large number of
projects around the islands of Palau which benefit the government and
people of Palau. Palau participates in the Proliferation Security
Initiative to interdict illicit transfers of weapons of mass
destruction consistent with international law. Palau cooperates closely
with us to ensure its shipping registry is not used by bad actors.
Palau is a key partner in deregistering and reporting vessels that have
been found using its flag for sanctions evasion and is actively engaged
in a maritime law enforcement agreement to combat illegal, unreported
and unregulated fishing and other illicit activities in its Exclusive
Economic Zone. We work closely with Palau on a full suite of law
enforcement matters through the Department of Homeland Security, U.S.
Coast Guard, Drug Enforcement Agency and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation. We conduct law enforcement training in Palau and
collaborate on law enforcement investigations. Together, the United
States and Palau are working to secure our borders, including our
shared maritime border with the Freely Associated States. The scope of
our people-to-people ties continues to expand. The United States is
working with the next generation of leaders in the region and the
annual Young Pacific Leaders conference is a positive example of this
focus. The Department of State, together with the government of New
Zealand and the East-West Center, is implementing a women's leadership
program in Palau and across the North Pacific to address community
needs and increase women's participation and decisionmaking in their
communities.
As noted in the joint statement issued after the historic meeting
in Washington in May of this year between the President of the United
States and the Presidents of the Freely Associated States, the U.S. and
Palau are committed to ensuring the Pacific Ocean continues to be an
important and vibrant corridor for maritime trade and that we will work
together to reduce vulnerabilities to shared concerns, such as natural
disasters, and support the resiliency of the Pacific Islands
environment. The joint statement concludes with the shared confidence
that our relationship with Palau and the other Freely Associated States
will ``further our abiding mutual interests and remain a source of
regional security, stability, and prosperity.''If confirmed, I pledge
to promote and protect U.S. interests and our people in Palau to the
best of my ability and to lead effectively and in good spirit our
talented and dedicated American and Palauan staff at the U.S. Embassy
in Koror. I warmly welcome the opportunity to work with you to ensure
the strongest possible relationship with the Republic of Palau--a key
partner of the United States in the Indo Pacific.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and distinguished
members of the committee, for this opportunity to speak with you today
and answer your questions.
Senator Rubio. So far this is a great panel. They have all
come in under 5 minutes on their opening statements. Phenomenal
work.
[Laughter.]
Senator Rubio. It speaks very well of your capabilities.
All right. No pressure, Ms. Shea.
STATEMENT OF DOROTHY SHEA, A CAREER MEMBER OF THE SENIOR
FOREIGN SERVICE, CLASS OF MINISTER COUNSELOR, TO BE AMBASSADOR
EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA TO THE LEBANESE REPUBLIC
Ms. Shea. I intend to maintain that track record, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Rubio, Ranking Member Cardin, distinguished
members of the committee, it is an honor to appear before you
today as the President's nominee to serve as U.S. Ambassador to
Lebanon.
I am grateful to President Trump and Secretary of State
Pompeo for putting me forward for this position. If confirmed,
I look forward to working closely with you and your colleagues
to advance U.S. interests in Lebanon and the region.
With your permission, I would like to submit my full
statement for the record.
I am grateful to be joined today by several members of my
family, whose love and support for me throughout my career has
been critical to my resilience and my overall success. Excuse
me for getting a little emotional about that. My sister,
Margaret Shea Burnham, and my brothers, Brandon and Steve, plus
several of my nieces and nephews--and I would highlight Catie
Burnham who graduated from University of South Carolina
yesterday and drove all night with her sister to get here
today.
I grew up in Falls Church, Virginia just a few miles from
here, the youngest of six children. I heard stories from my
father, Brandon Shea, about his Army service in World War II
and afterwards in Paris as part of the Marshall Plan. My
mother, Audrey Martin Shea's work also took her overseas from
time to time. Their stories, together with the curiosity that
was sparked when my family hosted Japanese exchange students
spurred my interest in international relations. Little did I
imagine that one day I would be sitting here before you in this
chamber as an ambassadorial nominee. It is very humbling.
I joined the Foreign Service 28 years ago, and every day of
my public service has been an honor and privilege. I realized
early on that key components of job satisfaction for me were
that I continue to be learn, to be challenged, and to
contribute in some way, however small, to the greater good. And
as long as those criteria were met, I would stick it out in
this peripatetic career. And sure enough, every job I have had
in the Foreign Service has met those criteria in spades. In a
couple of these jobs, I have had the opportunity to travel to
Lebanon, including as a Pearson Fellow with this very
committee. It was a great honor to help cover Middle East
issues for the then-ranking member, Richard Lugar, a true
statesman. I am lucky to count as friends those who were
colleagues from my time with the committee, some of whom are
here today.
Turning to Lebanon, I would like to address the broad-
based protests that began on October 17th and continue today.
In a country known for its multi-religious character, these
protests have been unprecedented in their truly national nature
with involvement of Lebanese citizens across the nation, across
sects, and across socioeconomic levels. Demonstrators have been
calling for an end to the economic mismanagement and endemic
corruption that have plagued Lebanon for decades. The United
States strongly supports the right of Lebanon's citizens to
protest peacefully and has called for their continued
protection.
The message from the protesters is loud and clear. The
Lebanese people have had enough of their leaders prospering
while the rest of the country struggles under crushing debt and
in the absence of the most basic services, including trash
removal, electricity, clean water. Their demands for a
government committed to enacting far-reaching reforms led to
the resignation of the cabinet on October 29th. But
unfortunately, Lebanon's political leadership has failed to act
expeditiously to respond to those calls for reform, and the
government remains in caretaker status today.
Until Lebanon's political leaders embrace the need for real
and lasting reform, no government can succeed. But if leaders
do embrace change, we stand ready to work with the government
and the people to rebuild Lebanon's shattered economy.
Lebanon's economic difficulties are profound, and it will
not be easy to enact the structural reforms necessary to
increase public investment, lower public debt and diversify its
economy.
A new Lebanese government also needs to pass measures that
markedly improve transparency and root out corruption to gain
the confidence of Lebanon's citizens and the international
community.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and distinguished committee
members, I believe U.S. foreign policy is most effective when
there is close communication and collaboration between the
executive and legislative branches. If confirmed, I look
forward to and I can pledge close cooperation on these critical
foreign policy issues.
I thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you
today and look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Shea follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dorothy C. Shea
Chairman, Ranking Member, distinguished members of the committee,
it is an honor to appear before you today as the President's nominee to
serve as U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon. I am grateful to President Trump
and Secretary of State Pompeo for putting me forward for this position.
If confirmed, I look forward to working closely with you and your
colleagues to advance U.S. interests in Lebanon and the region.
I am grateful to be joined today by several members of my family,
whose love and support for me throughout my career has been critical to
my resilience and my overall success. I was raised a few miles from
here, in Falls Church, Virginia, the youngest of six children. I grew
up hearing stories about my father Brandan Shea's Army service in World
War II, and afterwards in Paris as part of the Marshall Plan; he later
went on to work for the Department of Defense as a civilian for many
years. My mother Audrey Martin Shea's work also took her overseas from
time to time. Their stories, together with the curiosity that was
sparked when my family hosted Japanese exchange students for a couple
of successive summers, spurred my interest in international relations.
Little did I imagine that one day I would be sitting before you in this
chamber as an ambassadorial nominee.
I joined the Foreign Service 28 years ago, and every day of my
public service has been an honor and privilege. I did not necessarily
think I would make a career out of the Foreign Service. But, I realized
early on that the key components for job satisfaction for me were that
I continue to learn, to be challenged, and to be able to contribute in
some way, however small, to the greater good. I reasoned that as long
as those criteria were met, I would stick with this peripatetic career.
Sure enough, in every job I have had as a Foreign Service Officer,
those criteria have been met. Indeed, I believe each job has helped
prepare me to serve in the next position of greater responsibility. In
a couple of the above-mentioned jobs, I had the opportunity to travel
to Lebanon. One such position was as a Pearson Fellow with this very
committee. It was a great honor to cover Middle East issues for the
then-Ranking Member Richard Lugar. I am lucky to count as friends those
who were colleagues from my time with the committee, some of whom are
here today. I would also like to acknowledge Foreign Service mentors
who have taught me so much over the years; they set the standard for
leadership that I attempt to emulate every day.
At the core of our interests in Lebanon are efforts to ensure a
stable and prosperous nation with whom we can effectively partner to
advance vital national security interests in the country and region.
Working with the international community and the Lebanese people to
address its now faltering stability is at the heart of U.S. interests
in the Middle East and remains critical to ensuring our success in our
efforts to defeat ISIS, foster regional stability, and counter Iran's
destabilizing influence in the region.
Since 2005, when the end of the Syrian military occupation of
Lebanon created a strategic opportunity to increase U.S. impact and
dilute the influence of the Iran/Syria/Hizballah axis, our strategy has
been broadly consistent: supporting constructive political voices
responsive to the needs of the Lebanese people and building the
capacity of Lebanese state institutions, including the Lebanese Armed
Forces (LAF).
The spillover from the Syria conflict--including the movement of
over one million Syrian refugees into Lebanon and deadly incursions by
ISIS--injected new urgency into our approach, while unprecedented
nationwide protests have presented new possibilities for responsiveness
and reform.
On October 17, broad-based protests began in Lebanon. In a country
known for its multireligious character, these protests have been
unprecedented in their truly national nature, with involvement of
Lebanese citizens across the nation, across sects, and across socio-
economic levels. Demonstrators have been calling for an end to the
endemic corruption and economic mismanagement that has plagued Lebanon
for decades. The United States supports the right of Lebanon's citizens
to protest peacefully and has called for their continued protection.
These protests continue throughout the country today. The message
from the protesters is loud and clear: the Lebanese people have had
enough of their leaders prospering while the rest of the country
struggles under crushing debt and in the absence of the most basic
services, including trash removal, electricity, and clean water. They
are demanding far-reaching reforms. They have called for a new
government committed to meeting those demands, leading to the
resignation of the cabinet on October 29. Unfortunately, Lebanon's
political leadership has failed to act expeditiously to respond to
those calls for reform and the government remains in ``caretaker''
status today.
Until Lebanon's political leaders embrace the need for real and
lasting reform, no government can succeed. But if leaders do embrace
change, we stand ready to work with the government and people to
rebuild Lebanon's shattered economy. The composition of the new
government is a matter for the Lebanese people, not for the United
States, to decide. We will work with anyone who is dedicated to reform
and will put the interests of the Lebanese people first.
Lebanon's economic difficulties are profound; it will not be easy
to enact the structural reforms necessary to increase public
investment, lower public debt, and diversify its economy. Several
sectors of the economy will need to be completely revamped, because
they generate massive debt and fail to collect adequate revenue, while
failing to deliver satisfactory services.
A new Lebanese government also needs to pass measures that markedly
improve transparency and root out corruption so they can regain the
confidence of Lebanon's citizens and the international community. If
confirmed, I look forward to working with such a government to advance
good governance, transparency, and economic reform.
As my colleague Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Near
Eastern Affairs Joey Hood testified before this committee on December
4, the United States is committed to a vision of shared prosperity,
regional and global security and stability, and a lasting partnership
with the people of Lebanon.
I believe that American foreign policy is most informed and
effective when there is close communication and collaboration between
the executive and legislative branches of government. If confirmed, I
pledge to continue our close cooperation on these critical foreign
policy issues.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and distinguished members of the
committee, I thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you
today. I look forward to taking your questions.
Senator Rubio. Thank you very much.
And finally, Dr. Wright.
STATEMENT OF DR. DONALD WRIGHT, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE AMBASSADOR
EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA TO THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA
Dr. Wright. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and distinguished
members of the committee, I am honored to appear before you
today as the nominee for Ambassador to the United Republic of
Tanzania. I am deeply appreciative of the confidence that the
President and the Secretary of State have placed in me by this
nomination.
At the outset of this hearing, I wanted to acknowledge
family members that have played pivotal roles in my
professional journey. First and foremost is my wife, Kathy
Wright, who has been the source of unending encouragement and
support. I would also like to acknowledge my parents who I
believe are watching from above, probably in total shock.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Wright. From them, I inherited a strong work ethic and
a commitment to lifelong learning.
Trained in the disciplines of family medicine, occupational
medicine, and public health, I spent the first 17 years of my
professional life as a practicing physician in central Texas.
In 2003, I moved to Washington to serve as Director of the
Office of Occupational Medicine at OSHA in the Department of
Labor. This relocation began my 16 years as a career civil
servant, a career devoted to improving the health and safety of
the American people. With a personal passion for prevention, it
has been a privilege to lead the Office of Disease Prevention
and Health Promotion for almost 8 years.
Over 30 years ago, very much at the dawn of my medical
career, I landed in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania to serve as a
volunteer physician at a public hospital in Zanzibar. Alongside
a British physician, I treated children with malnutrition,
malaria, parasites, and tuberculosis. During that memorable
summer, I developed a deep admiration for the Tanzanian people.
They were warm, generous, and treated strangers like family.
If confirmed, it would be an honor to come full circle and
serve in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania 3 decades later as the United
States Ambassador.
The United States has a longstanding commitment to
Tanzania's development as a stable, reliable, democratic
partner, capable of growing its economy sufficiently to support
the health, education, and ambitions of its people while also
becoming a market for U.S. exports and investment. Tanzania
provides vital stability in the region and contributes to
peacekeeping in Central Africa, Sudan, and South Sudan.
If confirmed, I will focus broadly on three priorities:
people, health, and trade.
As a medical doctor, my career has focused on the lives of
people. My first priority will likewise focus on the lives of
people: American and Tanzanian. Ensuring the safety and
security of embassy staff and the American expatriate community
will be a top priority. For the Tanzanian citizens, continuing
deterioration of democratic norms has restricted their personal
liberties, including free association and freedom of assembly.
I am committed to working with the host government, like-minded
missions, civil society, and international organizations to
address this trend.
Furthermore, Tanzania's national elections will be held in
October 2020. If confirmed, I look forward to continuing the
work of our embassy to encourage a fair, free, transparent, and
inclusive election. Lastly, I will work with the host
government to improve the prevention and prosecution of human
trafficking.
Almost 80 percent of the development assistance provided by
the American taxpayer to Tanzania is directed to improving the
health of the Tanzanian people. Efforts to reduce the burden of
HIV, malaria, and tuberculosis are bearing fruit. If confirmed,
I am committed to leveraging American investments to produce
continued improvements in health outcomes. Utilizing the
expertise of the Global Health Security Agenda, which includes
U.S. government agencies, international partners, and private
stakeholders, we will continue to train Tanzanians in the
prevention, detection, and response to deadly viruses that are
endemic to the region such as Ebola.
The current challenging business environment has impeded
U.S. business investment. Yet, Tanzania has been one of
Africa's fastest growing economies. If confirmed, I look
forward to expanding American business opportunities in
Tanzania and to improving the overall investment climate.
It is difficult to imagine a greater honor than returning
to Tanzania as the U.S. Ambassador. If confirmed, my preeminent
goal will be to strengthen this important bilateral
relationship.
I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today
and look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Wright follows:]
Prepared Statement of Donald Wright, MD, MPH
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and distinguished members of the
committee, I am honored to appear before you today as the nominee for
Ambassador to the United Republic of Tanzania. I am deeply appreciative
of the confidence that the President and the Secretary of State have
placed in me by this nomination.
At the outset of this hearing, I want to acknowledge family members
that have played pivotal roles in my professional journey. First and
foremost, is my wife, Kathy Wright, who has been the source of unending
encouragement and support. I would also like to acknowledge my parents,
who I believe are watching from above. From them, I inherited a strong
work ethic and a commitment to life-long learning.
Trained in the disciplines of Family Medicine, Occupational
Medicine and Public Health, I spent the first 17 years of my
professional life as a practicing physician in Central Texas. In 2003,
I moved to Washington to serve as the Director of the Office of
Occupational Medicine at OSHA in the Department of Labor. This
relocation began my 16 years as a career civil servant: a career
devoted to improving the health and safety of the American people. With
a personal passion for prevention, it has been a privilege to lead the
Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion for almost eight
years.
Over 30 years ago, at the dawn of my medical career, I landed in
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania to serve as a volunteer physician at a public
hospital in Zanzibar. Alongside a British physician, I treated children
with malnutrition, malaria, parasites, and tuberculosis. During that
memorable summer, I developed a deep admiration for the Tanzanian
people; they were warm, generous and treated strangers like family.
If confirmed, it would be an honor to come full circle and serve in
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania three decades later as the United States
Ambassador.
The United States has a long-standing commitment to Tanzania's
development as a stable, reliable, democratic partner, capable of
growing its economy sufficiently to support the health, education and
ambitions of its people, while also becoming a market for U.S. exports
and investment. Tanzania provides vital stability in the region and
contributes to peacekeeping in Central Africa, Sudan, and South Sudan.
If confirmed, I will focus broadly on three priorities: people,
health, and trade.
As a medical doctor, my career has focused on the lives of people.
My first priority will likewise focus on the lives of people: American
and Tanzanian. Ensuring the safety and security of embassy staff and
the American expatriate community will be a top priority. For the
Tanzanian citizens, continuing deterioration of democratic norms has
restricted their personal liberties, including free association and
assembly. I am committed to working with the host government, like-
minded missions, civil society and international organizations to
address this trend.
Furthermore, Tanzania's national elections will be held in October
2020. If confirmed, I look forward to continuing the work of our
embassy to encourage a fair, free, transparent and inclusive election.
Lastly, I will work with the host government to improve the prevention
and prosecution of human trafficking.
Almost 80 percent of the development assistance provided by the
American taxpayer to Tanzania is directed to improving the health of
the Tanzanian people. Efforts to reduce the burden of HIV, malaria, and
tuberculosis are bearing fruit. If confirmed, I am committed to
leveraging American investments to produce continued improvements in
health outcomes. Utilizing the expertise of the Global Health Security
Agenda, which includes U.S. government agencies, international
partners, and private stakeholders, we will continue to train
Tanzanians in the prevention, detection and response to deadly viruses
that are endemic to the region, such as Ebola.
The current challenging business environment has impeded U.S.
business investment, yet Tanzania has been one of Africa's fastest-
growing economies. If confirmed, I look forward to expanding American
business community opportunities in Tanzania, and to improving the
overall investment climate.
It is difficult to imagine a greater honor than returning to
Tanzania as the U.S Ambassador. If confirmed, my preeminent goal will
be to strengthen this important bilateral relationship. I thank you for
the opportunity to appear before you today and look forward to
answering your questions.
Senator Rubio. Thank you.
Senator Cardin?
Senator Cardin. Again, let me thank all four of you for
your presence here today and your testimony.
I want to start with Mr. Chapman. We had a chance to chat.
I really want to compliment the manner in which you were here
once before as Ambassador to Ecuador, and we had a conversation
then. You made certain commitments, and you carried out those
commitments, which I find not only important, but it gives me
an indication about your sincerity to work with the Members of
Congress.
Ambassador Chapman. Thank you, sir.
Senator Cardin. In regards to Brazil, there are many
challenges. It is a very important country. It is a large
country. It is very important in its region, as well as
globally. And I find the trends to be extremely concerning in
that country under its current leadership. When the president
calls protests in Chile, Colombia, and beyond terrorist acts,
he is referring to what is happening in his own country as far
as lawful protests in an effort that he has to change the
democratic principles of Brazil by stacking the deck in favor
of the current government. Human rights in that country is
moving in the wrong direction.
How do you intend to use America's presence in Brazil to
strengthen its commitment to human rights and protecting the
population?
Ambassador Chapman. Thank you, Senator Cardin, and thank
you for recalling our previous conversations. And I appreciate
the chance to call upon you in your office as well.
Human rights is a fundamental element of American foreign
policy, and when President Trump and President Bolsonaro met,
as part of their joint statement, they made a commitment to
democratic values. And I think that is one of the priorities
that we must advocate for, is to promote U.S. human rights
principles and values when we are abroad representing our
country.
Brazil has a rich history. It has perhaps different views
on different subjects, but the important thing is that we have
a very constructive engagement on human rights. They are
supporting our positions whether it comes to religious freedom
or combating the trafficking in persons involving Venezuelan
refugees. So we have opportunities and we have challenges.
Now, when addressing these challenges, it is important that
we have frank, constructive dialogues with countries with we
may have discrepancies. And as I committed before I went to
Ecuador, I commit to you again, sir, I will have those frank
discussions with our counterparts, and I look forward to that.
Senator Cardin. I appreciate that, and I hope that our
mission will be a haven for those that are seeking a voice in
regards to human rights.
Ambassador Chapman. Absolutely. It is important that the
U.S. embassy represents those values, and I commit to speaking
with a broad range of civil society within the country. And
fortunately, Brazil does have very strong institutions, whether
it is the free press, a strong judiciary, strong civil society.
With them, we can dialogue and work together on these issues.
Senator Cardin. The other major change we have seen in the
country under its new president is its lack of commitment to
the environment. Since August of 2018, Brazil has lost area in
the rainforest equivalent to 12 times the size of New York
City. When we try to engage, we get a really, I think, arrogant
response. We recognize that Brazil is responsible for the
control of its own territory, but the rainforest is a universal
treasure.
How can we leverage the U.S. involvement with our global
partners to protect that valuable resource that not only
captures carbon but also provides biodiversity, which is
critically important to our world security?
Ambassador Chapman. Yes, sir. I am very aware that the
recent fires in the Amazon attracted a lot of attention. These
are annual occurrences. When I lived in Brasilia before, I
remember in this certain time period of August to October, you
would see the smoke coming across the country.
However, I think we have a constructive engagement plan
that we are executing with the Brazilians right now. First of
all, in response to the wildfires, we sent six experts from our
U.S. Forest Service to go down and assist. We saw above average
fires in August, but actually below average amount of fires in
the subsequent 2 months. The current administration in Brazil
committed 9,500 extra personnel in September to help combat the
fires. That was a robust response resulting in a slightly below
average amount of wildfires this year compared with earlier
years.
