[Senate Hearing 117-728]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                        S. Hrg. 117-728

                     NOMINATIONS OF MARIA L. PAGAN,
                   BRENT NEIMAN, JOSHUA FROST, SAMUEL R.
                   BAGENSTOS, AND CHRISTOPHER S. WILSON

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                          COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                                 ON THE

                             NOMINATIONS OF

MARIA L. PAGAN, TO BE DEPUTY UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE, GENEVA 
OFFICE, WITH THE RANK OF AMBASSADOR, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT; 
 BRENT NEIMAN, TO BE DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR INTERNATIONAL FINANCE 
   AND DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; JOSHUA FROST, TO BE 
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL MARKETS, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; 
 SAMUEL R. BAGENSTOS, TO BE GENERAL COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 
 HUMAN SERVICES; AND CHRISTOPHER S. WILSON, TO BE CHIEF INNOVATION AND 
  INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE 
 REPRESENTATIVE, WITH THE RANK OF AMBASSADOR, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE 
                               PRESIDENT

                               __________

                            OCTOBER 26, 2021

                               __________

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                                     
                                     

            Printed for the use of the Committee on Finance


                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
53-192-PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2023                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------    

                          COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

                      RON WYDEN, Oregon, Chairman

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan            MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington           CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey          JOHN CORNYN, Texas
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware           JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio                  ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado          PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania
ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania   TIM SCOTT, South Carolina
MARK R. WARNER, Virginia             BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island     JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire         STEVE DAINES, Montana
CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada       TODD YOUNG, Indiana
ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts      BEN SASSE, Nebraska
                                     JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming

                    Joshua Sheinkman, Staff Director

                Gregg Richard, Republican Staff Director

                                  (II)
                                  
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                   Page
Wyden, Hon. Ron, a U.S. Senator from Oregon, chairman, Committee 
  on Finance.....................................................     2
Crapo, Hon. Mike, a U.S. Senator from Idaho......................     3

                        ADMINISTRATION NOMINEES

Pagan, Maria L., nominated to be Deputy United States Trade 
  Representative, Geneva Office, with the rank of Ambassador, 
  Executive Office of the President, Washington, DC..............     5
Neiman, Brent, Ph.D., nominated to be Deputy Under Secretary for 
  International Finance and Development, Department of the 
  Treasury, Washington, DC.......................................     6
Frost, Joshua, nominated to be Assistant Secretary for Financial 
  Markets, Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC............     7
Bagenstos, Samuel R., nominated to be General Counsel, Department 
  of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC...................     8
Wilson, Christopher S., nominated to be Chief Innovation and 
  Intellectual Property Negotiator, Office of the United States 
  Trade Representative, with the rank of Ambassador, Executive 
  Office of the President, Washington, DC........................     9

               ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL

Bagenstos, Samuel R.:
    Testimony....................................................     8
    Prepared statement...........................................    41
    Biographical information.....................................    42
    Responses to questions from committee members................    61
Crapo, Hon. Mike:
    Opening statement............................................     3
    Prepared statement...........................................    65
Frost, Joshua:
    Testimony....................................................     7
    Prepared statement...........................................    67
    Biographical information.....................................    67
    Responses to questions from committee members................    71
Neiman, Brent, Ph.D.:
    Testimony....................................................     6
    Prepared statement...........................................    78
    Biographical information.....................................    79
    Responses to questions from committee members................    86
Pagan, Maria L.:
    Testimony....................................................     5
    Prepared statement...........................................   101
    Biographical information.....................................   102
    Responses to questions from committee members................   106
Wilson, Christopher S.:
    Testimony....................................................     9
    Prepared statement...........................................   115
    Biographical information.....................................   116
    Responses to questions from committee members................   120
Wyden, Hon. Ron:
    Opening statement............................................     2
    Prepared statement...........................................   126

                             Communications

Families and Friends of Care Facility Residents..................   129
Underwood, Rebecca...............................................   131
U.S. Chamber of Commerce.........................................   133

 
                            NOMINATIONS OF 
       MARIA L. PAGAN, TO BE DEPUTY UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE, 
        GENEVA OFFICE, WITH THE RANK OF AMBASSADOR, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF
        THE PRESIDENT; BRENT NEIMAN,TO BE DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR
        INTERNATIONAL FINANCE AND DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE
        TREASURY; JOSHUA FROST, TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL
        MARKETS, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; SAMUEL R. BAGENSTOS, TO BE 
        GENERAL COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; AND 
        CHRISTOPHER S. WILSON, TO BE CHIEF INNOVATION AND INTELLECTUAL 
        PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENT-
        ATIVE, WITH THE RANK OF AMBASSADOR, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

                              ----------                              


                       TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2021

                                       U.S. Senate,
                                      Committee on Finance,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The hearing was convened, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., 
via Webex, in Room SD-215, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. 
Ron Wyden (chairman of the committee) presiding.
    Present: Senators Cantwell, Menendez, Carper, Cardin, 
Brown, Casey, Whitehouse, Cortez Masto, Warren, Crapo, 
Grassley, Thune, Portman, Cassidy, Lankford, Daines, and 
Barrasso.
    Also present: Democratic staff: Sally Laing, Chief 
International Trade Counsel; Ian Nicholson, Investigator and 
Nominations Advisor; and Joshua Sheinkman, Staff Director. 
Republican staff: Lincoln Foran, Policy Advisor; John O'Hara, 
Trade Policy Director and Counsel; Mayur Patel, Chief 
International Trade Counsel; Gregg Richard, Staff Director; and 
Jeffrey Wrase, Deputy Staff Director and Chief Economist.

   OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 
             OREGON, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

    The Chairman. The Finance Committee meets this morning to 
discuss an important set of nominations that span three Federal 
agencies and at least two continents.
    Maria Pagan is President Biden's nominee to serve as a 
Deputy U.S. Trade Representative and our envoy to the WTO in 
Geneva. Ms. Pagan brings to her nomination nearly 3 decades of 
experience in international trade law. She currently serves as 
USTR's Deputy General Counsel, which puts her right at the 
heart of just about every effort to ensure that our trade laws 
are protecting American workers and businesses and giving them 
a shot to get ahead. She has valuable experience litigating 
disputes before the WTO, which makes her the right choice for 
this job.
    Chris Wilson is President Biden's nominee to serve as 
USTR's Chief Innovation and Intellectual Property Negotiator. 
It is the first time a nominee for this role has come before 
the Finance Committee since the committee created this position 
in the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015--
and it was long overdue. We all take as a bedrock principle 
that we want to get trade done right, and getting trade done 
right in the modern economy means going to bat for 
manufacturers, farmers, and ranchers, and fighting for the 
high-wage, high-skill jobs and businesses of the modern 
economy. It also means ensuring that our policies balance the 
interests of IP owners, innovators, technology users, and the 
public at large. Mr. Wilson brings to his nomination 20 years 
of experience at USTR, during which he has represented American 
workers and businesses in negotiations across the globe. All 
that experience makes him an ideal choice to be the first-ever 
Chief Innovation and IP Negotiator.
    Joshua Frost is President Biden's nominee to serve as 
Assistant Treasury Secretary for Financial Markets. It is a 
challenging job that deals with a variety of subjects that 
include debt management, the housing market, and the health of 
our financial system. Mr. Frost has more than 20 years of 
experience in a variety of roles at the Federal Reserve, 
including more than 12 years at the open markets desk. He has 
overseen programs aimed at preventing another financial crisis 
and responding to the COVID-19 crash. He is a natural fit for 
the position, because it is all about protecting the integrity 
and the stability of our financial system.
    Dr. Brent Neiman is President Biden's nominee to serve as 
the Deputy Under Secretary of the Treasury for International 
Finance and Development. This job deals with the most tangled, 
complicated policy questions having to do with the global 
economy. One of the big challenges Dr. Neiman will be working 
on, if and when he is confirmed, is how to help solve the 
interruptions of global supply chains that are continuing to 
pop up as the pandemic continues to infect people around the 
world. And I know Dr. Neiman has considerable experience on 
these issues, and we look forward to his testimony. He will 
also work on the issue of currency manipulation, which is a 
subject this committee takes very seriously. Dr. Neiman will 
have a leading role in the effort to make sure that 
multinational corporations can no longer hide their profits in 
shadowy tax shelters around the globe instead of paying a fair 
share. Dr. Neiman is currently the Edward Eagle Brown professor 
of economics at the University of Chicago's Booth School of 
Business, and, as I indicated, his decades of research have 
contributed to his expertise on international macroeconomics, 
finance, and trade. My view is, he is an excellent choice for a 
difficult job.
    And finally, Sam Bagenstos is President Biden's nominee to 
serve as General Counsel to the Department of Health and Human 
Services. He has worn a lot of hats in public service. 
Currently he serves as General Counsel to the Office of 
Management and Budget. From 2009 to 2011, he was Principal 
Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, and there 
he argued cases before the Supreme Court dealing with 
protections for pregnant workers and Americans with 
disabilities. He is an expert in civil rights law, and he is 
currently on leave from his position as the Frank G. Millard 
professor of law at the University of Michigan Law School. At 
Health and Human Services, he will work closely with Secretary 
Becerra and his team and provide legal advice on all of the 
Department's efforts to make health care more affordable, 
strengthen Medicaid, uphold the Medicare guarantee, and ensure 
that vulnerable people in our country are protected and cared 
for.
    Congratulations to all five nominees. We have heard a lot 
of comments, from those who have followed these issues over the 
years, about each of you, and we look forward to your 
testimony.
    And, after Senator Crapo makes his opening remarks, I will 
have a few routine questions that we ask of all nominees, and 
then we will have, I know, a very positive discussion.
    Let me recognize my friend, Senator Crapo.
    [The prepared statement of Chairman Wyden appears in the 
appendix.]

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE CRAPO, 
                  A U.S. SENATOR FROM OF IDAHO