So I think the important thing, sir, is constructive
engagement. We have an $80 million program with USAID over the
next 8 years on conservation, and we also have an innovative
social impact fund, a $100 million fund, that we just signed
with the government that I think will provide opportunities for
responsible development in the Amazon.
Senator Cardin. I appreciate that response. If constructive
engagement works, fine. If not, let us look at stronger ways to
make sure that progress is made to preserve the Amazon.
Mr. Hennessey-Niland, you came from Australia, as I
understand.
Mr. Hennessey-Niland. Correct, sir.
Senator Cardin. So I will excuse you for your reference to
your son's support for the Pittsburgh Steelers.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hennessey-Niland. Thank you, sir.
Senator Cardin. They are playing an important game at
Ravens Stadium next weekend, and I will not ask who you are
rooting for.
But thank you very much for your service.
I want to talk a little bit about human rights. I am
concerned that we find a major concern for women. Approximately
35 percent of the women experience physical or sexual violence
or both since the age of 15. The report also noted that there
are no shelters for rape or domestic violence victims. So I do
think that the United States, which enjoys a very close
relationship with Palau, that we should be able to leverage
that to advance the protection of its population, particularly
women.
So how do you intend to use our mission to try to advance
those goals?
Mr. Hennessey-Niland. Thank you, Senator. You raise a very
important issue.
I think there is no higher priority than the protection of
women and children and the vulnerable.
As you know, there are challenges in Palau. It is a tier 2
country in terms of trafficking in persons. It is a transit
point in the Western Pacific. But it has been a priority of the
administration and the U.S. embassy in Koror to focus on these
challenges. And sir, the U.S. government has a number of
programs in place to improve the human rights conditions in
Palau, as you said, sir. We have a specific and unique
relationship with Palau under the compact arrangements. And I
certainly pledge to you, Senator, if confirmed as Ambassador,
this will be one of my top priorities.
Senator Cardin. I would just make the final note on this
that as we look at beyond 2024 and the compact, I hope that
this will be one of the areas that we will concentrate on
expecting to see additional progress made protecting women and
human rights issues on the island.
Mr. Hennessey-Niland. Senator, I appreciate that point. And
as the Secretary of State mentioned in August in his historic
visit to Micronesia, he noted that we are just at the beginning
part of those discussions on that next part of the compact
arrangement, and this certainly will be a key element of those
discussions.
Senator Cardin. Thank you.
I will get to the other two on the second round. Do not
think I ignored you.
Senator Rubio. Senator Gardner.
Senator Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thanks to all of the nominees here today for your service
and willingness to continue to serve the country.
Mr. Hennessey-Niland, just to continue the conversation you
had, could you broadly briefly speak about the importance of
Palau and the Pacific islands more generally to U.S. interests?
Mr. Hennessey-Niland. Senator Gardner, thank you for your
question. I would be happy to.
And also I would like to thank you for taking the time this
morning to discuss with me your very strong and sincere
interest in the Pacific.
I have served in the Pacific on a number of occasions in a
number of different roles, earlier in my career as the Chief of
the small Political Economic Section in Suva, Fiji, which is a
regional post for the Department of State. Later I was a
military advisor for the Marine Corps forces in the Pacific
headquartered in Hawaii, and we traveled across the Pacific.
And most recently I have served as the Political Counselor at
the U.S. embassy in Canberra, which is a platform for
protecting U.S. influence and U.S. interests and U.S. ideals
across the Pacific.
Palau is strategic. The map does not change. Palau was a
key strategic battle in 1944, the battle of Peleliu, and the
geography remains the same. It is a bastion, a stronghold of
American ideals and American values. It has a unique
relationship with the United States.
As the chairman noted, unfortunately it has been a victim
of bullying from the PRC in terms of turning off the spigot of
terrorism from the mainland China. Fortunately, Palau is
resolute, determined, and remains a strong supporter of the
U.S. relations with Israel. It is a key partner and recognizes
Taiwan.
And I will do my utmost, if confirmed as Ambassador, to
ensure that the strength of our relationship with Palau
continues long into the future.
Senator Gardner. This committee passed and the Congress
approved the Asia Reassurance Initiative Act. In the new
appropriations bill that we will be voting on later this week,
we appropriated about $2.5 billion for implementation of ARIA,
as well as the Indo-Pacific Strategy and related programs.
What does that kind of a resource and program authority
mean for Palau and others in the region?
Mr. Hennessey-Niland. Senator Gardner, ARIA is extremely
important. As Assistant Secretary David Stilwell testified
before this committee, it is very, very complementary to the
administration's National Security Strategy and to the Indo-
Pacific Strategy. And certainly now that there is funding in
the pipeline for ARIA, this administration and certainly I, if
confirmed as Ambassador, will want to work very closely with
this committee to ensure that we use the full gamut of tools
available under ARIA to assist with our foreign policy
objectives in the Western Pacific.
Senator Gardner. ARIA talks a lot about U.S. interests,
particularly countering some of the activities of China and
giving our allies in the region reasons to join the U.S.
economically from a national security perspective.
What do you see from your perspective in Australia and your
experiences in other places--what do you see China--their
efforts in Palau and other places--what do you see them doing
on a daily basis? What do you see this contested space like?
Mr. Hennessey-Niland. So it is a very good question.
And I would describe the Pacific as the front lines in this
competition with the PRC. As you have said, sir, I have served
there for a number of years in different positions in different
parts of the Pacific. But the challenge is the same. I think
the template, the game plan for the PRC remains the same. We
see it in Australia even, a strong democracy, a Five Eyes
partner, treaty ally of the United States.
And I think it is incumbent upon all of us as
representatives of this great country to push back, to compete,
and to confront when necessary, and to call out publicly when
appropriate, malign and malicious activities of the PRC.
Unfortunately from my perspective, sir, I see that taking place
across the Pacific, and it is our duty and obligation, I think,
as representatives of this great country to call out such
misbehavior and to support an international rules-based, norms-
based order.
Senator Gardner. The Senate passed the Taipei Act, which
was designed to help create a more strategic approach the U.S.
has around the world as it relates to Taiwan and to those
countries with relations to Taiwan, diplomatic relations,
recognition of Taiwan.
What does the Taipei Act mean to Palau? How can we continue
this effort? Palau has a strong relationship with Taiwan. Do
you want to talk about that a little bit more?
Mr. Hennessey-Niland. Certainly, sir. And as we discussed
this morning, if the Taipei Act becomes law, I think it would
be a very important contribution to supporting allies as Palau,
which has recognized and remains one of the countries that
continues to recognize Taiwan. Taiwan is an important partner
of the United States in the Pacific and, as we discussed this
morning, sometimes an under-utilized ally in the Pacific. And I
think we can do more with Taiwan to assist Pacific Island
nations such as Palau.
Senator Gardner. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Rubio. Senator Shaheen?
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning. Thank you all for being willing to consider
the nominations to these critical positions at this time in our
history. I appreciate your being here to answer our questions.
I want to begin with you, Ms. Shea. I want to bring to your
attention the case of a U.S. citizen and New Hampshire
resident, Amer Fakhoury. He is a constituent of mine. I know
people and have myself frequented his small business in Dover,
New Hampshire. So I appreciate his support in the Dover
community.
For those who are not familiar with this case, Mr. Fakhoury
has been detained in Lebanon since September, and there is
particular urgency now because he is very gravely ill with
lymphoma and is in serious need of treatment. The embassy in
Beirut has been very engaged in advocating on Mr. Fakhoury's
behalf, but so far we have been unable to persuade the Lebanese
government to grant his release on humanitarian grounds. Time
is of the essence, and as a long-time supporter of the U.S.-
Lebanon partnership, the last thing I would want to see is a
situation that complicates our relationship with Lebanon
because an American citizen who was being detained there has
died in Lebanese custody.
So, if confirmed, do you commit to working with the
Lebanese government towards a humanitarian solution in this
case and to keeping my office informed of this progress?
Ms. Shea. Yes, Madam Senator. I am familiar with the case.
I am aware that Ambassador Richard and others at the embassy
team have been heavily engaged, and I would commit myself, if
confirmed, to maintain that level of engagement. I view there
being no higher calling than to protect U.S. citizens overseas
when we are serving our country in our embassies. And I am
concerned about Mr. Fakhoury's wellbeing too. I would commit
myself to calling to make sure that he received the proper
medical care while he is in detention and advocating
strenuously for his release.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much. Obviously, the
situation is challenging in Lebanon right now because of the
unrest, and analysts suggest that it has reached a point of no
return where its politicians have to regain the confidence of
the people of Lebanon.
Can you talk about what you could do as Ambassador to help
support stability in Lebanon and to help getting a resolution
to some of the issues that the people of Lebanon have raised?
Ms. Shea. Thank you for the question.
I have been watching with great interest over the last 2
months as Lebanese people have taken to the streets exercising
their human rights, calling very rigorously for the government
to embrace very serious, very structured systematic reforms.
And the United States? administration stands with the people of
Lebanon as they demand their basic needs to be met by their
government. If confirmed, I would want to play a responsible
role.
The United States would want to be careful not to be seen
as interfering or intervening, but playing a supportive role in
respecting the role of citizens to make these basic demands of
their government. It really underscores for me, now that we
have seen some acts of violence over the last 3 days, the
urgency for the political leadership in Lebanon to listen to
these demands and to act on them. It is very clear what needs
to be done in terms of the kinds of reforms that people are
demanding, and there is a very clear road map that was laid out
in the CEDRE conference of 2018. If confirmed, I would try to
work with the political leaders to persuade them to embrace
these very much needed reforms.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much.
Ambassador Chapman, gender violence is an urgent human
rights issue that I think more and more we are becoming aware
of around the world. And under the Bolsonaro administration,
there have been allegations that his comments have increased
misogynistic behavior and dialogue. And I wonder if you have
any concerns about President Bolsonaro's commitment to
democracy and human rights, particularly the rights of women?
Ambassador Chapman. Thank you, Senator Shaheen. It is nice
to see you and thank you very much for that question.
Gender-based violence is a problem not only in Brazil, but
all throughout Latin America. I spent 3 and a half years in
Ecuador as Ambassador, and while I was there, as our mission
team, we decided to select only one social issue to concentrate
our efforts for our country team, and as a group we chose
gender-based violence because it touches on so many different
aspects of a society. So taking that knowledge and experience
of working on gender-based violence issues in Ecuador, I hope
to be able to replicate that in Brazil.
There are many roots, many causes for gender-based
violence. Sometimes it is women who feel trapped, that they
cannot economically support themselves if they were to get out
of a difficult relationship. We sponsored a very successful
women's entrepreneurship program in Ecuador and saw how
beneficial that was for gender-based violence. So I would hope
that in Brazil, I would be able to take some of the lessons
that I learned personally and my mission learned personally in
Ecuador--and you have somebody on your staff who was a part of
that process, your Pearson Fellow. Wonderful to see her.
So it is an opportunity I think for us to expand our
engagement in Brazil, look for new solutions. And the U.S. has
a lot of offer here. I think constructive engagement, again
having frank conversations, not being afraid to hold them, and
then look for solutions that are practical, implementable, and
that go beyond rhetoric is really the key to achieving
demonstrable success.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Another area that has been controversial during the
Bolsonaro administration has been his rather cavalier response
to the fires in the Amazon and the environmental degradation
that has resulted. Can you talk about to what extent you could
work with the Bolsonaro administration and what we can do as
Americans and as people concerned about our global environment
to support efforts in Brazil to protect the environment?
Ambassador Chapman. Yes. Clearly the environment is an
important element of our U.S. agenda in the country of Brazil.
I will repeat myself just a little bit from some earlier
comments made that we do have a very constructive agenda right
now with the Brazilians. We have a USAID program for $80
million over an 8-year period to promote conservation in the
Amazon. We have a $100 million social impact fund that was just
launched with this government that we are very hopeful the
private sector is going to be able to find sustainable ways to
develop the Amazon. We are good at this. We know how to do
this. And I think by engaging the Bolsonaro government, we can
provide some alternatives. But, again, it is important that we
have that constructive dialogue, that it be one that they
believe that we are on the same side. We all want the same
thing. We want to see the Amazon prosper for generations, and I
think the U.S. has a role to play.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. I agree. Several years ago,
actually when I was Governor, we had a group of Brazilians come
up, sponsored by one of our federal agencies. And we were
connecting them with people who were working on water and
sewage treatment initiatives, small businesses. And it was a
very successful pairing, and it is the kind of thing that we
want to encourage and try and do more of. So thank you for your
response.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Rubio. Thank you.
Senator Kaine?
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And congratulations to the nominees. You all have
impressive public service backgrounds. And, Ms. Shea, you give
hope to Pearson Fellows everywhere like this one.
[Laughter.]
Senator Kaine. He may amount to something one day.
[Laughter.]
Senator Kaine. The Pearson Fellow program has been
magnificent. J.C. Jaine is my Pearson Fellow right now, and
they have served the members and the committee so well.
I missed some of the Q and A because of an Armed Services
hearing, but I want to start with you, Ms. Shea, on Lebanon.
There has been controversy recently about the U.S.
relationship with the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) just because
there was a hold on funds that has since been released. But
share your perspective on the importance of the U.S.-LAF
relationship. And if there are issues where we want to
encourage them to do better, how can we and what would your
approach be to that?
Ms. Shea. Thank you for the question, Mr. Senator.
The United States has invested a lot in the Lebanese armed
forces trying to build up its capacity and its professionalism
over the last 13-plus years. And as a result of this
investment, we see now that the Lebanese armed forces are
securing Lebanon's border with Syria whereas in the past, there
were deadly incursions from ISIS fighters. They have worked
with us and under our mentorship on a military-to-military
basis. And we are very pleased with the investment that we are
making, and we see further potential for development in the
professionalization of the army.
I would also want to credit the Lebanese armed forces for
playing a largely responsible role as these protests have gone
on for the last 2 months, actually cordoning off peaceful
protesters and protecting them from armed thugs who came out to
harass and intimidate and perpetrate acts of violence against
them on behalf of Hezbollah or Amal. So this is very much in
keeping with the kind of doctrine that our military officers
have been imparting to them.
Senator Kaine. Can I ask your perspective as someone who
has spent a lot of time in the region? If we look at protests
in Lebanon, Iraq, and Iran, are there underlying similarities,
or are they so country-specific that you cannot generalize
about the similarities in these protests?
Ms. Shea. Well, Mr. Senator, there are probably some common
threads. I myself feel a little bit limited in my ability to
extend analogies beyond my immediate purview here, but I know
my colleague, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Joey Hood,
addressed this committee on December 4th looking at just this
very phenomenon of protests.
What I would offer is that I believe it represents an
opportunity for, as my colleague on the panel was saying,
constructive U.S. engagement. How these citizens of these
countries present their demands to their elected governments,
how they advocate for the reforms that they want to see and the
services that they rightfully deserve as citizens is really
their call. But we can support their exercise of their basic
human rights in doing so and call out others who malign them,
who attack them violently, and we can call for their
protection.
Senator Kaine. Mr. Hennessey-Niland, I have not been to
Palau, but it is a small nation spread over hundreds of islands
and it is very vulnerable to climate issues. Talk a little bit
about what work you have done in the past that might deal with
environmental threats and then how you would bring that to bear
in trying to assist Palau from the United States' perspective,
should you be confirmed.
Mr. Hennessey-Niland. Thank you, Senator Kaine, and it is
an important issue.
I have had the good fortune of visiting Palau once before,
but I have had extensive service in the Pacific. We addressed
environmental concerns years ago when I was the Political
Economic Chief in Suva, Fiji. It was also actually a matter of
concern for the U.S. military when I was the foreign policy
advisor with the Marine Corps forces in the Pacific because for
Pacific island states, this is a serious concern. And the U.S.
government recognizes that climate change and environmental
degradation are serious concerns, in particular for small
Pacific island nations.
These issues were highlighted most recently at the Pacific
Islands Forum summit just a few months ago in Tuvalu. It is
something that in my current position as the Political
Counselor and Acting Deputy Chief of Mission in Australia we
talk to the Australian government a lot because Australia is a
key partner of the United States addressing environmental
challenges in the Pacific. And the U.S. has sought to support a
balanced approach to addressing these concerns, to protect the
environment on the one hand and to promote economic development
on the other. And both are essential for prosperity and
security and stability of these small Pacific economies.
Senator Kaine. We need not pitch them as being a choice,
one against the other.
Mr. Hennessey-Niland. No. They are both necessary.
Senator Kaine. I remember having Secretary Perry before us
in the Armed Services Committee to talk about the work that the
DOE does on the nation's nuclear reactors, and we were talking
about his experiences as Governor of Texas and the work that
they did on alternative energy, wind and solar, in Texas was
great for the environment and it was tremendously impactful in
a good way on the Texas economy. So we can hit the balance
where we are achieving both goals.
Mr. Hennessey-Niland. I completely agree, sir.
Senator Kaine. Dr. Wright, I want to ask you. My son was
deployed in Tanzania as part of AFRICOM as a marine, and we do
an awful lot of mil-to-mil cooperation with nations, including
Tanzania. Talk a little bit about the importance of mil-to-mil
relations with the country and how you would work to continue
to have the U.S. be a good security partner of choice for the
government of Tanzania.
Dr. Wright. Thank you, Senator, for that important
question.
It is true that the security concerns are one of the bright
spots in our bilateral relationship with Tanzania. There are
multiple examples of where we have worked very effectively with
the host government. In the area of peacekeeping and U.N.
peacekeeping forces, there has been a great deal of success.
Certainly maritime security is another area that there has been
good success between the two countries.
And then in the area of wildlife conservation, something
that is very important, certainly the park systems within
Tanzania and the animals that inhabit them is one of the crown
jewels of Tanzania and they need to be protected. There have
been some transnational criminal elements that have used
poaching as a means to raise funds for their activities. And I
am very proud of the work that the U.S. government has done in
training those anti-trafficking individuals. They work very
closely with the Tanzanian wildlife management agency and
provided them skills that they need to be effective from air
land reconnaissance to patrolling to weapons, et cetera, et
cetera.
So there is a very strong security bilateral relationship
between the two countries, and I will continue to pursue that,
if I am confirmed.
Senator Kaine. Excellent. Thank you.
And just lastly, Ambassador Chapman, I am not going to
repeat the question that Senator Shaheen asked about the
Amazon. I think many of us are very concerned about that, and
it is tied a little bit to us. The trade issues that are
leading to the complete drop-off of soybean exports from the
United States into China has led China to look for other
markets, and some of the deforestation in the Amazon is being
done to clear to grow soybeans as China looks to Brazil as a
soybean exporter. So you have already sort of answered the
question, but I just want to encourage you to focus
significantly on that issue, should you be confirmed.
Ambassador Chapman. Will do, Senator. Thank you.
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Rubio. Thank you.
Let me just start with Brazil. I am not sure there is
anything you can do about it in the short term, but I wanted to
bring an issue to your attention. Back in October of this year,
the ranking member of this full committee, Senator Menendez,
and I sent a letter to the Treasury and it was in regards to a
Brazilian-based company, conglomerate, by the name of JBS. And
they have become increasingly active in the American food
sector. In fact, they are the world's largest meat processing
company with major holdings across the country. They purchased
the beef and pork processing company, Swift Food. Then they
acquired the beef processing operations of Smithfield Foods in
2009. They obtained the majority of the poultry processing
operations of Pilgrim Pride, and they purchased Cargill's pork
processing operations in 2015.
Here is the problem. JBS, which has been increasingly
involved in the U.S. market, has been implicated in a wide
range of illicit activities in Brazil. The company, J&F
Investimentos, which owns 40 percent of JBS, in fact reached a
settlement. They paid $3.2 billion in fines for its role in a
bribery scandal in Brazil. The head of that settlement, the
owners of that company, Joesley and Wesley Batista, who happen
to be the sons of the founder of JBS, admitted to bribing more
than 1,800 Brazilian politicians in the amount totaling more
than $150 million in order to illicitly acquire loans and
financing from the Brazilian Development Bank.
The problem is that those loans and that financing, this
ill-gotten financing, that it received, which totaled more than
$1.3 billion--they used it to acquire these American companies
that I just outlined. In fact, there have been reports that the
Justice Department has opened an investigation into this
company for potential violations of foreign corrupt practices.
But that underscores our concerns, but it also points to
the fact that this company has conducted business with a number
of dubious partners which include the so-called Venezuelan
Corporation of Foreign Trade, which is identified by FINCEN in
September of 2017 in public corruption. And we have seen
investigative reporting that has documented how the Batista
brothers' personal relationship with a drug lord by the name of
Diosdado Cabello in Venezuela also raised these concerns.
So I only raise it because this is an issue that I hope
will come to a head and that we are focused with. And I imagine
that the issue would be raised in our embassy.
I think there is a lot of awareness in Brazil about the
tri-border area, the area that links Paraguay, Argentina, and
Brazil, to become a safe haven for organized crime and for
terrorist groups. That includes Hezbollah.
But the other concern that we talked about a little bit was
not that Brazil is a source country for terrorism because it
would not be necessarily, but they would be a transit point for
people seeking entry into the United States via Brazil, perhaps
purchasing false travel documents and the like.
What can we do to be good partners in that regard? How can
we further our work with the Brazilian government on that
potential counterterrorism threat?
Ambassador Chapman. Senator Rubio, on the first question of
JBS, I am aware of your letter, and this is something that our
government and the Brazilian government share an interest in is
rooting out corruption, rooting out private companies that are
bribing officials. So I do not know exactly where this
particular issue stands, but if confirmed, I will be following
up with the Department of the Treasury and Department of
Justice to understand where that particular case might be.
On the tri-border area, an area that has long been a
bastion for organized crime and ill-doing, fortunately in
recent months, we have been able to increase our cooperation
with Brazil and with Argentina and Paraguay to look together at
how U.S. law enforcement can increase our cooperation and come
up with more lasting solutions. Hezbollah has not yet been
designated as a terrorist organization by the government of
Brazil. They have passed legislation that might permit them to
do so and are working now in implementing regulations. Of
course, Argentina and Paraguay have already done so. So this
will be a point of follow-up.
But I do see that law enforcement cooperation, which is
already extremely good is an area where we can expand in the
coming months and years.
Senator Rubio. Thank you.
Mr. Hennessey-Niland, I am not asking you to do anything
about it, but I too need the Steelers to lose that game because
the Dolphins hold their first round pick next year, and the
worse the Steelers do, the better the pick is. I am not saying
that is in any way linked to your nomination.
[Laughter.]
Senator Rubio. But if you would put in a good word.
So anyway, on Palau, China has been, obviously, putting a
lot of pressure. We saw the tourism package ban that they had.
We have seen their offers to supplement and/or replace U.S.
assistance and so forth. And we have seen it play to some
results in places like the Solomon Islands and Kiribati which
broke off ties with Taiwan. The Taiwan issue is a concern. The
broader concern is obviously the presence in that region for
geopolitical purposes and to leverage out the United States'
ability to be present in the Pacific and the Western Pacific
region.
And the particular concern now with Palau is that there are
these reports of these high profile politicians who also happen
to be involved in a hotel project with Chinese partners who are
reportedly now becoming advocates for switching recognition
from Taiwan to China.
So we go to these countries and we say you should not do
this because. What is the ?because,? number one? What is the
argument? Why is it not in their interest? They are going to
argue we need investment. They provide all this money that
would make us look good but also would help our economies. And
they argue you have nothing comparable to replace it with. So
what is the argument that we make to governments like this
particularly, if confirmed, that you would make as to why sort
of not just switching recognition but accepting this Chinese
largesse is bad for the long-term security and wellbeing of
Palau?
Mr. Hennessey-Niland. Thank you, Chairman Rubio. I very
much appreciate the question.
It is the issue that we focus on every single day across
the Pacific. There is a nexus of issues in that question. One
is corruption, and unfortunately corruption is rife across
these vulnerable small economies and governments. And
governance is an issue that the United States prioritizes in
our discussions and our negotiations with the Pacific island
nations. It is a key part of the compact arrangements with our
three trust territories in the Pacific.
I think people focus sometimes on the opportunities
associated with the Chinese largesse. I think part of our job
is to point out some of the risks associated with those same
so-called lucrative investments. The Chinese game plan has been
to push wherever they can. I think we have to be responsive,
present, and committed to pushing back when appropriate. I
think there is no equivalence between the PRC and the United
States. What the U.S. and its like- minded partners across the
Pacific offer is not corruption or bribery. What we offer is a
sustained commitment to these island nations, working with them
productively, constructively to ensure that they have
democratic systems in place that benefit their people. It is a
daily struggle.
Fortunately in the case of Palau, Palau has been resolute
in maintaining its support for Taiwan. It has been resolute in
supporting U.S. objectives and relations with Israel. That is
not to say that there are not certain politicians and certain
business people who would like to flip that arrangement. And if
confirmed as Ambassador to Palau, it would be my daily duty to
do my very best to ensure that we have the closest possible
relationship with Palau and its people.
Senator Rubio. And, Dr. Wright, I have a similar question
about Tanzania. They have longstanding political, trade, and
military ties with China. But we know that as China continues
to try to expand its reach in Africa as well, it oftentimes
comes at the expense of our relationship. What is our counter-
argument to those efforts as they seek to both gain unfair
access to natural resources and economic ties and military
ties? What is the argument we make to nations about the danger
involved in accepting that largesse?
Dr. Wright. Thank you, Senator, for that very important
question not only for Tanzania but for the entire African
continent.
Let me say that the Chinese have a long vested interest in
Tanzania going back to the 1970s when they actually built the
railroad from Dar es Salaam into Zambia, and they have had
ongoing interactions with the Tanzanian government since that
period of time.
I would also like to point out that there is a very
lopsided trade imbalance between China and Tanzania. The United
States is much more on equal footing as it relates to
reciprocal trade.
To your question of what our strategy should be moving
forward, well, I think first and foremost as Ambassador and as
an embassy, there needs to be transparency. We need to point
out that sometimes short-term gain is not worth long- term
indebtedness. In addition to that, I think we need to call out
some of the poor quality of projects that have been seen across
the globe that have been financed by the Chinese and, in
addition, point out that very frequently those projects do not
conform with environmental standards, do not conform with labor
standards, et cetera.
But that in and of itself I do not think is enough. We need
to talk about alternatives. And certainly funding through OPIC
and its successor organization I think is one thing that we can
point to moving forward that gives an option to a government
that is looking for a major infrastructure project.
And then lastly, I would have to say that I think it is
very important for us to utilize the allies in the region that
we have worked over decades to develop to address this
particular concern.
Senator Rubio. And finally, Ms. Shea, Lebanon is really a
complicated situation. I think there has been a lot of focus
today on the protests, and that is obviously relevant to
everything that is going on.
But beyond it, before the protests and for a long time,
there is the complication there that you have a nation state
and embedded within that nation state is a group in Hezbollah
which, by the way, has killed more Americans than any terror
group in the world except al Qaeda. And they are both part of
the government system, and then they also operate as semi-
autonomous from the government in areas that they control. And
then there is always the fear that, on the one hand, the way to
counter that is to strengthen the Lebanese armed forces and
Lebanese government. The flip side of it is there is a concern
that whatever it is we provide them could one day wind up in
the hands of Hezbollah and some of the loyalties that may exist
between members of the Lebanese armed forces towards Hezbollah.
And then adding to all that complexity is the real
possibility that at some point, because of Hezbollah's
increasing capabilities, I think at some point, unfortunately,
there is going to be another Israel-Hezbollah conflict. We hope
it is no time in the near future, but we can anticipate that
day arriving. The Israeli response could potentially not just
be against Hezbollah directly, but depending on how embedded
they are in the broader government, other areas of Lebanon that
are not traditionally associated with Hezbollah and thereby
triggering a much broader regional conflict. All of it--
obviously, we are only a day away from that conflict on any
given day of any week in any year that could spiral quickly out
of control.
So all that to say they picked a heck of a place for you to
go. Could you help us just to unwrap some of the thinking
involved in all this complexity and what the U.S. role is in
that regard?
Ms. Shea. Thank you for the multi-layered question, Mr.
Chairman.
I would identify with a bit of the paradigm of holding up
the Lebanese armed forces and other state institutions as a
counterweight effectively to Hezbollah. Hezbollah benefits when
the state is weak, when its state institutions are weak. So
this has been a longstanding enterprise of the U.S. government
to try to build up the professionalism and the capacity of the
Lebanese armed forces.
Now, of course, Hezbollah tries to exert influence in all
areas of society. And you are absolutely right that they might
try to portray themselves as a political party in one instance
or a social services provider in another. But we make no
mistake in identifying Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.
And it is the same leadership that exercises control over the
entirety of Hezbollah's operations. So we do not make any
distinction between Hezbollah's roles and we do not think
others should either. And we welcome it when other countries
also designate Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. If
confirmed, I will do everything in my power to continue that
trend.
I would like to speak to the Lebanese armed forces in terms
of their being recipients of U.S. military assistance. And I am
pleased to report that they have an exemplary track record in
using military assistance exactly in the way that it has been
intended as we have provided this assistance to them. Indeed,
they have zero incidents of leakage in our very rigorous end-
use monitoring of our military assistance. So our overall
strategy is to build up their capacity, to exercise checks and
balances through rigorous end-use monitoring, to maintain that
mentorship, and also maintain that line of control that
ultimately the Lebanese armed forces answers to the civilian
leadership of the country.
Senator Rubio. Thank you.
Senator Cardin, the ranking member, has some follow-up.
Senator Cardin. Let me just follow up with that, Ms. Shea.
First of all, thank you very much for coming in from Egypt just
to meet with us. It was very nice of you to make that trip. We
appreciate it.
You have already heard from our colleagues on the human
rights issues within Lebanon, which is a major concern, and you
and I had a chance to talk about it and we will be talking
about how our mission can assist the rights of the people in
that country.
We have also talked about the economic balance here, the
reforms that are necessary in Lebanon in order to be able to
get the type of economic assistance it needs for its economy to
grow versus the unrest it could cause in regards to how those
economic reforms are implemented. That is something again that
our mission needs to be actively engaged in order to deal with.
But I want to just ask one question and follow up on the
chairman's question. And there is a difference between leakage
from the Lebanese armed forces to terrorist organizations, and
another thing as to how the Lebanese armed forces respond to
security challenges within Lebanon and whether there is
infiltration from Iran or Hezbollah in regards to how the armed
forces are used. I understand your confidence in our helping
the capacity building of the Lebanese armed forces, but I just
want to express our concern with a country that has not a
strong central government as to the impact that the local
Hezbollah could have, encouraged by outside influences such as
Iran or coming through Syria.
So your response to that.
Ms. Shea. Thank you, Mr. Senator and Ranking Member. And I
also want to thank you for taking the time to meet with me to
discuss these issues.
You raise a very valid concern, and in identifying myself
with this project of working so consistently over the past
decade and more to help professionalize the Lebanese armed
forces, I am in no way suggesting that they be given a free
pass or that continuous review not always take place to make
sure that our assistance is bringing about the desired end
state that we intend for it to do.
Now, one thing that we can look at is how the Lebanese
armed forces have acted just in the past 2 months. I think we
might look at this as a bit of a test case, and on their own
volition, they came out and they protected those peaceful
protesters. So I think that was quite admirable of them, and it
could have been much more injurious to the protesters had they
not been there to play that role.
I think we need to be mindful and be skeptical. A proper
amount of skepticism is warranted to make sure that our
assistance continues to be used appropriately not just over the
short term but over the long term. And I believe that we have
the kind of partners in the Lebanese armed forces that we can
count on, but we will maintain that relationship to keep it
under constant review.
Senator Cardin. Thank you. Just be careful because the
track record of the country, particularly of outside influence,
is just very disappointing. It is a beautiful country. It has
got wealth, but its wealth has been taken away as a result of
the infiltration and Hezbollah.
Dr. Wright, your medical background--you are going to the
right country. Tanzania ranks one of the highest in HIV/AIDS,
one of the highest in mosquito-transmitted diseases, including
malaria. They have not built up the capacity that many other
African countries have built up.
How can our mission be helpful to build the type of
resiliency in Tanzania to deal with their health issues?
Dr. Wright. Thank you, Senator, for that question.
You are absolutely right. Health issues are front and
center within Tanzania. And we have over a decade of assistance
to Tanzania and the Tanzanian people trying to improve their
health outcomes.
And there are some positive bright spots in this process.
Through the PEPFAR program, a large number of the Tanzanian
people know their HIV status, and we now have 1.1 million
people on antiretroviral therapy. Granted, there is more work
to be done. There are a number of Tanzanians that do not know
their HIV status, and we need to press for more testing across
the country.
In the area of malaria, again through the President's
malaria initiative, I think there has been progress made over a
10-year period of time. The prevalence rate within Tanzania of
malaria has dropped 10 percent. So we are making progress. That
said, there are still 7 million cases of malaria in Tanzania
each and every year, and we need to focus on the prevention
side of the equation and that is what we have been doing:
insecticide impregnated bed nets, indoor spraying, and then I
think also focusing on vulnerable populations, in particular
pregnant women. We know having malaria during pregnancy is both
injurious to the mother, as well as to the child. I think that
there are efforts now to try with this foundation that the
United States has built over the last decade to encourage the
host government to begin to take more responsibility for the
health of their own people and continue the programs that we
have built a foundation for.
Senator Cardin. Thank you.
In human rights, Tanzania has really got significant
concern. Just recently they have been de-regulating political
parties. They did not have a free and fair election. There is
another one coming up that is unlikely--the jury is out, but it
could very well not pass international standards for free and
fair elections. The LGBT community is very much targeted and
discriminated against.
So how, if confirmed, will you be an advocate for the human
rights of the people of Tanzania based upon international
standards of human rights?
Dr. Wright. Thank you, Senator Cardin. It is a very timely
question.
I think historically the United States has had a very
strong bilateral relationship with Tanzania. That said, there
is no question that there has been a narrowing of the
democratic norms in the country over the last several years
with the deterioration of basic human rights. It is something
that needs to be addressed, that has been addressed by the
embassy, and certainly I am committed to addressing if I move
forward.
I think the policy, the strategy of the embassy has been
that we promote human rights for all Tanzanian citizens.
However, that said, there is a special focus on those
vulnerable populations. And the vulnerable populations would
include the LGBT community. It would include journalists in the
country, and it would include political opposition candidates.
What would be my strategy to deal with this issue, if I was
confirmed? Well, first and foremost, I am committed to you of
speaking both publicly and privately with the host government
about our concerns in this particular area. And I think they
need to be reminded that history tells us that it is the
countries that protect the human rights of their citizens that
are the most peaceful over the long term and the most
prosperous over the long term. So it is certainly in their best
interest to offer basic human rights to their citizens.
I do not think my voice is enough. Certainly I will partner
with like-minded missions within Tanzania, those that share our
views on human rights, so that we can speak with a united voice
on this very, very important topic.
In addition, certainly there are large elements of civil
society that need to be brought into the equation to continue
the dialogue. And if confirmed, I am committed to doing that.
And lastly I will tell you I think that the Ambassador has
the power of convening, and that is something that I will do
often to make sure that the dialogue on human rights remains
front and center.
Senator Cardin. I very much appreciate that comprehensive
answer, one which is to me the right blueprint for our mission.
For all four of the nominees, you have partners in the
United States Senate to advance American values of human
rights, good governance, democracy, et cetera. Recognize that
we want you to make progress, if confirmed, in each of your
missions on these goals. And we are here to work with you, and
we would appreciate being kept informed on how we can be
helpful by our actions. Sometimes it is resolutions that we
pass. Sometimes it is just our statements that we make on the
floor of the Senate. But please let us know how we can partner
with you to advance American values.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Rubio. Thank you.
We want to thank all of you for being here. Thank your
families for being here, particularly that those drove through
the night.
[Laughter.]
Senator Rubio. I do not have anybody in my family who would
drive through the night for anything.
[Laughter.]
Senator Rubio. So I think it is great.
But I want to thank all of you for being here.
The record will remain open for 48 hours.
And with that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted
to Hon. Todd C. Chapman by Senator Benjamin L. Cardin
Human Rights
Question. What are your most meaningful achievements to date in
your career to promote human rights and democracy? What has been the
impact of your actions?
Answer. As Ambassador to Ecuador from 2016 to 2019, I led Embassy
efforts to condemn government restrictions on press freedom and
repression of opposition political parties. I also launched the
Interfaith Dialogue Committee of Ecuador in my living room with
religious leaders from eight different faiths, coordinated on social
projects and proposed revisions to Ecuador's freedom of religion law. I
directed Embassy efforts to combat gender-based violence and organized
an international grouping of Ambassadors, U.N. Women, and others to
promote new legislation. As Charge d'Affaires in Mozambique, I spoke
out publicly against the government electoral authorities who were
manipulating the election process. Our efforts resulted in increased
scrutiny by the international electoral observation missions.
Question. What are the most pressing human rights issues in Brazil?
What are the most important steps you expect to take--if confirmed--to
promote human rights and democracy in Brazil? What do you hope to
accomplish through these actions?
Answer. The Department of State has expressed concern on a range of
priority human rights issues, including unlawful or arbitrary killings
by state police; harsh and sometimes life-threatening prison
conditions; violence against journalists; corruption; societal violence
against indigenous populations and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender,
and intersex persons; killings of human rights defenders; and slave
labor that may amount to human trafficking. The Department highlights
these concerns in the annual State Department Human Rights Report. I
plan to continue our constructive engagement with Brazil to promote
human rights and democracy, if confirmed.
Question. If confirmed, what are the potential obstacles to
addressing the specific human rights issues you have identified in your
previous response? What challenges will you face in Brazil in advancing
human rights, civil society, and democracy in general?
Answer. Our governments are enthusiastic and motivated to work
together, based on our shared values. While we do disagree on some
issues, Brazil sees the United States as its desired partner of choice,
a fact which presents us with the opportunity to engage across the
board. Potential obstacles remain, including various competing
interests within Brazil's large and diverse bureaucracy, historical
inertia that could slow enhanced engagement, and limited USG resources
with which to engage in large programs on human rights, including civil
rights, and democracy in general. Nevertheless, as I have done in
previous postings, I will make maximum use of what does exist, and be
active in the media drawing attention to these issues.
Question. Are you committed to meeting with human rights, civil
society, and other non-governmental organizations in the U.S. and with
local human rights NGOs in Brazil? If confirmed, what steps will you
take to pro-actively support the Leahy Law and similar efforts, and
ensure that provisions of U.S. security assistance and security
cooperation activities reinforce human rights?
Answer. If confirmed, I will encourage collaboration with civil
society, promote human rights, social inclusion, and discuss these
issues with Brazilian officials at the highest levels. I will meet with
such organizations in both Brazil and the United States, as I have done
during previous postings overseas. The United States seeks to provide
trainings and capacity building to the Brazilian federal and state
governments and local law enforcement agencies, when appropriate, on
effective law enforcement techniques that respect human rights.
Supporting the implementation of the Leahy Law is an important tool in
this endeavor, and I will make doing so a priority.
Question. Will you and your embassy team actively engage with
Brazil to address cases of key political prisoners or persons otherwise
unjustly targeted by Brazil?
Answer. The United States and Brazil work closely to ensure
liberty, democracy, and human rights are upheld in our countries, our
hemisphere, and around the world. I am unaware of any political
prisoners in Brazil. If confirmed, I commit to constructive engagement
with Brazilian officials at the highest levels to uphold human rights.
Question. Will you engage with Brazil on matters of human rights,
civil rights, and governance as part of your bilateral mission?
Answer. The Department of State is vigilant in promoting respect
for human rights around the world and the United States condemns any
violations or abuses of human rights. If confirmed, I will promote
collaboration with civil society and promote human rights, social
inclusion, and democratic values with Brazil at the highest levels. The
State Department will continue to promote human rights, collaboration
with civil society, and social inclusion with the Brazilian government,
at the highest levels, including via the new U.S.-Brazil Strategic
Partnership Dialogue, which was launched on September 13 of this year.
Violence Against Indigenous Brazilians
Question. Under President Bolsonaro's leadership, murders of
indigenous Brazilian activists have increased. Bolsonaro has reacted
dismissively to those who have drawn attention to the issue, responding
to a critical tweet from Swedish youth climate activist Great Thunberg
by saying ``Greta said the Indians died because they were defending the
Amazon (forest). How can the media give space to a brat like that?''
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to meeting with
representatives of the indigenous community, press, civil society, and
government regarding these issues. If confirmed, I will ensure that the
Mission continues to stay true to our values and principles and speaks
out on the issues that are important to U.S. foreign policy and to us
as a nation.
Question. How will Embassy staff under your leadership, if
confirmed, work to report on and otherwise draw attention to violence
facing Brazil's indigenous populations?
Answer. I have demonstrated throughout my career, and most recently
as Ambassador in Ecuador, that I steadfastly support human rights,
including the rights of persons in minority and vulnerable populations.
If confirmed, I commit to promote human rights with all levels of the
Brazilian government and to actively engage with civil society to
uphold fundamental freedoms. For example, the Department of State
highlights threats against indigenous peoples annually as part of the
Human Rights Report. If confirmed, I will ensure that Embassy staff
continue to closely follow and report on indigenous issues, including
violence and human rights issues.
Diversity
Question. Research from private industry demonstrates that, when
managed well, diversity makes business teams better both in terms of
creativity and in terms of productivity. What will you do to promote,
mentor, and support your staff that come from diverse backgrounds and
underrepresented groups?
Answer. The Department of State strives to recruit, retain, and
sustain a diverse, talented, and inclusive workforce that is prepared
to advance U.S. national security interests and American values in
every corner of the world. I am fully committed to building a workforce
that reflects our nation's diversity and leverages the creativity of
diverse, talented groups to advance America's foreign policy
priorities. It is my standard practice to recruit a diverse team and to
promote a diversity of backgrounds in my senior staff and I commit to
continuing this practice in Brazil.
Question. What steps will you take to ensure each of the
supervisors at the Embassy are fostering an environment that is diverse
and inclusive?
Answer. To represent the United States to Brazil, and to countries
around the world, our Embassies overseas must have a workforce that
reflects the rich composition of our citizenry. If confirmed, I commit
to an inclusive workplace in which every employee is treated with
dignity and respect and feels empowered to serve the American people. I
will outline my expectations clearly to my Country Team members, hold
them accountable, and lead by example.
Conflicts of Interest
Question. Do you commit to bring to the committee's attention (and
the State Department Inspector General) any change in policy or U.S.
actions that you suspect may be influenced by any of the President's
business or financial interests, or the business or financial interests
of any senior White House staff?
Answer. Should I have any such concerns, I will raise them with the
appropriate authorities, including this committee and the State
Department Inspector General, as determined by the Department of State
and U.S. law.
Question. Do you commit to inform the committee if you have any
reason to suspect that a foreign government, head of state, or foreign-
controlled entity is taking any action in order to benefit any of the
President's business or financial interests, or the interests of senior
White House staff?
Answer. Yes, I do. As outlined in the State Department professional
ethos inaugurated in 2019 by Secretary Pompeo, I pledge to proudly
serve the United States and the American people, support and defend the
Constitution of the United States, and to act with uncompromising
personal and professional integrity.
Question. Do you or do any members of your immediate family have
any financial interests in Brazil?
Answer. We do not.
Corruption
Question. How do you believe political corruption impacts
democratic governance and the rule of law generally, and in Brazil
specifically?
Answer. Brazil has taken strong steps in recent years to address
corruption at all levels. There have been wide-ranging consequences to
the criminal conduct in various major companies, including Petrobras,
Odebrecht, and Braskem, which have paid billions of dollars in
penalties for their violations of anti-bribery provisions of our
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or FCPA. Corruption undermines
democratic stability, economic growth, and security, and the Department
of State is committed to strengthening the ability of governments and
their citizens to promote transparency, accountability, and integrity.