    Senator Crapo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, as you have 
indicated, today we will hear from a panel of nominees who will 
influence and implement a broad range of the administration's 
priorities.
    Dr. Neiman, the United States is the best place in the 
world to do business. Not surprisingly, that has drawn foreign 
investment, which has benefited our citizens immensely. And I 
look forward to hearing your views on how the United States can 
remain a prized destination for foreign investment. I fear that 
uncontrolled spending, burdensome regulations, and potential 
tax increases--including on the middle class--will make America 
less competitive and less attractive for foreign investment.
    The administration's international tax negotiations are 
concerning, given the lack of detailed consultation with 
Congress as a whole. I am also concerned about how some of our 
overseas rivals are manipulating international organizations 
the U.S. helped found, like the World Bank. The U.S. and other 
countries established these institutions to promote global 
prosperity, not to further parochial interests.
    Mr. Frost, I look forward to hearing about your thoughts on 
the administration's fiscal policy, the debt ceiling, and 
proposed financial market reforms, including the United States 
Treasury securities market and the replacement of LIBOR. The 
debt limit provides an important check on both the President's 
and Congress's policies. And if fiscal decisions that will 
influence debt accumulation moving forward are willfully made 
by one party alone, then the accompanying obligation to change 
the debt limit to accommodate those fiscal choices must also be 
made by the party making unilateral choices. Tools and time are 
available to unilaterally accomplish such a change in the debt 
limit. Along the way, Mr. Frost, I look forward to your 
commitment to ensure that Treasury keeps members of this 
committee fully and timely informed on the Nation's debt, cash 
balances, and debt management.
    Turning to LIBOR, while recent administrations, the Federal 
Reserve, and market participants have worked successfully to 
establish the Secured Overnight Financing Right as an 
alternative reference rate, nearly $2 trillion in LIBOR-linked 
exposures are expected to remain outstanding after the 
termination of LIBOR in June 2023. It is important to 
understand how the administration plans to address this looming 
challenge.
    Ms. Pagan, the World Trade Organization is critical to our 
trading interests, but is in need of reform. I look forward to 
hearing your views on how to make the institution more 
effective.
    Mr. Wilson, if confirmed, you will be the first Deputy U.S. 
Trade Representative for Innovation and Intellectual Property. 
Strong intellectual property protections are critical to 
America's economic prosperity, and this is especially true 
today. Mr. Wilson, I want to know your priorities for the 
position, and how we can combat unfair practices by our global 
competitors like theft and forced technology transfers, and how 
we can protect intellectual property and private intellectual 
property rights. Additionally, the severity of the COVID-19 
pandemic has been lessened, thanks to innovations borne out of 
the partnership between the American Government and American 
industry. It is critical that we not undermine the American 
people's ability to respond to future challenges with 
intelligence and agility.
    Mr. Bagenstos, as the nominee for General Counsel at HHS, 
you will have a key role in opining on the legality of new 
regulations. I am interested in your perspective on providing 
legal opinions to Congress so that we can understand and 
discuss policymaking effectively with the administration. 
Already, this administration has shown a disturbing tendency to 
push through its policy preferences despite clear indications 
of the intent of Congress.
    Finally, I again emphasize the importance of responsiveness 
to this committee. While there have been noteworthy exceptions, 
several nominees before this committee have provided late, 
incomplete, and evasive responses to questions from the members 
of this panel. This makes it harder for the Finance Committee 
and its members to work constructively with the administration.
    I strongly urge the nominees here today to commit to timely 
and thorough communication with this committee. I congratulate 
the nominees here before us today, and I look forward to our 
discussion with you today.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    [The prepared statement of Senator Crapo appears in the 
appendix.]
    The Chairman. I thank my colleague.
    What we will do now is, we will have the opening 
statements, and then we have some obligatory questions that we 
have to ask. But let us just proceed to make your complete 
statements a part of the record in their entirety, and let us 
start with Ms. Pagan.

  STATEMENT OF MARIA L. PAGAN, NOMINATED TO BE DEPUTY UNITED 
 STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE, GENEVA OFFICE, WITH THE RANK OF 
 AMBASSADOR, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, WASHINGTON, DC

    Ms. Pagan. Thank you. Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Crapo, 
members of the committee, good morning. It is an honor to be 
here today as the nominee for Deputy U.S. Trade Representative 
in Geneva. I am grateful to President Biden for this 
nomination, and to Ambassador Tai for her support. I am also 
grateful to my family--my parents, my two brothers and their 
wives, and my son--for their support, love, and inspiration. My 
parents are doctors and dedicated their professional lives to 
advancing public health in Puerto Rico. I learned from them the 
value of public service and of taking pride in what you do. 
They could not be here with me, but I am sure they are 
watching. My son could not be here either, as he is a first-
year law student on the west coast, but his support is 
enormously important to me.
    I come here before you today having spent nearly 30 years 
as a civil servant, first at the Department of Commerce, and 
for the last 18 years at the USTR, representing our country in 
trade negotiations and litigation. I want to underscore 
Ambassador Tai's recent speech, where she reaffirmed the United 
States' commitment to the WTO. However, there is a growing 
recognition that after 25 years, the institution needs to be 
reformed in order to be effective and relevant for the next 25 
years. If confirmed, it would be an honor to represent the 
United States in Geneva at this critical juncture.
    Ambassador Tai emphasized the Biden-Harris administration's 
belief that trade--and the WTO--can be a force for good, and 
she laid out her vision to help the organization reorient its 
mission to better serve and advance the interests of regular 
people. Taking steps to address the COVID-19 pandemic would be 
a good start. It also means finding a way to incorporate the 
interests and priorities of workers into the WTO's work.
    Ambassador Tai also spoke about the need for dispute 
settlement reform to help empower members to secure actual 
resolutions and provide confidence that the system is fair. 
These challenges are central to the WTO's ability to operate as 
it was envisioned at its founding.
    I know this will not be easy. As Deputy General Counsel at 
USTR, my job is to get things done, and I will bring that can-
do approach and attitude to Geneva. We need to be creative; not 
just focus on the areas where we disagree, but find the areas 
where we can agree. We need to listen to each other and not 
just talk at one another. And we need to listen to voices 
outside of Geneva and Washington, DC in order to broaden our 
perspectives. It includes working with this committee and 
members of Congress. Action, or inaction, at the WTO directly 
affects communities, workers, farmers, and small businesses in 
your States.
    If confirmed, I commit to maintain open lines of 
communication with all of you, and represent the interests of 
your constituents in Geneva.
    As a long-time member of the USTR family, I know I will be 
able to count on a fantastic career staff's excellence, hard 
work, and creativity. It is reassuring to know they will be 
there to support me.
    Thank you, and I look forward to answering your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Pagan appears in the 
appendix.]
    The Chairman. Next will be Dr. Neiman.
    Excuse us. We are juggling a lot with Build Back Better, 
and I apologize.