Question. What is your assessment of corruption trends in Brazil
and efforts to address and reduce it by that government?
Answer. Fighting corruption promotes democratic rule of law,
economic growth and stability, transnational security, and citizen
hopes for a better life. The United States supports Brazil's efforts to
combat corruption and impunity. Brazil has been one of the region's
leaders in addressing corruption, and the hallmark ``Lava Jato,'' or
``Car Wash,'' anti-corruption case has had reverberations throughout
the hemisphere. I applaud Brazilian investigators and prosecutors for
their commitment to rooting out corruption, and for their international
cooperation. The fight against corruption, however, is always an
ongoing effort, and, as always, more work remains to be done.
Question. If confirmed, what steps will you take to strengthen good
governance and anticorruption programming in Brazil?
Answer. Cooperation between U.S. and Brazilian law enforcement is
an important tool in combatting corruption and supporting good
governance. Our U.S.-Brazil Permanent Security Forum brings together
law enforcement officials from both our countries to work together. The
United States encourages Brazilian efforts to maintain a strong,
capable, and autonomous financial intelligence unit that complies with
international standards and obligations with regards to combatting
money laundering, terrorist financing, and countering the proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction. Finally, the United States will
continue to apply all tools available to hold corrupt actors
accountable, including publicly denying entry to known current and
former corrupt officials and their immediate family members.
Political Situation and Latin America Protests
Question. Latin America is experiencing a wave of changes in the
geopolitical landscape, including elections in Argentina, an interim
government in Bolivia, and protests in countries from Chile to
Nicaragua. President Bolsonaro has called the protests in Chile,
Colombia, and beyond ``terrorist acts,'' and asked the National
Congress for the authority to use the military to stop any violence
that might arise. On the other hand, former Brazilian president Luiz
Inacio Lula da Silva has actually encouraged his followers to ``follow
the example of the people of Chile [and] Bolivia.''
How concerned are you that a large protest movement could develop
in Brazil?
Answer. Freedom of expression is indispensable to a vibrant,
functioning democracy, as is the ability to debate and protest
peacefully. Brazil's democratic institutions are strong, especially its
vigorous free press, organized civil society, and independent
judiciary, but also its electoral process. Brazil has a long history of
peaceful public and civil society activism that has often promoted
beneficial change within the country.
Question. How do you anticipate Bolsonaro would respond to unrest?
Answer. Brazil's democratic institutions, free press, organized
civil society, and independent judiciary have demonstrated integrity
and independence in their efforts to uphold human rights. Self-
expression through elections and peaceful public assembly remains a
vital aspect of human rights in a democratic society, and those in
Brazil have exercised their rights of freedom of expression, peaceful
assembly, and for citizens, their right to vote both before and after
the election of President Bolsonaro last year. I have no reason to
anticipate that President Bolsonaro would act in any way which is not
fully consistent with Brazilian laws and security norms.
Question. If confirmed, how will you promote human rights in Brazil
and in the hemisphere more broadly?
Answer. The Department of State is vigilant in promoting respect
for human rights around the world and the United States condemns any
violations or abuses of human rights. As the two largest democracies in
the hemisphere, Brazil is a valued partner in advancing human rights
regionally. I have shown throughout my career that I strongly support
human rights and fundamental freedoms, and if confirmed, I will promote
these fundamental American values at the highest levels.
Question. While Bolsonaro was member of Congress, Human Rights
Watch argues that he endorsed torture and other abusive practices, and
unapologetically made openly racist, homophobic and misogynist
statements. A poll conducted in 2018 by the Pew Research Center found
that 83% of Brazilians were not satisfied with the way democracy was
working in their country. How do you anticipate President Bolsonaro's
concerning human rights record has, and will continue to, impact
bilateral relations?
Answer. As the two largest democracies in the hemisphere, the
United States and Brazil are deepening our cooperation across a range
of areas, including promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Brazil's democratic institutions, especially its vigorous free press,
organized civil society, and independent judiciary, have demonstrated
integrity and independence in upholding human rights. Secretary of
State Pompeo raised the issue of human rights with Brazilian Foreign
Minister Ernesto Araujo during his January 2019 visit to Brazil, and
the Minister reaffirmed Brazil's commitment to defending human rights.
Question. If confirmed, how will you seek to address concerns
surrounding Bolsonaro's commitment to democracy and human rights?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to meeting with
representatives of civil society and government regarding human rights
issues. We will continue to stay true to our values and principles and
speak out on the issues that are important to U.S. foreign policy and
to us as a nation.
Environment
Question. I am very concerned with President Bolsonaro's apparent
disregard for the Amazon rainforest. In September, I, along with many
of my Senate colleagues, sent one letter to William Popp, the current
Charge d'Affaires in Brazil, and a second letter to Secretary Pompeo,
Secretary Mnuchin, and Administrator Green requesting a more
substantial response to the fires there. The Amazon rainforest in
Brazil lost an area about 12 times the size of New York City from
August 2018 through July of this year, according to data recently
released by Brazil's National Institute for Space Research. I am also
extremely concerned at reports of indigenous communities being harmed
in their attempts to protect the rainforest.
If confirmed as Ambassador, how high would you rank efforts to
reduce deforestation in the Amazon and decrease greenhouse gas
emissions among your other priorities for Brazil?
Answer. Brazil and the United States face very similar
environmental challenges and have been collaborating and sharing our
experiences and best practices. The Department's Bureau of Oceans and
International Environmental and Scientific Affairs (OES) works with our
technical agencies to address environmental challenges, including the
environmental impact of projects, water quality, wildfires, protecting
nature, and combatting wildlife trafficking. Examples include the EPA,
the U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, and NOAA. If confirmed, I look forward to continuing this
constructive engagement with the Brazilian government, civil society,
Amazon communities, and the private sector.
Question. How could the United States and Brazil enhance bilateral
cooperation on environmental issues, especially considering the U.S.
withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accords?
Answer. The Department of State, USAID, and other U.S. government
departments and agencies provide funding to help partners around the
world address deforestation and wildfires through ongoing programs,
including technical partnerships in Brazil. The United States continues
to work with Brazil on investment in healthy forests, creating
incentives to protect these critical natural resources. Brazil and the
United States are both active parties to several multilateral
environmental agreements such as the U.N. Framework Convention on
Climate Change, the International Convention for the Regulation of
Whaling, and the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered
Species. If confirmed, I look forward to continuing this important
work.
Question. How should Brazil be held accountable for abuses against
environment defenders and for not conserving the Amazon if, as the
Brazilian government claims, the area would be best used for economic
development?
Answer. Our ongoing work in the Amazon region strategically
leverages private sector resources and innovation in developing
partnerships with government, private sector, and civil society to
achieve shared objectives. For example, USAID has a multi-year, $80
million bilateral agreement, the Partnership for Conservation of Amazon
Biodiversity (PCAB). The PCAB has strengthened management of 66
protected areas covering 37 million hectares in the Amazon. The United
States has also convened key actors to organize a new private sector
led $100 million biodiversity-focused impact-investment fund for the
Brazilian Amazon, which was launched in November 2019.
Trade and Bilateral Relations
Question. Jair Bolsonaro was nicknamed the ``Trump of the Tropics''
during his Presidential campaign. While in office, he has made it a
priority to foster a close relationship with President Trump and has
attempted to align Brazil's foreign policy with that of the U.S.
However, earlier this month, President Trump turned his trade war
toward Brazil by announcing that he would reinstate tariffs on aluminum
and steel imports from the country.
How has the announcement impacted bilateral relations? When do you
expect the tariffs to take effect? What other ramifications of
this announcement do you anticipate?
Answer. Brazil and the United States share a significant and
growing economic relationship that promotes prosperity in both our
countries. The United States is working with President Bolsonaro's
government to enhance the prosperity of both our countries, seeking
deeper trade and investment in energy, agriculture, technology,
healthcare, and infrastructure. The administration continues to promote
fair and reciprocal trade globally. Recognizing the importance of the
steel and aluminum industries for both our countries, and the strategic
bilateral relationship between the United States and Brazil, President
Trump announced he would not impose tariffs on steel and aluminum
imports from Brazil.
Question. How does this announcement impact the near-term prospects
for concluding a formal agreement such as a bilateral investment treaty
or a free trade agreement with Brazil?
Answer. The United States traded $103 billion worth of goods and
services in 2018. The United States is the top destination for
Brazilian exports of valued-added manufactured goods. Our countries
benefit from tens of billions of dollars in direct investment in both
directions, which supports thousands of jobs. And foreign direct
investment is substantial--the total stock of Brazilian direct
investment in the United States is valued at $39.8 billion (2018, UBO,
Commerce, BEA) and the total stock of U.S. investment in Brazil is
valued at $68.3 billion (2017, FP). Other agencies, including USTR and
Treasury, hold dialogues with Brazilian counterparts on trade and tax
matters, respectively, which the State Department participates in. If
confirmed, I look forward to continuing to expand our commercial and
investment partnership in the coming years.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted to Hon. Todd C. Chapman by Senator Ted Cruz
Question. The Tri-Border Area, formed by Paraguay, Argentina, and
Brazil, is a safe-haven for organized crime and terrorist groups,
including Hezbollah. As you know, Hezbollah has been designated a
terrorist organization by the United States, Argentina, and, most
recently, Paraguay. I have urged the Secretary of State to call on the
Tri-Border Area countries to blacklist Hezbollah. Soon after, on the
25th anniversary of the AMIA bombing--when the Iranian-backed group
carried out an attack on the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires--
Argentina formally designated Hezbollah a terrorist organization.
Paraguay followed suit and labeled Hezbollah less than a month later:
In your view, what is Hezbollah's operational role in Brazil?
Answer. While Hizballah has not conducted terrorist attacks in
Brazil, there is concern that Hizballah financiers, facilitators, and
sympathizers have been active in Brazil. Actions include soliciting
donations from sympathizers in the sizable Middle Eastern and diaspora
communities in the region and participating in activities like trade-
based money laundering (TBML) in the Tri-Border Area (TBA). Brazil
arrested Hizballah financier Assad Ahmad Barakat in September 2018, and
he continues to await extradition to Paraguay. The TBA hosts a multi-
billion-dollar contraband trade that includes money laundering, arms
and narcotics trafficking, TBML, smuggling, counterfeiting, and tax
evasion. Some of the laundered funds reportedly benefit Hizballah, but
the magnitude of TBA money that finances terrorist operations is
unclear.
Question. Can you commit to this committee that you will work with
your counterparts toward designating Hezbollah as a terrorist
organization?
Answer. Absolutely. Hizballah actively engages in the development
of infrastructure that can support terrorist activities and associated
criminal schemes throughout the Western Hemisphere. Financiers,
facilitators, and sympathizers of Hizballah operate throughout the
region, including the tri-border area (TBA) of Argentina, Brazil, and
Paraguay. This dynamic is becoming increasingly understood throughout
our Hemisphere, and as Brazil's neighbors one by one continue to
designate Hizballah, there are fewer and fewer excuses for Brazil to
refrain from doing so. We will not only continue to engage with Brazil,
but also assist Brazil in establishing an effective domestic
designations regime enabling Brazil to freeze the assets of terrorist
actors and entities.
Question. At the July 2019 Western Hemisphere Counterterrorism
Ministerial, there was agreement by the United States, Argentina,
Brazil, and Paraguay to establish a new regional security initiative to
address the threats and gaps that transnational illicit actors,
including terrorists groups, are exploiting:
This is welcome news. How do you plan to keep this momentum going
in order to address and target such illicit activity? What role
can the U.S. play in coordinating efforts to thwart
transnational crime and terrorist-financing networks operating
in the Tri-Border Area?
Answer. We work in three areas to combat Transnational criminal
organizations (TCOs): operations, capacity building, and policy, where
we engage to promulgate the effective implementation of the
international standards on Anti-Money Laundering/Combating the
Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT). Ongoing initiatives with Brazil and
its neighbors include the U.S.-Brazil Permanent Security Forum, which
facilitates law enforcement cooperation, training and mentoring.
Arrests and seizures have increased, information is shared more
quickly, and domestic interagency collaboration has improved, including
a new fusion center in the Brazil-Argentina-Paraguay tri-border area
(TBA). These efforts strengthen compliance with international standards
and obligations, as well as increase investigations, prosecutions, and
convictions. U.S.-implemented workshops have resulted in several
arrests and extraditions of money launderers and Hizballah supporters.
U.S.-Brazil Space Cooperation
Question. The United States and Brazil are seeking to strengthen
our bilateral commercial relationship--and there is much to be
optimistic about, particularly the new bilateral commercial space
launch agreement, which was signed earlier this year, and ratified by
Brazil's Senate last month. This agreement opens the door for new
opportunities and advanced technologies transfers in both the civil and
commercial space sectors. However, I remain concerned that confusing
and burdensome U.S. bureaucracy and export controls are driving Brazil
into the arms of China and Russia at a crucial moment as they are, no
pun intended, trying to get their space program off the ground:
If confirmed how will you work to foster and grow the U.S.-Brazil
space relationship?
Answer. In recognition of the growing economic and strategic
importance of outer space activities and technologies, we are expanding
our cooperation with Brazil. The recent Brazilian ratification of the
Technology Safeguards Agreement (TSA) is a major step forward. This
agreement will unlock commercial opportunities for U.S. space
companies--including satellite and rocket launches in Brazil--as well
as opening the door for other space-related cooperation between U.S.
and Brazilian space companies. If confirmed, I will ensure our Mission
to Brazil remains actively engaged with the Brazilian government as
well as the U.S. interagency to ensure U.S space companies do not miss
the opportunity to become the partner of choice for Brazil's nascent
space program.
Question. What can you do, and what will you commit to doing, to
make it easier for U.S. commercial space companies to operate in Brazil
and, conversely, for the government of Brazil and Brazilian businesses
to view the U.S. as the default partner on all things space?
Answer. As Ambassador, I would work closely with the Commerce
Department's Foreign Commercial Service, and other interagency
partners, to maintain open lines of communication with U.S. commercial
space companies to address obstacles to investment and help facilitate
U.S. company commercial success in Brazil. I will also work with Brazil
to support their efforts to ensure that the Alcantara facility--which,
following the recent ratification of the Technology Safeguards
Agreement (TSA), now has authorization to host U.S. satellite
launches--has the necessary infrastructure to make it an attractive
option for U.S. companies.
Countering China's Investment in Brazil
Question. As you know, China is Brazil's number one trading
partner. President Bolsonaro has previously said ``China isn't buying
in Brazil. China is buying Brazil:''
I have deep concern that Brazil, who is now a major non-NATO ally,
will be lobbied by China's Huawei to build a 5G network. Do you
share this concern? And if so, are you committed to working
with your colleagues to convey to Brazilian counterparts the
national security risks of accepting Chinese-manufactured
telecommunications equipment, and 5G technology from Huawei?
Answer. The Department of State is actively engaging governments,
including Brazil, to support informed decision-making when procuring
new technologies, bearing in mind information and communications
technology (ICT) networks are an attractive target for foreign
adversaries and malicious actors. The United States is working with
partners and allies to raise awareness about the true costs and
implications of using untrusted telecom equipment vendors, which
include widespread national security risks and interoperability issues,
as well as ways procurement decisions today can have serious long-term
impacts. We work closely with Brazil on digital economy and
cybersecurity issues and how best to advance our shared values and will
continue to do so.
Question. Most recently, two Chinese companies won rights to
develop major offshore oil deposits in an auction last month that was
reportedly very limited to other foreign companies. How would you
characterize the current relationship between Brazil and China?
Answer. Like all major global economies, Brazil has a complex
relationship with China. President Bolsonaro and Foreign Minister
Araujo have publicly expressed some skepticism of China but China is
also Brazil's largest trading partner and in recent years one of its
most significant sources of foreign investment. Over 90 percent of
Brazilian exports to China are for a few commodities (soy, petroleum,
metal ore, and wood pulp), while high-value Brazilian exports to China
have declined in recent years. Meanwhile, China exports many industrial
and household goods to Brazil, threatening a number of Brazilian
industries since China was admitted into the WTO in 2001. China's often
predatory and non-transparent behavior in Brazil and other parts of the
region is a serious concern. With very low domestic savings and
investment, most Brazilian economists advocate welcoming any form of
FDI, including large investments in Brazil's electricity
infrastructure. We also have shared with Brazil our experiences on
national security screening of foreign investment (CFIUS) and
encouraged the Brazilian government to develop a similar screening
mechanism.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted to Hon. Todd C. Chapman by Senator Edward J. Markey
Climate Science Special Report
Question. The United States Global Change Research Program issued a
Climate Science Special Report as part of the Fourth National Climate
Assessment, developed in conjunction with the Department of
Transportation and 12 other federal agencies. This report concluded
that ``human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are
the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th
century.''
Do you agree with this finding?
Answer. I have no reason to take fault with the findings of the
Climate Science Special Report of the Fourth National Climate
Assessment. The Department of State is one of thirteen federal agencies
that participate in the United States Global Change Research Program.
Climate change is one of many complex global challenges. The United
States is a world leader in protecting the environment and in reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. If confirmed, I will support these efforts
via a balanced approach that promotes economic growth and improves
energy security while protecting the environment.
The Amazon Rainforest
Question. The Amazon rainforest is approximately as large as the
contiguous United States-the largest tropical rainforest in the world
and the home of around a tenth of the planet's biodiversity. The health
of the Amazon is critical to the global climate, to indigenous groups
who depend upon its resources, and to the unique flora and fauna living
in the rainforest ecosystem. Around 65 percent of the Amazon rainforest
is within Brazil's borders:
If confirmed, would you commit to encouraging the Brazilian
government to enforce its rainforest conservation laws?
Answer. Yes, if confirmed, I will work with the Brazilian
government to assist in efforts to conserve the Amazon, including by
supporting Brazilian efforts to enforce its laws to protect the region.
Question. If confirmed, would you support Brazilian and
international civil society efforts to keep the public informed about
deforestation, wildfires, and unsustainable exploitation?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to meeting with
representatives of Brazilian and international civil society, in
addition to indigenous groups, the press, the Brazilian government, and
other stakeholders, regarding these issues and to ensure the public is
properly informed.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted
to John Hennessey-Niland by Senator Benjamin L.Cardin
Human Rights
Question. What are your most meaningful achievements to date in
your career to promote human rights and democracy?
Answer. My most meaningful achievements to date came during my
secondment heading a team working to obtain prosecutions at the
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the
International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. In this position, I
advanced human rights and justice for atrocity crimes--a role that
reflected the best of American values. If confirmed, I will promote
these values in Palau as well.
Question. What has been the impact of your actions?
Answer. As a result of my work and the work of other seconded U.S.
government colleagues with the International Criminal Tribunal for the
former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda,
the United States demonstrated U.S. commitment to international law and
the rule of law. Our work resulted in multiple convictions for war
crimes, bringing justice on behalf of countless victims.
Question. What are the most pressing human rights issues in Palau?
Answer. As stated in the most recent Department of State Human
Rights Report, there were no reports of egregious human rights abuses
in Palau. The government took steps in 2018 to prosecute officials who
committed abuses, although it did not punish any officials for
involvement in human trafficking offenses. Gender-based violence
remains a challenge. The most recent government-sponsored research
project on violence against women indicated that approximately 35
percent of women had experienced physical or sexual violence, or both,
since the age of 15. There are no shelters for victims of rape and
domestic violence.
Question. What are the most important steps you expect to take--if
confirmed--to promote human rights and democracy in Palau?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work through advocacy, outreach
programs, and cooperation with local NGOs to address corruption and
violence against women, and to increase women's political and economic
participation. I will work closely and constructively with government
officials and civil society actors in order to particularly address the
issue of trafficking in persons. These priorities are consistent with
the five program areas of the Indo-Pacific Transparency Initiative,
part of the Governance Pillar of our vision for a free and open Indo-
Pacific, which focus on anticorruption and fiscal transparency,
democracy assistance, youth and emerging leader development, media and
internet freedom, and fundamental freedoms and human rights.
Question. What do you hope to accomplish through these actions?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work to leverage available resources,
including working with other embassies, international organizations,
and local NGOs, to prevent and respond to gender-based violence and
corruption. I will look for opportunities to strengthen current
programs for judicial and law enforcement training. I will also work to
increase political and economic participation for women.
Question. If confirmed, what are the potential obstacles to
addressing the specific human rights issues you have identified in your
previous response?
Answer. Both corruption and gender-based violence remain
challenges. Palau's limited government resources and small population
(under 20,000) make it difficult to establish domestic violence
shelters and dedicate additional resources to address gender-based
violence. If confirmed, I will work to leverage available resources,
including with other embassies, international organizations, and local
NGOs, to prevent and respond to gender-based violence and corruption.
Question. What challenges will you face in Palau in advancing human
rights, civil society, and democracy in general?
Answer. Palau's limited government resources and small population
(under 20,000) make it difficult to advance some of these priorities.
If confirmed, I look forward to engaging civil society and the
government of Palau to advance human rights and democracy, in line with
the Indo-Pacific Transparency Initiative. As enshrined in our Compact
of Free Association, we share many of the same values as Palau, and I
will draw on this strong and long-standing partnership.
Question. Are you committed to meeting with human rights, civil
society, and other non-governmental organizations in the U.S. and with
local human rights NGOs in Palau?
Answer. Yes. I am committed to meeting with human rights, civil
society, and other non-governmental organizations in the U.S. and
Palau. Obtaining the views of civil society is essential to
understanding local conditions, supports democratic institutions and
respect for human rights, and informs U.S. foreign policy. Supporting a
rules-based and transparent order that advances democratic governance
and empowers civil society is a key goal of the administration and is
enshrined in our vision for a free and open Indo-Pacific. If confirmed,
I will continue the embassy's strong engagement with civil society.
Question. If confirmed, what steps will you take to pro-actively
support the Leahy Law and similar efforts, and ensure that provisions
of U.S. security assistance and security cooperation activities
reinforce human rights?
Answer. Palau does not have a military of its own. Under the
Compact, the United States has full authority and responsibility for
security and defense matters in or relating to Palau. To the extent
U.S. assistance is provided to Palau's law enforcement units, I am
committed to the effective implementation of the Leahy Law.
Question. Will you and your embassy team actively engage with Palau
to address cases of key political prisoners or persons otherwise
unjustly targeted by Palau?
Answer. There were no reports of political prisoners or detainees
in Palau. Should such a situation arise, I would, if confirmed, bring
U.S. concerns to the attention of the government at the highest levels.
Question. Will you engage with Palau on matters of human rights,
civil rights, and governance as part of your bilateral mission?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I will work with Palau to engage on
matters of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and governance. I
would also seek to exchange best practices between our governments.
Good governance is a core pillar of the U.S. vision for a free and open
Indo-Pacific. As part of the Indo-Pacific Transparency Initiative, the
United States, with allies and partners, will promote just,
transparent, and responsive governance through anti-corruption efforts
while encouraging strong civil society and honest business practices.
If confirmed, I will work with Palau to create the conditions needed to
unlock greater private investment, combat corruption, and secure Palau
from malign foreign influence. I would continue to promote
transparency, openness, rule of law, and the protection of human rights
and fundamental freedoms.
Diversity
Question. Research from private industry demonstrates that, when
managed well, diversity makes business teams better both in terms of
creativity and in terms of productivity.
What will you do to promote, mentor, and support your staff that
come from diverse backgrounds and underrepresented groups?
Answer. If confirmed, I would make strong mentoring relationships
an integral part of the Embassy culture for all staff, including those
from diverse backgrounds and underrepresented groups. I will promote
initiatives that support employee engagement, job satisfaction,
leadership development, increased teamwork, and inclusion. It is my
expectation that by doing so, workplace diversity, employee retention,
productivity, and morale will all improve.
Question. What steps will you take to ensure each of the
supervisors at the Embassy are fostering an environment that is diverse
and inclusive?
Answer. If confirmed, I will meet with the direct hire and local
staff in the Mission to determine whether there are areas where
inclusivity is perceived as lacking, review our Human Resources
processes to determine where and how we can mitigate unconscious
biases, and provide access to training that will support these efforts.
Based on the information gathered during my meetings, I would work with
my team to put a plan in place to correct any weaknesses or gaps. I
will work to create an embassy environment that fosters inclusion,
including by modeling this behavior and setting clear expectations for
supervisors about the importance of inclusion.
Conflicts of Interest
Question. Do you commit to bring to the committee's attention (and
the State Department Inspector General) any change in policy or U.S.
actions that you suspect may be influenced by any of the President's
business or financial interests, or the business or financial interests
of any senior White House staff?
Answer. I commit to comply with all relevant federal laws,
regulations, and rules, and to raise concerns that I may have through
appropriate channels, including required reporting to the Office of the
Inspector General.
Question. Do you commit to inform the committee if you have any
reason to suspect that a foreign government, head of state, or foreign-
controlled entity is taking any action in order to benefit any of the
President's business or financial interests, or the interests of senior
White House staff?
Answer. I commit to comply with all relevant federal laws,
regulations, and rules, and to raise concerns that I may have through
appropriate channels, including required reporting to the Office of the
Inspector General.
Question. Do you or do any members of your immediate family have
any financial interests in Palau?
Answer. My investment portfolio includes diversified mutual funds
that may have investments in companies in Palau; however, these funds
are exempt from the conflict of interest rules. My investment portfolio
also includes financial interests in companies that may maintain a
presence in Palau. I am committed to ensuring that my official actions
will not give rise to a conflict of interest. I will divest my
interests in any investments the State Department Ethics Office deems
necessary in the future to avoid a conflict of interest and will remain
vigilant with regard to my ethics obligations.
Corruption
Question. How do you believe political corruption impacts
democratic governance and the rule of law generally, and in Palau
specifically?
Answer. Corruption undermines democratic governance and the rule of
law, including in Palau. The law provides criminal penalties for
corruption by officials, but officials sometimes engage in corrupt
practices with impunity. This criminal behavior erodes public
confidence in institutions and systems of governance and impedes
achievement of our vision for a free and open Indo-Pacific. Palau can
only reach its full potential if we make efforts to end these corrupt
practices. If confirmed I will fully support efforts to end corrupt
practices.
Question. What is your assessment of corruption trends in Palau and
efforts to address and reduce it by that government?
Answer. As stated in the Department of State's Human Rights Report,
there are isolated cases of government corruption in Palau, and the
government takes steps to address them. The law provides criminal
penalties for corruption by officials. The government requires elected
and some appointed public officials to file annual financial disclosure
statements; candidates for office must file a similar statement with
the Ethics Commission. In Palau and elsewhere, corruption erodes public
confidence in institutions, systems of governance, and impedes
achievement of the goals of our vision for a free and open Indo-
Pacific. Palau can only reach its full potential if we make efforts to
end these corrupt practices.
Question. If confirmed, what steps will you take to strengthen good
governance and anticorruption programming in Palau?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the government of
Palau, civil society, and U.S. law enforcement to strengthen good
governance and anticorruption efforts. I will work with allies and
like-minded partners to coordinate our efforts on these important
issues. Through funding for USAID on governance under the Indo-Pacific
Strategy, including the Indo-Pacific Transparency Initiative, I will
work to ensure these programs are implemented to maximum effect in
Palau. I will also work closely with interagency partners to ensure
that U.S. taxpayer resources are used for their intended purpose.
Extending U.S. Assistance Beyond 2023
Question. U.S. officials recently travelled to the Freely
Associated States to discuss preparations for formal negotiations to
extend economic assistance beyond 2023 for the Marshall Islands and
Federated States of Palau and 2024 for Palau.
What was discussed in these meetings?
Answer. I was not involved in these meetings but if confirmed, I
look forward to working closely with the government of Palau and the
key U.S. government agencies who will provide input into the Compact
Review discussions with Palau.
Question. What are the main areas of concern for U.S. and Palau
officials?
Please discuss areas of Compact assistance that might be considered
for change after 2024.
Answer. Since the entry into force of the Compact in 1994, the
United States has provided over $700 million in direct assistance and
investment to Palau. The U.S. investment in Palau under the Compact,
and numerous other federal programs, has provided funds for essential
government operations, law enforcement, infrastructure development,
weather pattern monitoring, immunizations and health screenings,
scholarships for higher education, and postal services. Our
relationship is broad and enduring. Our Compact with Palau took effect
in 1994. It does not have a termination date and requires our
governments to formally review its terms, and its related agreements,
on the 15-year, 30-year, and 40-year anniversaries of the effective
date of the Compact. Following Secretary Pompeo's announcement
regarding agreements to amend the Compacts during his August 2019 visit
to the Federated States of Micronesia, the Department has begun to
engage Palau on Compact Review discussions.
Question. What are the rationales behind such considerations?
Answer. Our relationship with Palau is wide-ranging. Compact Review
discussions are mandated to occur on the 15-year, 30-year, and 40-year
anniversaries of the effective date of the Compact, and require the
formal review of the terms of the Compacts and its related agreements.
It requires that the governments of the United States and Palau
consider the overall nature and development of the relationship between
the United States and Palau, and consideration of the operating
requirements of Palau and its progress in meeting certain development
objectives.
U.S.-Palau Compact Review Agreement--Funding Delay
Question. Although the United States and Palau concluded the U.S.-
Palau Compact Review Agreement, which extended economic assistance for
another 15 years, in 2010, Congress did not fully fund the agreement
until FY 2018.
What was the impact in Palau of the delay in full funding?
Answer. Our commitment to the Freely Associated States, including
Palau, is steadfast. Our partners and allies are aware that this
funding was subject to our appropriations process.
Question. Will the past delay affect Palau's positions in bilateral
negotiations for the possible extension of economic assistance after
2024?
Answer. The United States has spent approximately $3.5 billion in
the Freely Associated States over the past 25 years, which reflects the
support of the American people for the Freely Associated States,
including Palau. Our partners and allies are aware that any potential
additional future funding for the Freely Associated States would be
subject to our appropriations process.
Climate Change
Question. Palau President Tommy Remengesau stated, ``Climate change
is really the biggest threat to our food security, our economic
security, our cultural and social way of life, and the security that we
enjoy as island people.'' As a party to the 2015 Paris Agreement on
reducing greenhouse gas emissions, Palau pledged to take actions to
increase energy efficiency and reduce carbon emissions by half between
2020 and 2025.
What assistance is the United States providing to address climate
issues in Palau?
Answer. The United States recognizes that addressing environmental
degradation and climate change is a priority for Pacific Island
countries due to the threat posed by sea level rise and the region's
vulnerability to natural disasters.
We have long been engaged in supporting disaster risk reduction
programs aimed at saving lives and reducing the impact of disasters
worldwide, including in Palau.
The Department of State, working with interagency partners,
recently committed $10 million to provide support for disaster
resilience and weather forecasting, and to address environmental
challenges, in the Indo-Pacific region.
If confirmed, I look forward to assisting Palau to build
resilience, protect its natural resources, and more effectively respond
to natural disasters.
Question. What elements of Palau's climate action plan, which Palau
submitted to the U.N. in November 2015, can the U.S. and other partners
engage in as part of broader assistance efforts?
Answer. The Department works closely with likeminded partners on a
range of issues, including resilience. Japan and Taiwan have missions
in Palau and Australia just opened a mission in 2019. In addition,
USAID will soon expand its staff presence in the Pacific region,
including in Palau. If confirmed, I look forward to working with both
interagency and international partners to assist with the Pacific
priority of addressing environmental degradation and climate change.
Maritime Law Enforcement
Question. The United States is currently working with Palau to
improve its maritime law enforcement capabilities, including the
deterrence of illicit drug trafficking, illegal migration, and
protection of sovereignty of their exclusive economic zone.
What other opportunities are there for the United States engage
with Palau to enhance our shared national security interests?
Answer. The United States has full authority and responsibility for
security and defense matters in or relating to Palau. In addition,
there is a wide range of other opportunities, from maritime law
enforcement to human rights and democracy, for working closely with
Palau to enhance our shared interests. Through the Global Defense
Reform Program, we will embed an advisor with Palau's maritime law
enforcement agency to enhance maritime governance and security. If
confirmed, I will work with the government of Palau, as well as the
citizens of Palau, to deepen our strong, unique, and historic
relationship and enrich our people-to-people ties.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted to Dorothy Shea by Senator Robert Menendez
Economic Stability
Question. It has now been two months since protests swept across
Lebanon, with a cross-section of the Lebanese people calling for an
overhaul of the country's political system. Lebanon is facing an
economic catastrophe, created in part by the very same corruption that
drove the protestors out into the street.
What steps can the United States take to help stabilize the
situation in Lebanon without undermining the legitimate
concerns and goals of the protestors?
Answer. Lebanon's potential can only be realized if and when the
government implements long overdue reforms. The United States has urged
Lebanese leaders to put aside partisan interests, act in the national
interest, and commit to and undertake meaningful, sustained reforms.
The Department has called on Lebanon's government and security services
to guarantee the rights and safety of the protesters. The Department
will also continue to strengthen Lebanon's institutions, such as the
Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF), and provide development and economic
assistance in areas that can improve the lives of everyday Lebanese
like workforce enhancement, good governance, social cohesion, the
delivery of basic services, and economic growth.
Question. What steps can the United States take whether
unilaterally or alongside the international community to alleviate the
deteriorating economic situation in Lebanon?
Answer. One of the most important things Lebanon can do to
stabilize the economic situation and regain the confidence of domestic
and international investors is to have its leaders commit to and
undertake meaningful, sustained reforms. The United States has stressed
this message unilaterally and as part of the international community.
The United States will continue its long-standing partnership with the
Lebanese people. USAID allocated $117.5 million in FY 2019 Economic
Support Funds to support initiatives in Lebanon that promote workforce
development, good governance, social cohesion, delivery of basic
services, and economic growth. The Department is also providing
humanitarian assistance to help Lebanese communities most in need.
Question. What reforms do you think will be the most critical for
the Lebanese government to make?
Answer. The United States and the international community are ready
to help Lebanon develop economic prosperity and good governance, but we
need a credible commitment to reform. Reforms that can improve
government revenue and lower government spending, such as reforms of
the electric sector and customs, remain important. In April 2018,
Lebanon committed to pass a series of important reforms at the CEDRE
conference, including (1) increasing public investment, (2) fiscal
adjustment, (3) structural and sectoral reforms, and (4) an economic
diversification strategy. Those all remain areas for work today.
Question. What tools the United States have to support efforts to
improve the delivery of basic services?
Answer. USAID programming in Lebanon includes initiatives to
improve basic services, especially those that have been strained by the
influx of more than one million Syrians. USAID programs improve the
capacity of regional water authorities, and strengthen Lebanon's public
schools by training teachers, improving reading skills, and improving
access to education for vulnerable Lebanese and Syrian refugees. In
addition, USAID supports municipalities in delivering essential
services to meet the needs of local communities.
Question. Will you commit to expeditiously utilizing the economic
tools and foreign assistance that Congress has appropriated?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I commit to expeditiously utilizing the
economic tools and foreign assistance appropriated by Congress to
advance U.S. objectives.
U.S. Regional Security Interests
Question. Components of United States policy in Lebanon support
regional policy objectives including countering Iran's destabilizing
activities including its support for Hezbollah, countering terrorism
from the Islamic State, Al-Qaeda and its affiliates, and support our
allies including Israel.
How will you engage with Lebanon's political and civil society
leaders in order to continue to promote United States foreign
policy objectives for the region?
Answer. If confirmed, I will engage with Lebanese government
representatives, political and civil society leaders, and the Lebanese
people to promote U.S. objectives. As I noted in my testimony, at the
core of our interests in Lebanon are efforts to ensure a stable and
prosperous nation with which the United States can partner to advance
security interests in the country and region. Working with the
international community and the Lebanese people to address the
country's now faltering stability is critical to ensuring success in
our efforts to defeat ISIS, foster regional stability, and counter
Iran's destabilizing influence in the region.
UNIFIL
Question. On August 29, 2019, the U.N. Security Council adopted
Resolution 2485, extending the mandate of the United Nations Interim
Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) for another year. Since 2006, UNFIL's mandate
has included accompanying and supporting the Lebanese Armed Forces as
they deployed throughout southern Lebanon, helping to ensure
humanitarian access to civilian populations, and taking steps toward
establishment of ``an area free of any armed personnel, assets and
weapons other than those of the government of Lebanon and of UNIFIL''
in its area of responsibility.
What is your assessment of UNIFIL's performance in Lebanon,
specifically its efforts to carry out its mandate under UNSCR
1701?
Answer. UNIFIL has helped maintain relative stability in southern
Lebanon, especially through its liaison activities. The United States
remains concerned, however, that UNIFIL continues to be prevented from
fully implementing its mandate. The Department has urged the U.N. to
increase its reporting on, and ability to monitor and verify
implementation of, the arms embargo. The Department also continues to
press Lebanese civilian leadership to facilitate UNIFIL's unimpeded and
timely access to the entire Blue Line, including Green Without Borders
sites, areas deemed private property, and all other areas relevant to
implementation of and consistent with UNIFIL's mandate.
Question. What steps will you take to help ensure UNIFIL is
fulfilling its mandate?
Answer. UNSCR 1701 called for a cessation of hostilities between
Israel and Hizballah and no supply of arms to Lebanon without Lebanese
government authorization. The cessation of hostilities was premised on
a long-term solution which included the disarmament of armed groups in
Lebanon. If confirmed, I will continue U.S. efforts to urge the U.N.
and UNIFIL's leadership to do more to report on violations of UNSCR
1701, and urge the Lebanese government to provide UNIFIL access to all
areas along the Blue Line, including border tunnels and areas from
which Hizballah has launched anti-tank missiles.
Lebanese Armed Forces FMF
Question. Recently, the Trump administration released the $105
million in FMF for Lebanon that Congress appropriated. However, I
believe it is important that Congress have an understanding why the
release of funds it appropriated was delayed. While there are concerns
about Lebanese Armed Forces' (LAF) relationship with Hezbollah, I
understand that the interagency, with the exception of OMB was in
consensus that FMF to support the LAF serves U.S. national security
interests. Furthermore, as shown by Secretary Pompeo's release of
Ukraine FMF over the objections of OMB, the State Department can
release funds in spite of OMB objections.
If confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure the responsible
delivery of funds to Lebanon deemed Congress has assessed as
necessary for protecting U.S. national security interests?
Answer. U.S. foreign policy is optimized when there is
communication and collaboration between the executive and legislative
branches of government. If confirmed, I pledge to continue our
cooperation on these issues, and I will work through the interagency
and with Congress to ensure the delivery of appropriated funds to
Lebanon.
Question. Will you work to continue countering Hezbollah influence?
Answer. Yes, if confirmed, I commit to continuing to build on our
efforts to counter Hizballah's influence.
LAF and the Internal Security Forces
Question. The LAF has shown a great deal of improvement and
professionalization over the past decade and is increasingly recognized
by the people of Lebanon as a genuinely national institution. In
contrast, other Lebanese institutions such as the Internal Security
Forces (ISF) have yet to fully professionalize. Consequently, the
Lebanese government has had to rely on the LAF to fill gaps in internal
security missions, further stretching its limited force and budget.
While the LAF has exercised restraint in order to protect civilian
protestors, reports of the ISF's use of tear gas, rubber bullets, and
water cannons are disconcerting.
What factors have prevented the Internal Security Forces from
achieving the standards of professionalization set by the LAF?
Answer. The Department continue to work with Lebanon's Internal
Security Forces (ISF) to develop and improve its capabilities,
including through a five-year strategic plan. Using FY 2019 funds, the
Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs will
continue supporting the modernization and professionalization of the
ISF, maintaining the Police Professionalism (EP2) program to train the
ISF Gendarmerie Force. During the recent protests, Lebanon's security
forces predominately demonstrated restraint and professionalism in
interactions with protestors. The Department has cautioned all sides
against the use of violence or provocative actions and encouraged
security services to ensure the right to peaceful protest.
Question. How do you anticipate the economic crisis facing Lebanon
will impact the LAF's ability to effectively perform its mandate, given
its already limited force and budget?
Answer. The LAF will continue to execute its mandate in the near-
term. The Department remains in contact with LAF leadership and
candidly discusses its resource constraints, operational contingency
planning, and the various challenges and opportunities faced by the
organization. However, given the economic crisis, the international
community has underscored to Lebanon's leaders the urgent need for
reforms that can stabilize the economy and ensure government revenues.
Question. What steps can the United States take to help the
Lebanese government professionalize the ISF and transform it into a
national institution?
Answer. The United States is helping the ISF achieve its five-year
strategic plan to improve its professionalism and capabilities. U.S.
funding has provided training to over one-third of the ISF, improving
their professionalism and public trust. U.S. assistance includes a
professional training program for ISF personnel operating in critical
areas outside Beirut, developing the ISF training academy, providing
specialized training through the FBI, upgrading the ISF's biometric
systems, and developing the ISF's IT systems to automate paper-based
processes. The Department will continue to work with the ISF to improve
its ability to build a stable and secure Lebanon.
Democracy
Question. What are the most important actions you have taken in
your career to date to support democracy and human rights?
Answer. I am proud of my work to promote human rights (HR) and
democracy throughout my career, by meeting with HR defenders to
understand challenges, reporting same, advocating for governments to
respect citizens' rights, and through relevant Embassy programs and
outreach. In word and deed, I have worked to promote strong democratic
institutions, respect for HR and the rule of law, religious freedom,
press freedom, and women's empowerment, and to counter trafficking in
persons. As an illustrative example, I contributed to efforts to
persuade the government of Egypt (GOE) to resolve ``Case 173''
convictions of employees of U.S. non-governmental organizations (NGO);
and reform its draconian NGO law.
Question. What has been the impact of your actions?
Answer. I am proud that democracy activists and human rights
defenders have felt safe sharing their concerns with my teams and me.
They often relied on our convening power, advocacy with foreign
governments, and public messaging. In some instances, expressing
concern privately with governments about a case or a trend helped bring
relief; more concerted pressure has sometimes been instrumental. With
regard to the asks mentioned above, international NGO employees who had
been convicted for political reasons in ``Case 173'' were acquitted,
and the GOE repealed the draconian NGO law and passed a new version.
The Department continues to advocate for more progress.
Question. What issues are the most pressing challenges to democracy
or democratic development in Lebanon? (These challenges might include
obstacles to participatory and accountable governance and institutions,
rule of law, authentic political competition, civil society, human
rights and press freedom. Please be as specific as possible.)
Answer. Political deadlock and economic weaknesses jeopardize
Lebanon's stability, and together, challenge democratic development.
Lebanese citizens report that the economic crisis and corruption are
the most serious problems facing their country. In addition to concerns
about accountable and responsive government institutions, press freedom
and freedom of expression are key human rights challenges that, if
confirmed, I will seek to address.
Question. What steps will you take - if confirmed - to support
democracy in Lebanon?
Answer. The priority for supporting democracy in Lebanon is to
address the people's demands for more accountable, responsive, and
transparent governance. If confirmed, I would press Lebanese officials
to respond to their citizens' demands, meet with Lebanese activists and
civil society to understand their concerns, and review U.S. assistance
to ensure it is focused on strengthening key democratic institutions
and protecting the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all
individuals in Lebanon.
Question. What do you hope to accomplish through these actions?
Answer. My objective would be to build a secure, inclusive,
accountable, and economically prosperous Lebanon that remains a
regional partner of the United States.
Question. What are the potential impediments to addressing the
specific obstacles you have identified?