STATEMENT OF BRENT NEIMAN, Ph.D., NOMINATED TO BE DEPUTY UNDER 
SECRETARY FOR INTERNATIONAL FINANCE AND DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT 
                OF THE TREASURY, WASHINGTON, DC

    Dr. Neiman. Thank you. Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member 
Crapo, and distinguished members of this committee, thank you 
for the opportunity to appear here before you today as nominee 
to be Deputy Under Secretary for International Finance and 
Development at the Treasury. I am also deeply grateful to 
President Biden and to Secretary Yellen for placing their 
confidence in me.
    My amazing wife Yael is here, and we are both so proud of 
our wonderful kids, our 11-year-old daughter Tal and our 8-
year-old son Lev. My parents, Bill and Gail, have always been 
encouraging and are watching from home right now. I am very 
appreciative of my entire family's support.
    My grandparents are also in my thoughts. My grandmother 
Margot, who fled from Germany in 1939 to Decatur, IL, always 
encouraged an awareness of world affairs and an understanding 
of other people, places, and cultures. My grandfather Julie, 
who ran a small manufacturer, hired me for summer jobs and 
taught me about entrepreneurship and small business. I am 
grateful for what they shared with me and imagine that all four 
of my grandparents would be very proud today.
    My interest in international economics started early in 
high school, when I gave a speech about the ECU--the euro's 
predecessor--for the final project of my sophomore year speech 
class. My teacher criticized the topic as hopelessly dry, but I 
stuck with it. And since then, I have worked as a staff 
economist at the Council of Economic Advisers, written a 
doctoral dissertation at Harvard, consulted to the IMF, and 
presented to central banks all around the world.
    For the past 13 years, I've taught a course at the 
University of Chicago's Booth School of Business called 
``International Financial Policy.'' I hope I have been able to 
prove my high school teacher wrong and instill some excitement 
about international macroeconomics into the next generation of 
leaders.
    My research has uniquely prepared me to serve in this 
position at this time. I have published papers exploring the 
changing international role of the U.S. dollar and analyzing 
financial exposures of U.S. investors to emerging market 
borrowers. My work has evaluated the impact of exchange rate 
movements on productivity during a sudden stop crisis and 
measured the price responses of U.S. importers and exporters to 
trade policies. I have developed models of how economic 
activity transmits across borders and used them to understand 
the formation and resolution of external imbalances.
    The pandemic has underscored how interconnected the world 
economy is. Continuing hardship in foreign countries spurs 
foreign families to leave, seeking opportunities elsewhere. 
Disruptions in the global supply chain keep our workers waiting 
for equipment and our consumers waiting for goods that both 
need.
    Slow growth abroad restricts markets for American 
businesses, large and small. Helping to alleviate suffering and 
restore financial and physical health to the rest of the world 
is worthy in its own right, but also benefits the U.S. economy 
and our national security.
    Thank you again for the privilege of appearing here today, 
and for your consideration of my nomination. I look forward to 
answering your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Neiman appears in the 
appendix.]
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Next we will have Mr. Frost.

STATEMENT OF JOSHUA FROST, NOMINATED TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY 
FOR FINANCIAL MARKETS, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, WASHINGTON, 
                               DC

    Mr. Frost. Thank you, Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Crapo, 
and members of the committee. I thank you for the opportunity 
to appear before you today. I am honored to be President 
Biden's nominee for Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for 
Financial Markets, and I am grateful to Secretary Yellen for 
her confidence in me.
    Before proceeding, I would like to take a moment to 
acknowledge my family, without whom I would not be sitting here 
today: my wife Emily, my daughter Lily, and my brother Andy. I 
would also like to thank my parents, Robert and Nikki, who 
instilled in me the importance of public service via the 
example that they set as dedicated public school teachers.
    It was this early example of contributing to the greater 
good that led me to begin my career at the Federal Reserve Bank 
of New York. I have spent over 23 years at the New York Fed in 
a number of roles, and in each of those jobs I saw firsthand 
the dedication of this committed group of public servants who 
selflessly helped me to develop my understanding of how 
different corners of financial markets operate, and how the 
financial system can better serve the American people.
    If confirmed, I would welcome the opportunity to continue 
to serve our Nation by supporting the President's and Secretary 
Yellen's priorities in leading the Office of Financial Markets. 
Among other responsibilities, this office helps formulate 
policy on debt management at the Federal, State, and local 
levels; serves to assess the capital markets implications of 
various policy choices; and serves as the Treasury's eyes and 
ears in financial markets. This set of responsibilities aligns 
well with my interests and experience, and having spent my 
entire career focused on these issues, I look forward to taking 
a data-driven, taxpayer-centric approach to policymaking.
    Finally, I would note that managing the Nation's debt is an 
awesome responsibility, and if confirmed, I would be sure to 
ground any debt management decisions in an assessment of what 
provides for the lowest cost of funding over time for the 
taxpayer. I believe that it is also critical to have a 
resilient and well-functioning Treasury market, and I would 
look forward to working with other agencies to continue to 
ensure that the Treasury market is structured so that it 
remains the deepest, most liquid market in the world.
    Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Crapo, and members of the 
committee, thank you for considering my nomination. If 
confirmed, I look forward to working closely with you and your 
staff, and I appreciate the important oversight role of this 
committee. I would be happy to take your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Frost appears in the 
appendix.]
    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Frost.
    Mr. Bagenstos?