Answer. Political deadlock and endemic corruption and resulting
economic weaknesses jeopardize Lebanon's stability, and as a result
challenge democratic development. Regional adversaries like Syria and
Iran try to maintain their entrenched interests through Hizballah,
because accountable, transparent, and rights-respecting governance in
Lebanon would threaten their corrupt influence.
Question. How will you utilize U.S. government assistance resources
at your disposal, including the Democracy Commission Small Grants
program and other sources of State Department and USAID funding, to
support democracy and governance, and what will you prioritize in
processes to administer such assistance?
Answer. As part of its programming for 2020, USAID plans to provide
targeted support for elections and governance to the Lebanese
Supervisory Commission on Elections. Through its support to strengthen
municipal services, USAID encourages municipal leaders to involve
constituents in identifying projects to improve services and
livelihoods. The State Department's Bureaus of International Narcotics
and Law Enforcement works to professionalize security services and
offers training to the judiciary. Embassy Beirut's public diplomacy
initiatives include a focus on the promotion of good governance and
democracy.
Question. If confirmed, do you commit to meet with civil society
members, human rights and other non-governmental organizations in the
U.S. and with local human rights NGOs, and other members of civil
society in Lebanon?
Answer. If confirmed, I commit to continuing my predecessors'
tradition of meeting with human rights, civil society and other non-
governmental organizations in the United States and in Lebanon. Embassy
Beirut routinely meets with local NGOs to learn about alleged human
rights abuses and hear their views on how the United States might
advance human rights in Lebanon.
Question. What steps will you take to pro-actively address efforts
to restrict or penalize NGOs and civil society via legal or regulatory
measures?
Answer. Civil society in Lebanon is vibrant, and civil society
actors contribute to public debate about how the country can best
advance its democratic principles. If confirmed, I look forward to
meeting with human rights, civil society, and other non-governmental
organizations in the United States and in Lebanon. I would encourage
the government of Lebanon to fairly and transparently apply the laws
governing NGOs and civil society organizations.
Question. If confirmed, do you commit to meet with democratically
oriented political opposition figures and parties?
Answer. Yes, if confirmed as ambassador to Lebanon, I will commit
to meeting with democratically oriented political opposition figures
and parties.
Question. What steps will you take to encourage genuine political
competition?
Answer. Embassy Beirut regularly meets with rights-respecting
parties represented in the Lebanese government, a practice I would
continue if confirmed as U.S. ambassador. U.S. government assistance to
civil society NGOs through democracy and governance programs help
create an enabling environment for genuine political competition.
Question. Will you advocate for access and inclusivity for women,
minorities and youth within political parties?
Answer. Yes, if confirmed, I will engage with Lebanese political
parties and advocate inclusion of women, members of minority groups,
and youth. Societies benefit from integrating diverse voices into
political, economic, and social life.
Question. Will you and your embassy team actively engage with
Lebanon on freedom of the press and address any government efforts
designed to control or undermine press freedom through legal,
regulatory or other measures?
Answer. Lebanon enjoys an independent press landscape, and the U.S.
Embassy in Lebanon regularly meets with the press. That said, I am
aware that media outlets and workers face intimidation, censorship, and
occasional legal action related to their work. If confirmed, I would
continue the Embassy's engagement on these issues. A free press has a
vital role to play in a democratic society and we would express U.S.
concerns to the government of Lebanon should it or other actors
undermine press freedom.
Question. Will you commit to meeting regularly with independent,
local press in Lebanon?
Answer. Yes, Embassy Beirut routinely meets with journalists,
including those representing independent local press. If confirmed, I
commit to doing so, as well.
Question. Will you and your embassy team actively engage with civil
society and government counterparts on countering disinformation and
propaganda disseminated by foreign state or non-state actors in the
country?
Answer. If confirmed, I will meet with civil society and government
counterparts on countering disinformation and propaganda disseminated
by foreign state actors. Civil society organizations are one of the
most useful resources in terms of providing facts to help counter
disinformation and propaganda campaigns, including by malign local
actors.
Question. Will you and your embassy teams actively engage with
Lebanon on the right of labor groups to organize, including for
independent trade unions?
Answer. As the Department of State's Country Report on Human Rights
Practices states, Lebanese law provides for the right of private-sector
workers to form and join trade unions, bargain collectively, and strike
but does place some important restrictions on these rights. If
confirmed, I will continue my predecessors' tradition of meeting with
labor rights groups and trade unions in Lebanon and raising concerns
about restrictions on their rights with the government.
Question. Will you commit to using your position, if confirmed, to
defend the human rights and dignity of all people in Lebanon, no matter
their sexual orientation or gender identity?
Answer. I am aware that the Lebanese penal code effectively
criminalizes consensual, same-sex sexual conduct among adults. If
confirmed, I will use my position to defend the human rights of all
people in Lebanon, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender
identity.
Question. What challenges do the lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender and queer (LGBTQ) people face in Lebanon?
Answer. There are no provisions of law providing anti-
discrimination protections to Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and
intersex (LGBTI) persons based on their sexual orientation, gender
identity or expression, or sex characteristics. According to the State
Department's 2018 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, official
and societal discrimination against LGBTI persons persist. Although
human rights and LGBTI organizations acknowledged some recent
improvements in detainee treatment, these organizations and former
detainees continued to report that ISF officers mistreated LGBTI
individuals in custody particularly outside of Beirut. Officials also
interfered with or restricted events focused on the rights of LGBTI
individuals.
Question. What specifically will you commit to do to help LGBTQ
people in Lebanon?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to engage with senior Lebanese
officials to emphasize U.S. commitment to protecting LGBTI individuals
from unlawful human rights abuses. We will also explore ways to show
our support for civil society organizations that advocate for
protecting the rights of LGBTI persons.
Responsiveness
Question. Do you commit to respond promptly to all requests for
information by Members of this committee?
Answer. Yes, if confirmed, with the understanding that any such
response would be organized through the Department of State's Bureau of
Legislative Affairs and conducted in accordance with long-standing
Department and Executive Branch practice.
Question. Do you commit to appear before this committee upon
request?
Answer. Yes, if confirmed, with the understanding that any such
appearance would be organized through the Department of State's Bureau
of Legislative Affairs in accordance with long standing Department and
Executive Branch practice.
Question. If you become aware of any suspected waste, fraud, or
abuse in the Department, do you commit to report it to the Inspector
General?
Answer. Yes, if confirmed, I will follow all Department rules and
regulations as to reporting waste, fraud, and abuse, including
notifying the Department's Inspector General when appropriate.
Administrative
Question. Has anyone ever made a formal or informal complaint or
allegation of sexual harassment, discrimination (e.g., racial, ethnic,
religious, etc.), or inappropriate conduct against you, in a workplace
or any other setting?
Answer. Yes.
Question. If so, please describe the nature of the complaint or
allegation, your response, and any resolution, including any
settlements.
Answer. To my knowledge, I have never been named as a responsible
management official in any complaint for which there was a finding of
discrimination or harassment. I am aware of two EEO matters, one of
which was withdrawn and the other was not substantiated. I take EEO and
sexual harassment in the workplace seriously, and if confirmed, I will
work to ensure that a message of zero tolerance for discrimination,
harassment, and misconduct is affirmed from the beginning of my
assignment.
Question. Have you ever addressed concerns or allegations of sexual
harassment, discrimination (e.g., racial, ethnic, religious, etc.), or
inappropriate conduct made against any employee over whom you had
supervisory authority?
Answer. Yes.
Question. If so, please describe the outcome and actions taken.
Answer. I have immediately addressed any issues involving concerns
or allegations of sexual harassment, discrimination or inappropriate
conduct raised to me in accordance with the Department of State's
policies, including taking disciplinary actions against employees under
my supervision. I am aware of an instance where a subordinate acted
inappropriately during an ongoing EEO matter. I took the matter
seriously and immediately addressed the issue.
Question. Do you agree that any targeting of or retaliation against
career employees based on their perceived political beliefs, prior work
on policy, or affiliation with a previous administration, is wholly
inappropriate and has no place in the federal government?
Answer. Yes, I agree that targeting or retaliation against career
employees for these reasons is wholly inappropriate. If confirmed, I
will ensure that all employees under my leadership understand their
legal protections, and that prohibited personnel practices will not be
tolerated.
Question. If confirmed, what will you do to ensure that all
employees under your leadership understand that any retaliation,
blacklisting, or other prohibited personnel practices will not be
tolerated?
Answer. If confirmed, I would ensure that the entire team at the
Embassy is aware that I will not tolerate retaliation, blacklisting, or
any other prohibited personnel practice. I will also ensure the
Management and Human Resources offices at the Embassy know how to
identify and prevent prohibited personnel practices. If I learn of any
allegations of prohibited personnel practices, I will work with the
Office of Inspector General and the Bureau of Human Resources to
address the issues as expeditiously as possible, including through
disciplinary action when appropriate. Additionally, I will ask the
Office of the Legal Adviser and Human Resources about resources that I
may provide to Embassy staff in order to ensure that they are aware
prohibited personnel practices in Embassy briefings and notices.
Question. Will you commit to pressing the case of Amer Fakhoury?
Will you ensure that the U.S. Embassy has access to him and press for
the Lebanese government to address his case with due process?
Answer. The United States is concerned by the detention of U.S.
citizen Amer Fakhoury in Lebanon. Ambassador Richard, our Ambassador in
Lebanon, monitors his case. The Department is in regular contact with
Mr. Fakhoury and the Embassy in Beirut has conducted frequent consular
visits throughout Mr. Fakhoury's detention.If confirmed, I will
continue to monitor Mr. Fakhoury's case, if it has not been resolved by
that time. The administration takes all allegations of mistreatment
seriously and whenever we receive credible reports, we raise our
concerns directly with the host government at the highest levels.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted to Dorothy Shea by Senator Ted Cruz
Question. Do you believe that the United States should provide
assistance to any government of Lebanon if that government is
controlled by Hezbollah, is unduly influenced by Hezbollah, or has
ministries that Hezbollah controls?
Answer. The U.S. government works assiduously to prevent the use of
U.S. government funds from benefitting individuals or entities
associated with terrorist groups, particularly Hizballah. U.S. foreign
assistance to Lebanon aims to counter Hizballah's narrative and
influence and build the institutions of the Lebanese state. U.S.
economic aid is not provided directly to the Lebanese government, but
is implemented through NGOs and international organizations. U.S.
security assistance provides training and equipment to the Lebanese
Armed Forces and Internal Security Forces to build capable and
committed partner forces for the United States.
Question. Do you believe that the United States should provide
assistance to any Lebanese entities in the absence of a sitting
Lebanese government?
Answer. The ``caretaker'' status of the Lebanese government should
not affect the implementation of USAID programming. Funding is not
provided to or through the Lebanese national government. U.S.
development and economic assistance to Lebanon is implemented through
NGOs and international organizations.
The United States provides training and equipment directly to the
Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) and Internal Security Forces (ISF). The LAF
and ISF continue their mandate to provide security in Lebanon while the
Lebanese government remains in caretaker status.
Question. Please describe the degree to which Hezbollah exercises
influence or control over the Beirut-Rafic Hariri International Airport
or facilities located within the airport.
Answer. The U.S. government is concerned about Hizballah's
influence at ports of entry into Lebanon, including the airport. As
U.S. Treasury Assistant Secretary Marshall Billingslea stated publicly
last September, Hizballah ``engages in a wide range of illicit business
activities in Lebanon, [that are] well outside the financial sector.''
Including, he said, ``the abuse of the airport and the seaports.''
Question. Please describe the degree to which Hezbollah exercises
influence or control over the Port of Beirut or facilities located
within the port.
Answer. The influence Hizballah exerts over ports of entry remains
of considerable concern and denies the Lebanese people the benefit of
customs revenue, significant given the large budget deficits Lebanon
faces. To combat Hizballah's influence, the U.S. Department of the
Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) designated under
Executive Order 13224 Hizballah security official Wafiq Safa, for
acting for or on behalf of Hizballah. As head of Hizballah's security
apparatus, Safa exploited Lebanon's ports and border crossings to
smuggle contraband, facilitate Hizballah travel, and facilitate the
passage of illegal drugs and weapons into the seaport of Beirut,
routing certain shipments to avoid scrutiny.
Question. What percent of U.S. military assistance to Lebanon was
used for activities or operations aimed at disarming Hezbollah in 2019?
A rough estimate or a range will be sufficient.
Answer. U.S. military assistance to the LAF does not focus on
direct disarmament, but rather focuses on developing the LAF as an
institutional counterweight to Hizballah's influence and freedom of
action. Since 2006, the United States has provided over $2 billion in
security assistance to the LAF and ISF. U.S. assistance to the LAF has
helped it to increase its ability to act as the exclusive legitimate
defender of Lebanon's sovereignty, enabling it to defend Lebanon from
violent extremist organizations, including ISIS.
Question. What percent of U.S. military assistance to Lebanon was
used for activities or operations aimed at disrupting Hezbollah
activities short of disarming them in 2019, e.g. through roadblocks? A
rough estimate or a range will be sufficient.
Answer. With complementary diplomatic efforts, the entirety of U.S.
security assistance to Lebanon since 2006 has been an integral part of
the Department's strategy to support state institutions and security
agencies in order to bolster stability and counter Hizballah's malign
influence in Lebanon and in the region. Over the past several months,
the LAF has undertaken a series of security actions, including
maintaining security cordons and roadblocks, that have prevented or
deterred Hizballah from intimidating or harming peaceful protesters.
Question. You testified on December 17, 2019 that military
assistance to Lebanon bolsters American national security because it
helps to professionalize the army and provide a counterweight to
Hezbollah's claims to be a legitimate part of Lebanon:
Please describe which parts of Hezbollah's claims have been
dissolved due to U.S. assistance since 2006?
Please describe which parts of Hezbollah's claims remain to be
dissolved?
In your opinion, how much more assistance from the U.S. will be
necessary to dissolve these remaining parts of Hezbollah's
claims?
Answer. According to a December 2019 GAO Report, the LAF's border
security and counterterrorism capabilities notably improved from 2013
to 2018, undercutting Hizballah's long-standing, disingenuous claim
that state institutions are not sufficient to protect Lebanon. With the
support of U.S. training and equipment, the LAF has defeated ISIS in
Lebanon, reasserted control over Lebanese territory along its border
with Syria, and increased its presence in southern Lebanon in support
of UNIFIL. These improvements undercut Hizballah's unfounded argument
that its weapons are necessary to protect Lebanon's sovereignty. During
the recent protests, the LAF helped contain the violence and protect
protestors.
Question. On December 3, 2019, Principal Deputy Undersecretary Hood
testified that the LAF hasn't moved to disarm Hezbollah pursuant to
their obligations under U.N. Security Council resolution 1701 because
the government of Lebanon has not directed them to do so:
Do you agree with that assessment?
If so, why do you believe the Lebanese government has not ordered
the LAF to disarm Hezbollah?
Please describe the degree to which you believe the LAF is under
the authority of Lebanon's civilian government.
Please describe the degree to which you believe the LAF is
independent of Lebanon's civilian government.
Answer. The LAF's leadership acts to fulfill its mission under the
guidance of Lebanon's civilian leadership. It is unlikely the LAF,
which responds to the civilian authorities in Lebanon, would be ordered
to disarm Hizballah by force.
Question. In recent weeks, the world has witnessed horrifying
videos and images of Lebanese security forces beating peaceful
protesters and dissidents. Those forces have included personnel drawn
from security institutions supported by the United States:
Are you concerned that these videos and images have undermined our
efforts to dissolve Hezbollah's narrative?
Has the State Department concluded that no U.S. equipment was used
against protesters and dissidents?
Has the State Department concluded that none of the security forces
who attacked protesters were trained by the U.S.?
Answer. At the highest levels, the United States has called on
Lebanon's government and security services to guarantee the rights and
safety of protestors. While security forces predominantly demonstrated
restraint and professionalism in interactions with protesters, the LAF
and ISF have occasionally failed to intervene during violent attacks
against protesters and in some instances used tear gas and rubber
bullets to disperse protesters who resisted the efforts of security
forces to clear key thoroughfares or prevent their entry into
government buildings. The State Department has not yet reached any
conclusions about the use of U.S. equipment or training. The Department
is aware of at least two instances of violence by security forces that
are being investigated by Lebanese authorities.
Question. On December 12, 2019, the United States Agency for
International Development (USAID) transmitted to Congress a
Congressional Notification (CN) obligating $114.5 million in ESF and
ESF-OCO ``to support good governance, civil society, water supply and
sanitation, basic education, higher education, and private sector
productivity programming in Lebanon.'' The CN included obligations for
the Local Development Project, which ``intends to work with groups of
municipalities.'' As you know, Hezbollah controls mayors and heads of
villages across Lebanon, and especially in southern Lebanon and the
Bekaa region, where the CN suggests some of the money will be spent:
Please provide a list of all municipalities with which the State
Department intends to facilitate partnerships via the ESF
obligated by the December 12, 2019 CN.
For each municipality, please describe the degree to which the
State Department assesses that the municipality is controlled
or unduly influenced by Hezbollah.
Answer. USAID has not yet determined which municipalities in
southern Lebanon and Bekaa regions it intends to work in using FY 19
funds. USAID implements a three-stage process to mitigate the risk of
U.S. government resources inadvertently benefitting a designated
terrorist or sanctioned groups. This process verifies that select
municipal councils proposed to benefit from assistance are not
controlled by Hizballah or any other designated foreign terrorist
organization.
Question. In 2018, The Livelihoods and Inclusive Finance Expansion
project (LIFE), a USAID-funded project, partnered with Jammal Trust
Bank (JTB). USAID celebrated the partnership on social media, saying it
would ``increase access to financial services,'' that ``many
individuals would have never thought they can open a bank account with
such ease, and that ``[w]ith a $250,000 grant'' the project would reach
``new unbanked customers.'' In 2019, the U.S. Department of the
Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) targeted and
designated Jammal Trust Bank as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist
(SDGT) pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 13224 ``for brazenly enabling
Hizballah's financial activities,'' for posing ``a direct threat to the
integrity of the Lebanese financial system,'' and because it ``provides
support and services to Hizballah's Executive Council and the Martyrs
Foundation, which funnels money to the families of suicide bombers,''
according to Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence
Sigal Mandelker. The OFAC release noted that Jammal Trust's
relationship with Lebanese and Iranian-based terror financing groups
was ``longstanding.''
Public statements and testimony suggest that the U.S. had long been
aware of JTB's ties to Hezbollah. When did the State Department
become aware of those ties? Did they transmit to USAID
knowledge of those ties? If yes, when? If not, why not?
Has the State Department estimated how much U.S. taxpayer money was
funneled, diverted, or provided as fungible resources for
Hezbollah activities through the LIFE-JTB partnership? If so,
what was that estimate? If not, why not?
What measures have been taken to ensure that USAID is not providing
additional financing to Hezbollah-linked banks?
Answer. USAID and State received information from other U.S.
agencies about JTB's links with Hizballah following the announcement of
the award in 2018. USAID subsequently revetted JTB based on the
information that had not previously been included in vetting channels,
and the additional information resulted in an ineligible vetting
determination and termination of the sub-award.
The initial sub-award to JTB was for $250,000, and USAID only
authorized the reimbursement of $105,000 in allowable costs incurred
prior to the termination of the sub-grant. To the State Department's
knowledge, none of the $105,000 in funds released were diverted to
Hizballah or any other designated terrorist organization.
Following this case, USAID and the Treasury Department shared
information on all other existing partners in Lebanon to confirm there
are no additional concerns.
Question. The State Department and USAID have long used independent
evaluations to assess the performance of their grantees. In 2014 and
2015, the State Department controversially withdrew funding from Hayya
Bina, an independent anti-Hezbollah Shiite democratic activist group
that trains women across the country, and told reporters it was because
of ``performance concerns'' after an ``independent evaluation.''
How many of the programs targeted for ESF funding pursuant to the
December 12, 2019 CN have been subject to independent
evaluations to ensure their performance meets the expectations
of the USAID Administrator and the Secretary of State?
Answer. As a matter of USAID policy, all programs are required to
undergo independent mid-term and final evaluations. All USAID/Lebanon
activities include budget line items to fund independent, third-party
evaluations. In addition, USAID/Lebanon has third-party contractors
that periodically monitor assistance interventions to mitigate the risk
of poor performance, as well as the misuse or diversion of U.S.
government resources. USAID/Lebanon also has a separate architectural
and engineering contract in place to evaluate independently any
construction/infrastructure activities undertaken through its
assistance activities. As for Hayya Bina, the ``performance concerns''
articulated by the Department were subsequently determined to have been
unfounded.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted
to Dr. Donald Wright by Senator Robert Menendez
Question. What programs is the U.S. government currently
undertaking to help protect civic, political and media space?
Answer. Through various USG programs, the Embassy is engaging on
matters of human rights, democracy, and good governance. These include
efforts to improve the resilience of civil society organizations in the
face of diminishing democratic space, supporting Tanzanian partners to
advance their advocacy priorities related to human rights, enhancing
the professionalism of independent media, and seeking to improve the
inclusivity and transparency of democratic processes. Additionally, the
U.S. government is supporting the introduction and expansion of good
governance within service delivery systems and bolstering transparency,
citizen participation, and accountability within planning and financial
management processes.
I am committed to working with the Tanzanian government, like-
minded missions, civil society, and international organization to
advance these important areas.
Question. What assistance are we currently undertaking to help
ensure the 2020 general elections outcomes in Tanzania reflect the will
of the people?
Answer. The United States remains committed to supporting
democracy, human rights, and good governance in Tanzania. These
principles are enshrined within Tanzania's constitution and remain
central to the aspirations of the Tanzanian people.
The United States plans to support appropriately a transparent and
inclusive political and electoral process in Tanzania in four main
areas: systematic domestic observation of the 2020 elections; civic and
voter education campaigns; assistance to political parties to be more
inclusive and to candidates to run more professional and issue-focused
campaigns; and assistance for Tanzanian-led efforts to introduce and
advance electoral reforms that increase the participation of women and
youth.
Question. What more in your view could the U.S. be doing?