   STATEMENT OF SAMUEL R. BAGENSTOS, NOMINATED TO BE GENERAL 
 COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, WASHINGTON, 
                               DC

    Mr. Bagenstos. Thank you, Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member 
Crapo, and members of the committee. I very much appreciate you 
considering my nomination to be General Counsel at the 
Department of Health and Human Services. I am humbled and 
honored by President Biden's decision to nominate me, and I am 
excited, if confirmed, to serve under the leadership of 
Secretary Xavier Becerra.
    I would like to begin by thanking my family for their love 
and support. Here with me today is my wife, Margo Schlanger, 
who is a terrific and accomplished attorney in her own right. 
Watching me remotely are my children, Harry and Leila--who are 
twins in their senior year of college--and my mother, Naida 
Tushnet--who is nominally retired but works tirelessly to 
improve her community every day. I would also like to thank my 
supervisors in my former government and current government 
positions: Governor Deval Patrick, former Secretary of Labor 
Tom Perez, and Acting Director of the OMB Shalanda Young. And I 
would like to thank the two great, and now-departed jurists for 
whom I clerked, Judge Stephen Reinhardt and Justice Ruth Bader 
Ginsburg, whose memories are a blessing for me.
    In the more than 28 years since I graduated law school, my 
work has sought to advance the paired principles that should 
always inform the application of the law: no person, no matter 
how high their position, should be above the law's constraints, 
nor should anyone be beneath its protections.
    Perhaps no case illustrates those principles better than 
that of George Lane. George had paraplegia and was a bit down 
on his luck. And when he was accused of a minor criminal 
violation, his hearing was held on the second floor of a 
courthouse with no elevator. And when he could not make it into 
the courtroom because his disability kept him from climbing 
stairs, he was arrested for failure to appear in court. I 
worked with George to take his case to the Supreme Court, and 
with the very welcome help of the President George W. Bush 
administration's Solicitor General, we prevailed.
    George's case showed that, at its best, the law must be 
open and responsive to even the humblest members of the 
community. I am very proud to have achieved this result and to 
have worked with congressional and administration allies across 
partisan divides to build support for George's case.
    Should I be fortunate enough to be confirmed, I will 
approach the General Counsel role in the same spirit. I will 
work to ensure that the actions of the Department conform to 
the substantive and procedural requirements that Congress has 
established, as well as the fundamental principles and 
protections of the Constitution. And I will work to ensure that 
the Department advances its critical mission of enhancing the 
health and well-being of all Americans.
    During the Obama-Biden administration, I was the Principal 
Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the 
Department of Justice. In addition to supervising 200 attorneys 
across three sections of the Civil Rights Division, I led the 
Department's enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities 
Act.
    Much of my disability rights work has required me to engage 
with State Medicaid programs to defend the rights of people 
with disabilities to receive services in their own homes and 
communities. I have worked with Governors, Sheriffs, and other 
State and local officials across party lines who were committed 
to providing quality services to individuals with disabilities. 
Through this work, I learned a lot about the particular needs 
of different States and regions, including how important tools 
such as telehealth can be in serving rural and other 
communities without access to specialized providers. And that, 
of course, is a lesson that the COVID-19 pandemic has 
underscored for all of us yet again.
    More than a year into that pandemic, the laws that HHS 
administers are essential to the Department's mission and to 
the health and well-being of Americans. Should I be confirmed, 
I will seek to uphold the law with commitment to equity, 
transparency, and accountability.
    Thank you again for considering my nomination, and I look 
forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Bagenstos appears in the 
appendix.]
    The Chairman. I would just note, Mr. Bagenstos, that you 
said your children were watching remotely. I will tell you, my 
children discussed watching some of our hearings remotely, my 
older children, and they just said, ``Seems a little boring,'' 
but you all have been very interesting.
    All right; Mr. Wilson?

   STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER S. WILSON, NOMINATED TO BE CHIEF 
INNOVATION AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR, OFFICE OF THE 
     UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE, WITH THE RANK OF 
 AMBASSADOR, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, WASHINGTON, DC

    Mr. Wilson. Chairman Wyden, Senator Crapo, members of the 
committee, good morning.
    In 1982, as a college junior, I spent a semester interning 
for my distinguished home State Senator, Bob Dole. At the time, 
Senator Dole was serving as chairman of this committee. To now 
find myself sitting at this table, in this room, is an honor 
that is made maybe a little bit more special by virtue of that 
personal history. I am honored that President Biden nominated 
me to serve as the first-ever Chief Innovation and Intellectual 
Property Negotiator at the Office of the U.S. Trade 
Representative. And I am grateful to you, Senators, for your 
consideration.
    I want to acknowledge the many friends and colleagues who 
have enriched my career at USTR over the past 2 decades. I have 
had great teachers and excellent examples among both my fellow 
civil servants and the agency's political leaders over the 
years.
    I am glad that my husband, Mark Hegedus, is here this 
morning, and I am grateful for his love and support. I am also 
thinking of my mom and my dad, who passed away earlier this 
year.
    If confirmed for this position, I would be the first person 
to hold the title. To do a job for the first time is both 
exciting and a little daunting. Fortunately, Congress has 
provided a very clear expectation of what the position is 
about, namely to be a, quote, ``vigorous advocate on behalf of 
United States innovation and intellectual property interests,'' 
end quote. If I am confirmed, those words will be prominently 
displayed on my desk at USTR.
    I understand how protecting U.S. innovation through 
intellectual property rights is key to our Nation's economic 
success. This principle has been woven through every position I 
have held during my years at USTR. In addition to serving 
directly in USTR's IP office from 2006 to 2008, I have worked 
on important IP issues in my engagements with trading partners 
in Central America, Europe and the Middle East, South and 
Central Asia, and in the context of the World Trade 
Organization. This work has reinforced my belief that trade 
policy must protect American innovation and creative endeavors, 
and that rules governing that protection should be effectively 
enforced. I look forward to your input--today and going 
forward--on how best to advance those objectives.
    Senators, one of my early mentors at USTR taught me that, 
in any negotiation as well as in the process of policy 
development, listening is as important as talking. I intend to 
apply that lesson every day that I am in this position. My 
experience has taught me that, perhaps more than in many other 
areas of trade policy, IP is the subject of strongly held and 
often widely divergent views among a broad spectrum of 
stakeholders. If confirmed, my door will be open to all, and I 
will listen carefully. I assure you that this committee and its 
staff would be prominent among those by whom I expect to be 
guided.
    Ambassador Tai has laid out a worker-centered trade policy 
that ensures, as President Biden often says, that our economy 
grows from the bottom up and the middle out. If confirmed, I 
will always be thinking about how we can defend U.S. innovation 
and intellectual property in order to help workers and generate 
broad-based, durable prosperity.
    Finally, Senators, it will be important to me to ensure 
that the relationship between this new Chief Negotiator 
function and the dedicated career professionals in USTR's IP 
office is placed on a sound, sustainable, and respectful 
footing.
    Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this 
morning. I look forward to your questions and your advice.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson appears in the 
appendix.]
    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Wilson. Obviously 
you are someone who takes family very seriously, and it is sad 
to hear about the loss of both your parents so recently.
    We now have some obligatory questions we have to ask of all 
of you. First, is there anything you are aware of in your 
background that might present a conflict of interest with the 
duties of the office to which you have been nominated? We will 
start with you, Ms. Pagan.
    Ms. Pagan. No.
    Dr. Neiman. No.
    Mr. Frost. No.
    Mr. Bagenstos. No.
    Mr. Wilson. No.
    The Chairman. Do you know of any reason, personal or 
otherwise, that would in any way prevent you from fully and 
honorably discharging the responsibilities of the office to 
which you have been nominated? Ms. Pagan?
    Ms. Pagan. No.
    Dr. Neiman. No.
    Mr. Frost. No.
    Mr. Bagenstos. No.
    Mr. Wilson. No.
    The Chairman. Do you agree, without reservation, to respond 
to any reasonable summons to appear and testify before any duly 
constituted committee of the Congress, if you are confirmed?
    Ms. Pagan. Yes.
    Dr. Neiman. Yes.
    Mr. Frost. Yes.
    Mr. Bagenstos. Yes.
    Mr. Wilson. Yes.
    The Chairman. Finally, do you commit to provide a prompt 
response in writing to any questions addressed to you by any 
Senator of the committee?
    Ms. Pagan. Yes.
    Dr. Neiman. Yes.
    Mr. Frost. Yes.
    Mr. Bagenstos. Yes.
    Mr. Wilson. Yes.
    The Chairman. Very good. We will begin now. I will have 
some questions, then Senator Crapo will have some questions.
    Ms. Pagan, let me start with you. I have been following the 
WTO fishing subsidies negotiations for quite some time. And I 
have to tell you, from the perspective of Oregon fishing 
families, they are getting ripped off by Chinese fishing 
fleets. These families are competing regularly with slave 
labor, and they are subsidizing long-
distance Chinese fishing fleets. It is absolutely critical for 
the health of the oceans and the survival of the family-owned 
businesses, that we crack down on this behavior with strong, 
enforceable rules.
    What would be your message this morning, Ms. Pagan, to 
those fishing families in Oregon that are hurting, that believe 
they are just getting exploited by unfair rules? What would be 
your message to them about your first action in Geneva to close 
out these negotiations in a way that would allow our fishing 
families to get a fair shake and have the full fruits of 
competition?
    Ms. Pagan. Well, thank you for that question. My answer is, 
we do want to have an agreement, but we want an agreement that 
is effective in cracking down on fish subsidies so we can save 
the fish and save the fishers. So, while we want an agreement, 
we want an agreement that is high-standard and meaningful. Our 
challenge is to make sure that we achieve those rules, but that 
we do not also have them riddled with loopholes. The United 
States has been playing a leadership role in this negotiation 
for a long time and, if confirmed, I will continue to play that 
role. And hopefully we can get to an agreement that changes the 
status quo and does not just continue the situation the way it 
is. And if confirmed, I look forward to working with you on 
this.
    The Chairman. I appreciate that. I am going to hold the 
record open to give you a chance to give a more complete 
answer. I am not sure that you are aware that this is something 
I feel very strongly about, and our trading opponents on these 
issues have been playing stall-ball on fairness in fishing for 
too long, and I am just committed to getting a change. And the 
Ambassador, to her credit, has been candid with me. So, we will 