Answer. The Embassy, broader U.S. government institutions, our
partners in the host government, the international community, civil
society groups, and the private sector must continue to communicate and
remain vigilant. Democracy and institution building is an ongoing
effort.
Answer. Addressing repressive actions takes a multifaceted
approach. If confirmed, I will partner with like-minded missions,
engage civil society and other influential voices to be part of the
dialogue, and leverage my convening power to ensure that these topics
remain front and center. I will collaborate and engage with a broad
array of Tanzanians, including government officials, to ensure they
know that the American people share their aspirations for a durable
Tanzanian democracy and robust respect for human rights and fundamental
freedoms.
Question. What steps will you take if confirmed to support the
efforts of Tanzanians to push back against closing political and civic
space?
Answer. If confirmed, I will use my leadership and voice, both
publicly and privately, to underscore that respect for human rights is
essential for Tanzania's future growth, prosperity, and security. I
will engage Tanzanian authorities, international partners, civil
society organizations, and business leaders to work together toward
these goals.
Question. What threats is Tanzania facing in the areas of terrorism
and violent extremism?
Answer. Tanzania's security vulnerabilities include porous borders
with its neighbors. Al-Shabaab sympathizers have drawn recruits from
disaffected youth populations in Zanzibar and Tanzania's Tanga region,
and the Allied Democratic Forces and ISIS-Central Africa affiliates are
believed to frequently cross into Western Tanzania from the Democratic
Republic of Congo. Recruits, weapons, and provisions from Tanzania
cross the porous border into northern Mozambique to equip extremists in
the Cabo Delgado province.
Question. What steps do you plan to take, if confirmed, to work
with the Tanzanian government to help facilitate their acknowledgement
of potentially worsening terrorism and violent extremism problems?
Answer. Security cooperation is one of the bright spots in our
bilateral relationship with Tanzania. If confirmed, I will continue to
work closely with Tanzania to strengthen maritime security and to
strengthen Tanzania's ability to disrupt and reduce trafficking in
wildlife, which have been used by transnational criminal elements and
violent extremists in the past to raise funds. U.S. assistance supports
the training of Tanzanian Police Force officers in terrorism-related
and forensic investigations, including support for the establishment of
a specialized Rural Border Patrol Unit to secure the coastal land
border with Kenya. Countering Violent Extremism programming trains
community leaders to identify violent extremism risks and
radicalization trends and strengthens community resiliency.
Question. Do you agree that any targeting of or retaliation against
career employees based on their perceived political beliefs, prior work
on policy, or affiliation with a previous administration, is wholly
inappropriate and has no place in the federal government?
Answer. Yes, I agree with this statement. As a career civil
servant, I have treated and will continue to treat all employees with
respect and professionalism. If confirmed, I will work to prevent any
attempts to target or retaliate against career employees on the basis
of their perceived political beliefs, prior work on policy, or
affiliation with a previous administration. I take allegations of such
practices seriously and will ensure they are referred to the
Department's Inspector General.
Question. If confirmed, what will you do to ensure that all
employees under your leadership understand that any retaliation,
blacklisting, or other prohibited personnel practices will not be
tolerated?
Answer. If confirmed as Ambassador, it will be my responsibility to
set the highest professional standard for the entire mission. I will
comply with all relevant federal laws, regulations, and Department
policies, and will raise concerns that I may have through appropriate
channels. Under my leadership, retaliation, blacklisting, or other
prohibited personnel practices will not be tolerated. I will make sure
that employees understand this by holding town halls, meeting with
section chiefs, and other appropriate means.
Question. Has anyone ever made a formal or informal complaint or
allegation of sexual harassment, discrimination (e.g., racial, ethnic,
religious, etc.), or inappropriate conduct against you, in a workplace
or any other setting?
Answer. No. I have not had any formal or informal complaints or
allegations of sexual harassment, discrimination, or inappropriate
conduct made against me in the workplace or any other setting.
Question. If so, please describe the nature of the complaint or
allegation, your response, and any resolution, including any
settlements.
Answer. [Not applicable]
Question. Have you ever addressed concerns or allegations of sexual
harassment, discrimination (e.g., racial, ethnic, religious, etc.), or
inappropriate conduct made against any employee over whom you had
supervisory authority?
Answer. Yes, I have.
Question. If so, please describe the outcome and actions taken.
Answer. I take the issues of sexual harassment, discrimination, and
inappropriate conduct with the utmost seriousness, and I immediately
address these issues once they are brought to my attention. I
understand a subordinate was named in an EEO complaint after
terminating an employee for unsuccessful performance. The complainant
alleged the action was based on national origin and sexual orientation.
An Administrative Judge found that the case lacked merit and ruled in
the Department of Health and Human Services' favor. I was not named as
a responsible management official or a witness in either the initial or
follow-up complaints.
Question. Does the United States support any activities focused on
training for judges or law enforcement on trafficking investigation and
prosecutions?
Answer. The USG has ongoing programs that provide training to
migration officials, judges, and law enforcement personnel on
trafficking investigations, prosecutions, and prevention. Training
events bring together stakeholders from immigration, law enforcement,
the judiciary, social welfare offices, and NGOs on investigations,
prosecutions, and protections for victims of trafficking.
Question. Has the United States provided funding to the Ministry of
Justice for anti-trafficking efforts?
Answer. The USG provides training and technical assistance to
judicial and law enforcement personnel. The USG does not provide direct
funding to the Ministry of Justice.
Question. What organizations on the ground provide care for
trafficking victims and how are they funded?
Answer. There are a variety of Tanzanian organizations that are
providing care for trafficking victims, including: Kiota Women's Health
and Development (KIWOHEDE), Daughters of Mary Immaculate, the Faraja
Orphan Home, and WoteSawa. These organizations receive resources from a
variety of sources, including through the International Organization
for Migration (IOM) and private donors.
Question. What further steps could the government of Tanzania take
to improve its TIP ranking next year, and what actions will you
advocate they take if you are confirmed?
Answer. In order to improve its TIP ranking next year, the
government of Tanzania could:
Table the Amendment to the 2008 Anti-Trafficking Act, which will
remove sentencing provisions that allow fines in lieu of
imprisonment and align the procedural law pertaining to
trafficking-related arrests within the act with the
requirements for other serious crimes;
Increase funding to the Anti-Trafficking Secretariat to support
their prosecution, protection, and prevention efforts;
While respecting the rule of law and human rights, increase efforts
to investigate, prosecute, and convict trafficking offenders,
including complicit officials, and impose adequate penalties;
Implement a systematic victim-witness support program; and,
Institutionalize the use of a national centralized anti-trafficking
data collection and reporting tool and consider increasing
information sharing.
If confirmed, under my leadership, the Embassy will continue to
emphasize to the government of Tanzania the importance of meeting the
goals of its National Anti-Trafficking in Persons Action Plan (2018-
21), which is aligned with the 2019 Trafficking in Persons Report
recommendations.
Question. What assistance stands to be suspended should Tanzania be
designated Tier Three under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act?
Answer. If Tanzania were ranked as Tier 3 in the Trafficking In
Persons report, a restriction on non-humanitarian, nontrade-related
foreign assistance would apply to the government under the Trafficking
Victims Protection Act, which could impact Education, Water, Nutrition,
Agriculture, and Natural Resources Management programs.
Question. What are the most important actions you have taken in
your career to date to support democracy and human rights?
Answer. As a physician employed by the United States Department of
Health and Human Services, my Federal career has focused on improving
the health and safety of the American people. Consequently, I have not
worked on the international promotion of human rights and democracy.
However, if confirmed as Ambassador, I look forward to advocating for
human rights and fundamental freedoms for all people in Tanzania.
Question. What has been the impact of your actions?
Answer. [Not applicable]
Question. What issues are the most pressing challenges to democracy
or democratic development in Tanzania?
These challenges might include obstacles to participatory and
accountable governance and institutions, rule of law, authentic
political competition, civil society, human rights and press
freedom. Please be as specific as possible.
Answer. It is clear that over the past four years respect for human
rights and the rule of law have steadily declined in Tanzania,
impacting the ability of individuals to enjoy the freedoms of
association, expression, and peaceful assembly. The government has
targeted journalists as well as the political opposition in a campaign
of intimidation that was most recently exemplified by irregularities in
the November 24 local elections. In addition, the government has
recently decided to bar individuals and NGOs from filing cases against
it at the African Court on Human and People's Rights. Through
legislation, authorities have made it untenably expensive for online
bloggers to operate. There are direct threats and intimidation from the
government and laws targeting free expression and free association. The
government's actions have included closures of several independent
media outlets, suspensions of several opposition parliamentarians, and
an indefinite ban on political rallies and activities, including
private meetings. Authorities use the 2015 Cybercrimes Act to bring
criminal charges against individuals who criticize the government in
electronic media.
Question. What steps will you take--if confirmed--to support
democracy in Tanzania?
Answer. If confirmed, I will use my leadership and voice, both
publicly and privately, to underscore that respect for human rights is
essential for Tanzania's future growth, prosperity, and security. The
steady decline of civic and political space has been a source of
critical concern inside and outside of the country. I will engage
Tanzanian authorities, international partners, civil society
organizations, and business leaders to work together toward these
goals.
Question. What do you hope to accomplish through these actions?
Answer. Through these actions, I hope to help Tanzania develop into
a 21st century partner of the United States and desire to see the
country return to serving as a democratic, human rights-respecting
model for the region. The United States and Tanzania have a long and
rich history of partnership; if confirmed, I look forward to further
developing and deepening relationships with the Tanzanian government,
international and domestic partners, and the people of Tanzania to
ensure the tangible advancement of human rights, civil society,
democracy, and mutual prosperity.
Question. What are the potential impediments to addressing the
specific obstacles you have identified?
Answer. Bringing together multiple stakeholders, including
Tanzanian government officials, international partners, civil society,
and business leaders, will likely be one of the most important steps
and challenges.
Question. How will you utilize U.S. government assistance resources
at your disposal, including the Democracy Commission Small Grants
program and other sources of State Department and USAID funding, to
support democracy and governance, and what will you prioritize in
processes to administer such assistance?
Answer. U.S. assistance to Tanzania advances democracy and
governance, both through funds dedicated specifically for those issues
and through sector-specific programming, such as health, which rely on
a reliable, evidence-based, technocratic government. Through our
development assistance, the United States improves the resilience of
civil society organizations in the face of diminishing democratic
space, supports Tanzanian partners to advance their advocacy priorities
related to human rights, enhances the professionalism of independent
media, and seeks to improve the inclusivity and transparency of
democratic processes. Additionally, the United States supports the
introduction and expansion of good governance within service delivery
systems (health, education, etc.), which bolsters transparency, citizen
participation, and accountability within planning and financial
management processes. To complement and expand these efforts, I will
continue to engage within the Department and with USAID to ensure
appropriate resources are available to advance U.S. interests in
Tanzania.
Question. If confirmed, do you commit to meet with civil society
members, human rights and other non-governmental organizations in the
U.S. and with local human rights NGOs, and other members of civil
society in Tanzania?
Answer. Human rights, civil society organizations, and other non-
governmental organizations, regardless of where they are registered or
operate, all play an important role in advancing democratic governance,
respect for human rights and freedoms, and assisting Tanzania to
develop into a 21st century partner of the United States. If confirmed,
I am committed to meeting with any individual or entity that can be
beneficial to U.S. goals.
Question. What steps will you take to pro-actively address efforts
to restrict or penalize NGOs and civil society via legal or regulatory
measures?
Answer. There is no question that there has been a narrowing of
democratic space in Tanzania over the past several years, including
through the targeting of NGOs and civil society. In July, President
Magufuli signed into law the Miscellaneous Amendments No. 3 Act, 2019,
also known as the ``Written Laws,'' which placed further restrictions
on civil society organizations. The Registrar of Civil Society
Organizations has broad authority to suspend organizations as well as
evaluate, investigate, and suspend their operations, and authorities
can also refuse to register any organization without giving a valid
reason. If confirmed, I am committed to continuing to promote human
rights for all individuals in Tanzania, with a particular focus on
those who are members of vulnerable populations.
Question. If confirmed, do you commit to meet with democratically
oriented political opposition figures and parties?
Answer. If confirmed, under my leadership the United States Embassy
will continue to engage with representatives from across the political
spectrum, including the ruling party and opposition parties.
Question. What steps will you take to encourage genuine political
competition?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure the United States will continue
to support appropriately transparent and inclusive political and
electoral processes.
With respect to Tanzania's upcoming 2020 elections, I would focus
on four main areas: systematic domestic observation of the 2020
elections; civic and voter education campaigns; assistance to political
parties and to candidates to run more professional and issue-focused
campaigns; and, assistance for Tanzanian-led efforts to introduce and
advance electoral reforms that increase the participation of women and
youth.
Question. Will you advocate for access and inclusivity for women,
minorities and youth within political parties?
Answer. Yes, if confirmed I will advocate for access and
inclusivity for women, minorities, and youth within political and
electoral processes.
Question. Will you and your embassy team actively engage with
Tanzania on freedom of the press and address any government efforts
designed to control or undermine press freedom through legal,
regulatory or other measures?
Answer. The United States supports media freedom and is committed
to strengthening journalistic professionalism. If confirmed, I will
engage with like-minded missions, civil society, and international
partners to underscore the importance of an independent, professional,
and open media to a free and democratic society. I will press for the
United States to continue its support to Tanzania's media, which has
included partnerships with community radio stations to build their
professionalism and financial viability, the development of a platform
for registering violations of freedom of expression for members of the
press, and education initiatives for journalists and media stakeholders
about their rights. Tanzanian journalists have participated in U.S.
government-sponsored professional exchange programs on political
reporting, safeguarding freedom of expression, and the media's role in
strengthening democratic institutions.
Question. Will you commit to meeting regularly with independent,
local press in Tanzania?
Answer. If confirmed, I am committed to meeting with any individual
or entity relevant to the Mission's strategic objectives, including
local press.
Question. Will you and your embassy team actively engage with civil
society and government counterparts on countering disinformation and
propaganda disseminated by foreign state or non-state actors in the
country?
Answer. The United States supports media freedom and is committed
to strengthening journalistic professionalism. If confirmed, I will
engage with like-minded missions, civil society, and international
partners to underscore the importance of a credible, independent,
professional media to a free and democratic society.
Question. Will you and your embassy teams actively engage with
Tanzania on the right of labor groups to organize, including for
independent trade unions?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue our embassy's efforts to
promote human rights. As the embassy noted in our 2018 Human Rights
Report, the Tanzanian government did not consistently enforce the law
protecting collective bargaining. I would advocate for continued
improvements in this area, and document progress in the Human Rights
Report.
Question. Will you commit to using your position, if confirmed, to
defend the human rights and dignity of all people in Tanzania, no
matter their sexual orientation or gender identity?
Answer. The United States continues to support upholding human
rights and the dignity of all individuals in Tanzania, no matter their
sexual orientation or gender identity. I am committed to promoting
human rights for all in Tanzania, including members of the LGBTQ
community.
Question. What challenges do the lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender and queer (LGBTQ) people face in Tanzania?
Answer. Consensual same-sex sexual conduct between adults is
illegal in the country. The law on both the mainland and Zanzibar
punishes ``gross indecency'' by up to five years in prison or a fine.
The law punishes any person convicted of having ``carnal knowledge of
another against the order of nature or permits a man to have carnal
knowledge of him against the order of nature'' with a prison sentence
of 30 years to life on the mainland and imprisonment up to 14 years in
Zanzibar. In Zanzibar, the law also provides for imprisonment of up to
five years or a fine for ``acts of lesbianism.'' In the past, courts
charged individuals suspected of same-sex sexual conduct with loitering
or prostitution. Police often harassed persons believed to be LGBTQ
based on their dress or manners. The Department also has reports that
some suspected gay men have been subjected to forced anal examinations
while in police custody.
The government opposed improved safeguards for the rights of LGBTQ
persons, which it characterized as contrary to the law of the land and
the cultural norms of society. Senior government officials have made
several anti-LGBTQ statements that led to some arrests and harassment.
Question. What specifically will you commit to do to help LGBTQ
people in Tanzania?
Answer. I will commit that before taking any action I will be
mindful of complexities in this space, inter-group dynamics, and will
seek to avoid escalating both existing animosity between LGBTQ
organizations and groups, and raising the risks faced by LGBTQ people
in general. The United States is pursuing the continued availability of
emergency response support to LGBTQ people facing medical, legal, or
other threats.
Question. Will you commit, if confirmed, to ensuring that you fully
brief Members of Congress and/or their staff each time you are in
Washington for visits or consultations during your tenure as Ambassador
to Tanzania?
Answer. Working with members of congress is very important to the
State Department. If confirmed, I am committed to coordinating robust
congressional engagement in accordance with the guidance of the African
Bureau and State Department's Office of Legislative Affairs.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record Submitted
to Dr. Donald Wright by Senator Benjamin L. Cardin
Question. What are your most meaningful achievements to date in
your career to promote human rights and democracy? What has been the
impact of your actions?
Answer. As a physician employed by the United States Department of
Health and Human Services, my Federal career has focused on improving
the health and safety of the American people. Consequently, I have not
worked on the international promotion of human rights and democracy.
However, if confirmed as Ambassador, I look forward to advocating for
human rights and fundamental freedoms for all in Tanzania.
Question. What are the most pressing human rights issues in
Tanzania? What are the most important steps you expect to take--if
confirmed--to promote human rights and democracy in Tanzania? What do
you hope to accomplish through these actions?
Answer. It is clear that over the past four years respect for human
rights and the rule of law has declined in Tanzania, impacting the
ability of individuals to enjoy the freedoms of association and
peaceful assembly. If confirmed, I will use my leadership and voice,
both publicly and privately, to underscore that respect for human
rights is essential for Tanzania's future growth, prosperity, and
security. I will engage Tanzanian authorities, international partners,
civil society organizations, and business leaders to work together
toward these goals.
Question. If confirmed, what are the potential obstacles to
addressing the specific human rights issues you have identified in your
previous response? What challenges will you face in Tanzania in
advancing human rights, civil society, and democracy in general?
Answer. Bringing together multiple stakeholders, including
Tanzanian government officials, international partners, civil society,
and business leaders will likely be one of the most important steps and
challenges. The steady decline of civic and political space has been a
source of critical concern inside and outside of the country. The
United States and Tanzania have a long and rich history of partnership.
If confirmed, I look forward to developing further and deepening
relationships with the Tanzanian government, international and domestic
partners, and the Tanzanian population to ensure the tangible
advancement of respect for human rights, empowerment of civil society,
commitment to democracy, and the increased prosperity of both the
United States and Tanzania.
Question. Are you committed to meeting with human rights, civil
society, and other non-governmental organizations in the U.S. and with
local human rights NGOs in Tanzania? If confirmed, what steps will you
take to pro-actively support the Leahy Law and similar efforts, and
ensure that provisions of U.S. security assistance and security
cooperation activities reinforce human rights?
Answer. Human rights, civil society organizations, and other non-
governmental organizations, regardless of where they are registered or
operate all play an important role in advancing democratic governance,
respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and assisting
Tanzania develop into a 21st century partner of the United States. I am
committed to meeting with any individual or entity that can be
beneficial to U.S. policy goals. As I mentioned in my hearing, security
cooperation is one of the bright spots of the U.S.-Tanzania
relationship. The Leahy Law is an important mechanism to ensure that we
do not furnish U.S. assistance to a security force unit where there is
credible information the unit committed a gross violation of human
rights. If confirmed, I will continue ongoing practices at Embassy Dar
es Salaam to implement the Leahy vetting process.
Question. ill you and your Embassy team actively engage with
Tanzania to address cases of key political prisoners or persons
otherwise unjustly targeted by Tanzania?
Answer. The United States has been a strong advocate in Tanzania
for the respect of human rights, including the rights of freedom of
expression, freedom of association, and fair trial guarantees. If
confirmed, I am committed to speaking both publicly and privately with
the government of Tanzania about our concerns. I will partner with
like-minded missions in Tanzania to speak with a united voice on this
topic, will work with civil society to ensure our voice is joined by
every-day Tanzanians committed to the country's democratic future, and
will use my convening power to ensure the dialogue on human rights in
Tanzania remains front and center of our agenda.
Question. Will you engage with Tanzania on matters of human rights,
civil rights and governance as part of your bilateral mission?
Answer. There is no question that there have been a number of
concerns related to good governance and respect for human rights in
Tanzania over the past several years. If confirmed, I am committed to
continuing to promote human rights for all individuals in Tanzania,
with a particular focus on those who are members of vulnerable
populations, including the LGBTI community, journalists, and the
political opposition. I am committed to working with the Tanzanian
government, like-minded missions, civil society, and international
organizations to address these important areas. I will also engage with
the population of Tanzania by urging continued U.S. programming in the
areas of human rights, democracy, and good governance.
Question. Research from private industry demonstrates that, when
managed well, diversity makes business teams better both in terms of
creativity and in terms of productivity. What will you do to promote,
mentor and support your staff that come from diverse backgrounds and
underrepresented groups?
Answer. If confirmed, I will embrace every opportunity to promote
diversity and inclusion in the workplace. I would ensure the Embassy
devotes resources to mentoring and support for all staff, including
those from diverse backgrounds and underrepresented groups. I agree
with the research that indicates that diverse teams are richer in
creativity and perspective, and I believe all leaders should embrace a
wide range of inputs, viewpoints, and backgrounds.
Question. What steps will you take to ensure each of the
supervisors at the Embassy are fostering an environment that is diverse
and inclusive?
Answer. If confirmed, fostering an environment that is diverse and
inclusive will be a priority. Proactively, I will make sure supervisors
within the Embassy complete diversity training on a regular basis. As
the most senior official within the Embassy, it will be my
responsibility to set the example for fostering an environment that is
diverse and inclusive.
Question. Do you commit to bring to the committee's attention (and
the State Department Inspector General) any change in policy or U.S.
actions that you suspect may be influenced by any of the President's
business or financial interests, or the business or financial interests
of any senior White House staff?