hold the record open for, I will say 72 hours for a more 
complete answer on that. Okay?
    Ms. Pagan. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Good.
    Mr. Bagenstos, let us talk about mental health. Mental 
health is one of the aspects of the pandemic that saw the most 
dramatic changes. The number of claims is now in the 
stratosphere, and we see folks who suffered new mental health 
challenges due to isolation. Families were stressed. There were 
challenges of distance learning.
    Senator Crapo and I are working in a bipartisan way to try 
to respond to this. But I want to ask you specifically, as a 
lawyer--my brother was a schizophrenic, and every night the 
Wydens went to bed at night realizing he might be on the 
street, and he could hurt himself or somebody else. So the day 
when we got the bipartisan parity law in place, I said, ``This 
means new hope for Jeff Wyden and millions of others.''
    But I am concered that the legal right to parity, parity 
for access to mental health services, parity between mental 
health and physical health, is honored as much in the breach as 
it is in the observance. And I would like to hear, what 
specifically are you going to do to get tough with these 
insurance companies that, in my view, are not really complying 
with that tough law for parity between mental health and 
physical health?
    Mr. Bagenstos. Thank you, Senator Wyden, for that question. 
It is, as you know, an area I have worked in quite a lot in the 
past, and I very much appreciate your leadership on mental 
health issues. Mental health parity is, as you say, Senator, 
something that is in the law, but we have great concerns about 
ensuring that the law is actually complied with. One of the 
issues, of course, is the fragmentation of the enforcement of 
mental health parity across different agencies of the Federal 
Government, not just HHS but also Labor, also Treasury--and not 
just the Federal Government, but also the States, because of 
the way we structure our regulation of insurance in the United 
States.
    I can commit, if confirmed, to doing whatever I can to 
ensure that the laws are fully enforced and complied with, and 
working with you and this committee if there are additional 
tools that are necessary.
    The Chairman. You know, this is another area where I am 
going to want to see more specifics. The question of our 
economics and our health policy are both important to me. So 
within the next 72 hours, I would like to see more specifics.
    This is so outrageous. You may have heard, at the Oregon 
Health Sciences Center they could not get their bills paid for 
mental health services. And then we said we were going to open 
an investigation in an article in the newspaper, and suddenly 
all the bills were paid. That is not parity policy for America. 
So I would like to have, within 72 hours, what, again in more 
detail, you all are going to actually do to make sure that we 
are able to carry out a real parity policy, not just one that 
is in name only.
    One last question, if I could, very quickly for Chris 
Wilson. On this issue of balancing innovation and protecting 
lives, our hearts say we need to get lifesaving technology out 
as fast as possible, while our heads caution the need to 
protect important innovations. How do you strike the balance?
    Mr. Wilson. Chairman Wyden, I think you have put your 
finger on what is, and has been for 20 years or more, the great 
challenge of intellectual property trade policy. There is this 
tension between the need to reward innovation through 
intellectual property, and the equally important objective of 
being able to ensure access to the products of that innovation.
    It is a struggle. It has been a struggle for as long as I 
have worked on these issues at USTR. I expect it to continue to 
be a struggle. We have to keep at it to try to get the balance 
right. And if confirmed, I would work very closely with you and 
others on the committee to make sure that we are getting as 
close to that balance line as we can.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Crapo?
    Senator Crapo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I go to 
questions, I wanted to just note that Senator Wyden and I have 
worked together on a lot of issues on a bipartisan basis, and 
we have had a lot of big successes. He mentioned the mental 
health issue in his questions. But you did not even realize 
this, because we have not talked about it, Senator Wyden, but 
you just raised in your first question to Ms. Pagan another 
important issue that I think we can work on together, and that 
is, the Chinese fishing fleets. Idaho is not a coastal State, 
but we are as concerned about this as is Oregon and are the 
rest of Americans and, frankly, Washington.
    The Chairman. You bet.
    Senator Crapo. But you know, this goes beyond just the 
United States. The Chinese fishing fleets are aggressively 
damaging fisheries around the globe and creating, not only 
damage economically, but they are also creating damage to some 
of the great traders in our oceans. And I think it is really 
important for us to focus on that. So again, this is not an 
issue that I realized would be in my questions, but I 
appreciate your good questions on that, Senator Wyden.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Crapo. Let me go to Mr. Frost. Mr. Frost, this 
summer the Congressional Budget Office estimated that under 
baseline spending projections, by 2031 the national debt held 
by the public would go to $35.8 trillion, over 106.4 percent of 
GDP. Net interest would grow to $910 billion, more than 2.6 
times what it was in 2020, and would account for 11.6 percent 
of Federal outlays. Relatively minor increases of interest 
rates will force our interest obligations even higher, choking 
off fiscal space necessary for domestic programs that help 
American families.
    How much debt can the United States incur before that 
affects the Federal Government's ability to borrow affordably 
while still providing for essential services and our Nation's 
security?
    Mr. Frost. Thank you, Ranking Member Crapo. So you are 
raising an important issue. The level of debt is critically 
important. I would note, in the role to which I have been 
nominated, my principal responsibilities would be to manage the 
Nation's debt in a prudent fashion, overseeing the team that 
keeps the government running and keeps the government funded.
    Much of the recent run-up in the debt and the deficit has 
been the result of helping the Nation weather the shock posed 
from the recent pandemic. And I would flag that decisions on 
the level of debt are ultimately left to Congress. The level of 
spending and the level of taxation ultimately, it is that 
leftover that needs to be funded, and that is what my role 
would be, to ensure that the amount that needs to get funded is 
funded in the most efficient manner.
    If I could talk just for a moment about what financial 
markets are telling us about the issue you have raised?
    Senator Crapo. Yes.
    Mr. Frost. Debt service costs, as you flagged, are at 
historically low levels now. If I look at what the yield curve 
is telling us, it is at historically low levels and it is quite 
flat, which would tell me that financial markets are not 
immediately focused on the issue that you are raising. It is 
not that it is not a critically important issue, but it is not 
showing through in asset prices today.