Answer. If confirmed, I commit to comply with all relevant federal
ethics laws, regulations, and rules, and to raise concerns that I may
have through appropriate channels.
Question. Do you commit to inform the committee if you have any
reason to suspect that a foreign government, head of state, or foreign-
controlled entity is taking any action in order to benefit any of the
President's business or financial interests, or the interests of senior
White House staff?
Answer. If confirmed, I commit to comply with all relevant federal
ethics laws, regulations, and rules, and to raise concerns that I may
have through appropriate channels.
Question. Do you or do any members of your immediate family have
any financial interests in Tanzania?
Answer. My investment portfolio includes diversified mutual funds,
which may hold interests in companies with a presence overseas, but
which are exempt from the conflict of interest laws. I am committed to
ensuring that my official actions will not give rise to a conflict of
interest. I will divest any investments the State Department Ethics
Office deems necessary to avoid a conflict of interest. I will remain
vigilant with regard to my ethics obligations.
Question. How do you believe political corruption impacts
democratic governance and the rule of law generally, and in Tanzania
specifically?
Answer. In many developing countries, efforts to foster broad-based
economic growth, improve the delivery of public services, and pursue
effective development policies continue to be stymied by disparities in
economic and political power and corruption. These dynamics undermine
participatory policy making and effective policy implementation and
service delivery. The United States has witnessed democratic
backsliding across the world, and recent events in Tanzania are an
example of this trend. Public corruption undercuts all democratic
nations' governance and rule of law, and can pose an existential threat
to nascent or weak democracies.
Question. What is your assessment of corruption trends in Tanzania
and efforts to address and reduce it by that government?
Answer. In 2015, President Magufuli ran on a robust anti-corruption
platform, which resonated with the Tanzanian population and foreign
business representatives exasperated with endemic corruption. Since
Magufuli's election, Tanzania has improved its standings in
Afrobarometer and Transparency International surveys on perceptions of
corruption. However, corruption remains pervasive, especially among the
police and judiciary. According to experts, recent anti-corruption
efforts have not addressed deep structural issues that contribute to
corruption. If confirmed, under my Ambassadorship the United States
will continue to advocate for a comprehensive, systemic approach to
combat corruption that empowers the people and promotes inclusive
democracy and economic growth in Tanzania.
Question. If confirmed, what steps will you take to strengthen good
governance and anticorruption programming in Tanzania?
Answer. If confirmed as Ambassador, I will use my convening power
to engage with a wide array of actors who influence and are impacted by
governance decisions. I will speak publicly and engage privately with
the government to state our concerns and offer support where
appropriate. I will also seek to have the U.S. Embassy in Dar es Salaam
lead advocacy on matters of human rights, democracy, anti-corruption,
and good governance, including through continued U.S. programming in
the areas of freedom of expression, including for members of the press,
and strengthened civil society organization.
Question. What is the United States doing, and what more can be
done, to help bolster and support freedom of the press in Tanzania?
Answer. The United States supports media freedom and is committed
to strengthening journalistic professionalism. If confirmed, I will
engage with like-minded missions, civil society, and international
partners to underscore the importance of an independent, professional,
and open media to a free and democratic society, especially as Tanzania
prepares for national elections in 2020. I will press to continue
United States support to Tanzania's media, including through
partnerships with community radio stations to build their
professionalism and financial viability, the development of a platform
for registering violations of freedom of expression for members of the
press, and education initiatives for journalists and media stakeholders
about their rights. Tanzanian journalists have participated in U.S.
government-sponsored professional exchange programs on political
reporting, safeguarding freedom of expression, media freedom, and the
media's role in strengthening democratic institutions.
Question. In what manner, if at all, should the United States seek
to ensure the protection of former opposition MP Tundu Lissu? Should he
return to Tanzania after receiving medical treatment abroad from the
multiple gunshot wounds he suffered in his unsolved 2017 attempted
assassination?
Answer. If confirmed, as Ambassador I will advocate for respect for
human rights and equal protection under the law for all individuals in
Tanzania. I will speak both publicly and privately with the host
government on its international human rights obligations and
commitments. Under my leadership, the United States Embassy will
continue to engage with representatives across the political spectrum,
including the ruling party and opposition parties.
Question. How would you assess the relative freedom of use and
access to the Internet in Tanzania?
Answer. Tanzania's Internet penetration rate has increased
exponentially in the past two decades from less than 1 percent in 2000
to 45 percent in 2019. This increased access to the Internet has the
potential to bring tremendous socioeconomic benefits to the Tanzanian
people. Since 2015, however, the government of Tanzania has also
instituted a series of internet censorship policies. The 2015
Cybercrimes Act, for example, increased censorship of online expression
by introducing and using sweeping powers to police the internet,
including social media. In recent years, under this act, a number of
human rights activists and government critics have been charged with
``publishing false information,'' ``offensive content,'' or
``insulting'' President Magufuli. The Electronic Postal Communications
(Online Content) Regulations enacted in March 2018 broadly restrict
online content, require bloggers to pay prohibitively expensive
registration fees, and permit surveillance of cybercafes without
judicial oversight.
Question. What is the current stance of the state toward lesbian,
gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people? What is your assessment
of the current level of danger faced by this population?
Answer. Consensual same-sex sexual conduct between adults is
illegal in the country. The law on both the mainland and Zanzibar
punishes ``gross indecency'' by up to five years in prison or a fine.
The law punishes any person convicted of having ``carnal knowledge of
another against the order of nature or permits a man to have carnal
knowledge of him against the order of nature'' with a prison sentence
of 30 years to life on the mainland and imprisonment up to 14 years in
Zanzibar. In Zanzibar, the law also provides for imprisonment up to
five years or a fine for ``acts of lesbianism.'' In the past, courts
charged individuals suspected of same-sex sexual conduct with loitering
or prostitution. Police often harass persons believed to be LGBT based
on their dress or manners. The Department also has reports that some
suspected gay men have been subjected to forced anal examinations while
in police custody.
The government opposed improved safeguards for the rights of LGBT
persons, which it characterized as contrary to the law of the land and
the cultural norms of society. Senior government officials have made
several anti-LGBT statements. The LGBT community is under threat of
continued arrests and harassment.
Question. What impact does the Tanzanian State's crackdown on LGBT
rights have on the availability of health services for at-risk
populations?
Answer. The government of Tanzania has banned certain health
services and products and created an environment in which many members
of the LGBT community do not feel safe seeking out health services. For
example, the government banned drop-in centers where members of at-risk
populations could gather to share critical health information and
access services, banned products that reduce the risk of HIV
transmission among gay men, and has arrested members of the LGBT
community on spurious charges, some of whom have reportedly endured
forced anal examinations.
The policy of the Embassy has been to promote human rights for all
people in Tanzania, including members of the LGBT community. The U.S.
Embassy works closely with the government of Tanzania to ensure health
services are provided to key populations including the LGBT community.
This is particularly crucial in the area of HIV, because timely testing
and treatment helps to prevent new infections. The Embassy also works
with partners to address violence, discrimination, and stigma against
the LGBT community, so that all people in Tanzania feel safe and
comfortable seeking out health services.
Question. How do you plan, if confirmed, to leverage your platform
as Ambassador to help convince potentially unreceptive interlocutors of
the need for tolerance and humane treatment of all Tanzanians,
regardless of sexual orientation?
Answer. If confirmed, I will promote dialogue on the importance of
human rights. Under my leadership, the Embassy will continue to work
with partners to address violence, discrimination, and stigma against
all vulnerable populations, including the LGBT community.
All actions that I take will be mindful of complexities in this
space, inter-group dynamics, and will seek to avoid escalating both
existing animosity between LGBT organizations and groups, and raising
the risks faced by LGBT people in general.
Question. What reasons did the ministry for regional administration
and local government-which administered the recent local government
elections-give for disqualifying large numbers of opposition party
candidates?
Answer. By law, the President's Office for Regional Administration
and Local government manages and oversees local elections on the
Tanzanian mainland. Minister for Regional Administration and Local
government, Selamani Jafo, reported that election officials rejected
opposition party candidate applications for a number of reasons,
including errors on the candidate applications forms, the absence of
required ethics or asset declarations, and for candidates not being
resident in the jurisdictions in which they applied to be candidates.
In addition, opposition parties reported their candidates found
registration offices closed in the days leading up to the registration
deadline and faced intimidation in some locations when attempting to
register. The Embassy expressed concern in a public statement about the
management of local elections, including irregularities in the
candidate registration process. Minister Jafo's explanation of why
opposition candidates were rejected did not assuage those concerns.
Question. To what degree, if at all, were opposition parties
willing or able to legally contest alleged process irregularities
during the recent civic polls?
Answer. While local election regulations provided candidates whose
applications were rejected with a mechanism for appealing the decision
to local election officials within two days of the initial rejection,
it is unclear if opposition party candidates were willing or able to
avail themselves of the appeal process.
Question. What implications did these elections have for governance
in Tanzania and the relative hold on state power of the CCM?
Answer. Following the rejection of approximately 90 percent of
opposition candidates for the November 24 local elections, and the
principal opposition parties' decision to boycott the elections
following the disenfranchisement of their candidates, the ruling Chama
Cha Mapinduzi (CCM, Revolution Party) was declared the winner of 99.9
percent of seats in the more than 80,000 villages, hamlets and
neighborhood councils across the Tanzanian mainland. Although some
candidates from the boycotting opposition parties remained on the
ballots and were declared winners, the opposition parties announced
they would not recognize the results. As a result, the CCM will control
local government councils across the Tanzanian mainland.
Question. What should the response of the United States be if the
same types and scope of irregularities that featured in the 2019
election occur in the 2020 election?
Answer. The United States remains committed to supporting
democracy, human rights, and good governance in Tanzania; these
principles are enshrined within Tanzania's constitution and remain
central to the aspirations of the Tanzanian people. The U.S. government
has engaged the Tanzanian government publicly and privately on the need
for free and fair elections over the past year. If confirmed, as
Ambassador I will continue to raise our concerns, publicly and
privately, when we observe actions that are inconsistent with
democratic values.
In 2020, the United States plans to support appropriately
transparent and inclusive political and electoral processes in Tanzania
in four main areas: systematic domestic observation of the 2020
elections; civic and voter education campaigns; assistance to political
parties to be more inclusive and to candidates to run more professional
and issue-focused campaigns; and assistance for Tanzanian-led efforts
to introduce and advance electoral reforms that increase the
participation of women and youth.
Question. What about the U.S. stance if the government refuses to
re-register key opposition parties?
Answer. In 2020, the United States plans to support appropriately
systematic domestic observation of national elections, which is
designed to include long-term observation that would include oversight
of the candidate registration process. Additionally, U.S.-supported
programs will provide support for electoral dispute resolution
mechanisms and to political parties, including on strategic planning.
Question. What are the implications of the 2019 Political Parties
Act for free and fair democratic participation, and the relative
ability of political parties and their members to assemble and
organize? Is Tanzania heading toward a resurrection of the one party
state?
Answer. A number of legislative actions over the past years,
including the 2019 Amendments to the Political Parties Act, have served
to restrict civil liberties for all people in Tanzania, especially
those who seek to exercise their rights to freedoms of expression,
association, and peaceful assembly. The amendments give the Registrar
of Political Parties expansive statutory authority to regulate parties'
internal affairs and add to concerns about Tanzania's future as a
multiparty democracy. In this context, the United States has publicly
called on Tanzanian authorities to ``act decisively to safeguard the
rights of civil society organizations, human rights defenders,
journalists, health workers, political activists, and all people in
accordance with the Tanzanian constitution.''
Question. Please describe the level and nature of U.S. assistance
aimed at helping to ensure that the 2020 vote is free, fair, and fully
participatory.
Answer. In 2020, the United States plans to support appropriately
transparent and inclusive political and electoral processes in Tanzania
in four main areas: systematic domestic observation of the 2020
elections; civic and voter education campaigns; assistance to political
parties and to candidates to run more professional and issue-focused
campaigns; and, assistance for Tanzanian-led efforts to introduce and
advance electoral reforms that increase the participation of women and
youth.
Question. How would you describe Tanzania's current relationship
with China?
Answer. Tanzania is one of China's principal African trading
partners and aid recipients. The two countries maintain close and
enduring party-to-party and military-to-military relationships.
President Magufuli and members of his cabinet frequently praise China's
``no-strings attached'' foreign assistance, and it is common for
politicians to describe China as Tanzania's ``all-weather friend.''
However, President Magufuli has also been skeptical of China's
intentions. For example, Tanzania suspended negotiations on a $10
billion Chinese-funded port project, and President Magufuli publicly
announced he is willing to cancel the whole project if the investors do
not offer better terms. Chinese citizens have also reportedly been
subjected to increased scrutiny and investigations into possible
criminal, labor, and other violations.
Question. What role, if any, does China play as a U.S. competitor
in Tanzania?
Answer. The United States is the preferred partner to Tanzanian
companies that value quality. Our trade relationship with Tanzania,
while small in comparison to China, includes high value items such as
aircraft and machinery, and cereals and other commodities. China
continues to be Tanzania's largest trading partner, a leading source of
foreign investment, and a financier of big-ticket infrastructure
projects that form the cornerstone of Magufuli's industrialization
agenda. These avenues provide China with influence within the
government of Tanzania, while allowing it to tout its ``no-strings
attached'' contributions to Tanzania's economic development. Tanzania's
trade with China is extremely lopsided; a fact that is not lost on
Tanzanian officials. If confirmed, I will lead my Embassy economic and
commercial team in presenting the United States as a viable alternative
for trade and investment partnerships. To this end, we will leverage
Prosper Africa and opportunities under the BUILD Act to support U.S.
businesses and investors and enable them to better compete with Chinese
firms in Tanzania. Of note, there are areas for potential enhanced
cooperation with China on common issues of concern in Tanzania, to
include wildlife trafficking, public health, and business climate
issues.
Question. If confirmed, how would you apply your background as a
physician and health policy administrator to these challenges?
Answer. Over 80 percent of American developmental assistance to
Tanzania is directed to improving the health security of the people in
Tanzania. Tanzania has a high burden of HIV/AIDS with an estimate of
over 1.6 million people living with HIV (PLHIV), and mosquito-borne
illnesses such as malaria and dengue fever are also prevalent. The
United States has supported Tanzania's efforts to build health sector
capacity while also encouraging Tanzania to adhere to its commitments
under the International Health Regulations (2005)--including
transparency and reporting on outbreaks of infectious disease.
Over the last decade, more than one million HIV positive Tanzanians
have been placed on anti-retroviral therapy. Ultimately, we want to
ensure that at least 90 percent of those infected with HIV know they
are sero-positive for HIV. Once diagnosed, 90 percent or more of
identified positive Tanzanian should be receiving anti-retroviral
therapy. To achieve this goal, we need to reduce stigma towards HIV,
scale-up targeted/index testing, and ensure PLHIV stay on treatment
across the country.
Mosquito-borne illnesses are common in Tanzania at 524 deaths per
100,000 live births. Prevention strategies, implemented by the
President's Malaria Initiative, are bearing fruit. Prevalence rates for
malaria dropped 10 percent over a decade. These prevention efforts
center on the use of insecticide impregnated bed nets and indoor
spraying. Despite this success, more work remains to decrease further
the burden of malaria and other mosquito borne diseases in Tanzania.
Question. What improvements would you recommend to improve
Tanzania's absorptive capacity for U.S. assistance dollars targeting
the health sector?
Answer. Tanzania will receive intensive support in Fiscal Year 2020
(FY 2020) as one of the U.S. government's 19 Global Health Security
Agenda (GHSA) partner nations. Almost 80 percent of the development
assistance provided by the American taxpayer to Tanzania is directed to
improving the health of the Tanzanian people. The United States has
encouraged the Tanzanian government to take more responsibility for the
health of Tanzanians and continue the programs that have built a
foundation for improved health security over the past decade. To do
this, Tanzania needs to improve its health sector systems, spend the
local resources that it has allocated on paper to actual implementation
of programs to improve the health of its people, promote greater
involvement of the private sector in public health, and adopt policies
that will promote transparency and bring healthcare to the communities
and decrease the vulnerability of women and children. It is imperative
to strengthen the allocative efficiencies for health budgets at the
national and sub-national level in order to strengthen health services
delivery and increase health security.
Question. Please discuss Tanzania's stance on the repatriation of
Burundian refugees.
Answer. Under a Tripartite Agreement with the government of Burundi
and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the
government of Tanzania has committed to the voluntary repatriation of
Burundian refugees. However, the government of Tanzania has also stated
that the best and only viable option for Burundian refugees is
repatriation. Tanzanian authorities stated that Burundi is ready for
returns, despite continuing serious political and security issues in
Burundi that show no signs of improving and raise concerns ahead of
Burundian elections in May 2020. Top Tanzanian officials have accused
international organizations of interfering with the repatriation of
Burundian refugees. Tanzania has stopped allowing Burundians to
register as asylum seekers.
Question. Why, to what extent, and in what manner is Tanzania-which
for decades has hosted waves of refugees fleeing various periods of
political violence and instability in Burundi-seeking to force the
return of Burundian refugees?
Answer. The government of Tanzania maintains it is not forcing the
return of Burundian refugees. However, it has implemented a series of
policies in refugee camps that are creating conditions that some
perceive are designed to pressure Burundian refugees to return to
Burundi. These includes restrictions on the ability of Burundian
refugees to engage in livelihood activities (e.g. participate in
markets), forcing Burundians to register to repatriate in order to
receive services, and other tactics such as banning some UNHCR staff
from entering the camps, and banning sports activities and the use of
bicycles within the camps.
Question. What is the U.S. stance on this matter?
Answer. Tanzania should uphold its international obligations and
ensure refugee returns are voluntary, safe, and dignified. The United
States supports the voluntary repatriation of Burundian refugees and
supports the UNHCR's efforts to ensure the voluntariness of returns.
UNHCR assesses that conditions in Burundi are not yet conducive to
promote returns. If confirmed as Ambassador, I will ensure the Embassy
will continue to monitor the voluntariness of the returns and to
advocate for refugee access to asylum, fair and timely refugee status
determination, and for any refugee returns to be voluntary, safe,
informed, and dignified.
Question. Please discuss the nature and level of U.S. assistance
for Burundian refugees in Tanzania.
Answer. The United States provides funding to the UNHCR,
International Organization for Migration (IOM), the World Food Program,
and NGOs to provide humanitarian assistance to refugees and to fund
voluntary returns. UNHCR, with State Department support, started a
large-scale program to resettle long-staying DRC refugees currently in
Uganda, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Burundi. The United States has resettled
over 18,000 refugees from Tanzania since FY 2014, mostly Congolese
refugees with a smaller number of Burundi refugees, including nearly
3,760 in FY 2019, making it the largest U.S. Refugee Admissions Program
globally. The government of Tanzania regularly states its appreciation
for the U.S. resettlement program.
In addition to continent-wide support, in FY 2019, the U.S.
government, through State's Bureau of Population, Refugees, and
Migration, provided more than $33.4 million in support of UNHCR, IOM,
and other NGOs to Tanzania's country-wide operations, supporting
protection and multi-sectoral assistance to refugees and host
communities in Tanzania. Since 2016, the U.S. government also provided
over $77 million in cash and in-kind assistance to the World Food
Program to provide emergency assistance, including food rations and
specialized nutrition products geared towards pregnant women and
children.
Question. How would you tackle the trafficking in persons challenge
in Tanzania, if confirmed?
Answer. Under my leadership, the Embassy will continue to emphasize
to the government of Tanzania the importance of meeting the goals of
its National Anti-Trafficking in Persons Action Plan (2018-21), which
is aligned with the 2019 Trafficking in Persons Report (TIP)
recommendations.
In order to improve its TIP ranking next year, the government of
Tanzania could:
Table the Amendment to the 2008 Anti-Trafficking Act, which will
remove sentencing provisions that allow fines in lieu of
imprisonment and align the procedural law pertaining to
trafficking-related arrests within the act with the
requirements for other serious crimes;
Increase funding to the Anti-Trafficking Secretariat to support
their prosecution, protection, and prevention efforts;
While respecting the rule of law and human rights, increase efforts
to investigate, prosecute, and convict trafficking offenders,
including complicit officials and impose adequate penalties;
Implement a systematic victim-witness support program; and,
Institutionalize the use of a national centralized anti-trafficking
data collection and reporting tool and consider increasing
information sharing.
Question. What are the key sources of U.S. leverage with respect to
countering the Magufuli government's increasingly repressive and anti-
democratic record?
Answer. The United States has expressed concerns about Tanzania's
shrinking democratic space. Addressing repressive actions takes a
multifaceted approach. If confirmed, I will continue to speak out,
publicly and privately, when the government of Tanzania acts in ways
that are not in accordance with our shared democratic values or their
obligations to uphold human rights and fundamental freedoms. I will
partner with like-minded missions, engage civil society and other
influential voices to be part of the dialogue, and leverage my
convening power to ensure that these topics remain front and center. I
will collaborate and engage with a broad array of Tanzanians, to
include government officials, to ensure they know that the American
people share their aspirations for a durable Tanzanian democracy and
robust respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Question. What are other key U.S. development program priorities in
Tanzania and what strategy would you recommend implementing to ensure
U.S. priorities in the country are advanced?
Answer. Given the high population growth rate, youth are an
increasingly important demographic in Tanzania and will set a tone for
the future. Their success or disengagement can tip Tanzania towards
prosperity or towards failure. Future development programs should be
focused on ensuring that youth have a strong foundation for success
from birth, which includes adequate health care and quality education.
They should continue to build on that foundation as young adults, also
ensuring that they have economic and civic opportunities that allow
them to contribute to their country's success. Development must be done
in a way that safeguards gains for future generations; managing natural
resources for long-term benefit as well as building government and non-
governmental institutions that can create more stable governance. This
work includes strengthening the business environment for both
employment creation and U.S. business interests.
__________
[all]