    Finally, I would note that the administration's plans are 
intended to bring down the level of debt to GDP in the longer 
run, while still, in response to the pandemic, there would 
likely be a modest increase in the medium term.
    Senator Crapo. Well, let me follow up on that. How would 
your answer to the question be affected by literally trillions 
of dollars of new and permanent spending? Or do you believe the 
rhetoric that the reckless fiscal plans being considered for 
reconciliation have zero cost? Do you accept that there is zero 
cost to the spending proposals before Congress right now?
    Mr. Frost. So, Senator, I do not think anything has zero 
cost. I think it is about managing risks and tradeoffs. And so, 
I still think we are in a place where we are thinking about how 
best to respond to the pandemic and, from the additional plan, 
how best to position the economy for growth going forward.
    As I mentioned, I think the projections are that this will 
ultimately result in a lower debt burden in the future if we 
take care of the issues today, and have a strong potential for 
growth in the future.
    Senator Crapo. Well, I appreciate your acknowledgment about 
the issue of zero cost.
    Dr. Neiman, to you: this year the administration is 
contemplating massive increases in taxes and spending through 
reconciliation. While the size and indeed the contents of this 
fiscal agenda are still unclear, I am concerned about the 
possibility that they will exacerbate inflation trends, which 
even former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers has described as 
disturbing.
    What risks do higher domestic taxes and substantial 
inflation pose to the reputation of the United States as a good 
destination for foreign investment?
    Dr. Neiman. Thank you for the question, Ranking Member 
Crapo. When thinking about the destination of the United States 
for investment, the same things presumably that make it a 
better destination for foreign investment make it a better 
place to do domestic investment. And it is of course very 
important that we take steps to make it as productive as 
possible to invest capital here, regardless of who is doing the 
investment.
    And you know of course, taxes are one element of the 
calculation. On the other side, balancing out the effect of 
taxes, of course, are things like the quality of our 
infrastructure, the investments that we make in our workforce. 
Are we the best place to build businesses? Are we the best 
place to hire people?
    And so you know, there is obviously a tradeoff. As you 
raise taxes, the question is, are you raising them in a way 
that then contributes to the productivity of the workforce, 
that makes the country's infrastructure better, and that 
invites investment, whether it is domestic-sourced or foreign-
sourced?
    And so, thinking about that balance is, I think, very 
important, and hopefully, we are going to get it right.
    Senator Crapo. Well, thank you.
    And just one more really quick question, again for you, Mr. 
Frost.
    I commend the efforts by recent administrations, the 
Federal Reserve, and the market participants to plan for the 
elimination of LIBOR. Despite these best efforts, there remains 
$2 trillion of LIBOR-linked exposure that market observers 
believe will remain outstanding after June 2023. Treasury 
Secretary Yellen and Fed Chair Powell have stated their belief 
that a Federal legislative solution is necessary to transition 
those exposures from LIBOR to SOFR. How do you believe the 
administration should address this challenge? And is 
legislation the answer? And, if that is what you believe, do 
you think that something like the S.B. 297B law passed by New 
York this year is a model we should look at?
    Mr. Frost. Thank you, Ranking Member. You are raising 
another critically important issue to me. I have spent a good 
deal of my career focused on the transition from LIBOR. One 
conclusion I have come to is, it is costly. And this is 
something you want to do once, and you want to do it right, and 
we would not want to see a move to a rate that has the same 
underlying flaws and vulnerabilities that LIBOR had.
    While I would not want to comment on specific legislation, 
I do think that a legislative fix is likely going to be needed 
here for these so-called tough legacy contracts where there is 
no clear fallback, or an otherwise unworkable fallback in 
language.
    Senator Crapo. We will hear from you on this as we move 
forward.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Crapo.
    Senator Cantwell?
    Senator Cantwell. Thank you. Congratulations to all the 
nominees.
    Ms. Pagan, once I heard then-Commerce Secretary Ron Brown 
say he was Secretary of all of Commerce, but if he was getting 
a call from a member of Congress, he guaranteed it was about 
fish. And that just shows you here how important fisheries are 
to all our States, to the United States, and now to the globe. 
Why? Because we see warmer climates affecting fisheries. We see 
the Arctic being opened and probably claims to fisheries. We 
have our history about illegal fishing in our waters and 
setting up those boundaries. So I hope that you will be very 
serious about keeping your foot on these negotiations. And a 
growing world is looking for more protein sources, and people 
are looking at fisheries.
    So, we have good fisheries management in the United States. 
I would hope that that would be something in the debate, that 
sustainable fisheries should be part of the requirements in 
trying to create more of a market. And I believe we should be 
in the business of exporting what those sustainable fisheries 
practices look like, because we are, at least in parts of our 
country, very good at it and very successful. So I may submit 
something for the record for you.
    Mr. Frost, you are going to be in the office overseeing the 
capital markets. And one of the issues is housing policy. And I 
am very interested. Our committee here has done great work on 
the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, but we still have a 
tremendous way to go. We have 7 million units that we need to 
have built, and over 10 million people who live in rent-
burdened conditions. Fifty percent of their income is spent on 
rent. We have just not kept pace with supply.
    So I want to make sure that the administration, now that we 
are talking about proposals here--they are doing a lot to put 
vouchers into people's hands. I appreciate that. The grants or 
programs that help individuals--even with the HOME grant 
program that the administration is pushing, 53 percent of those 
get built with the affordable housing tax credit. It is a 
partnership between the HOME grant program and LIHTC.
    So, if you do not increase LIHTC, you are not going to be 
increasing the supply of affordable housing. So I just want to 
hear from you that you believe that we need a robust response 
here, and that you are going to work within the administration 
to try to get that.
    Mr. Frost. Absolutely, Senator. The supply of affordable 
housing is a key issue now, as you flagged. LIHTC is a 
principal venue by which affordable housing supply is created.
    There is no magic-bullet solution here. I wish there was. I 
wish there was a simple resolution. As you said, things that 
focus on increasing the supply of affordable housing, targeted 
programs that help with down payment supports and help folks 
build wealth more quickly, are all critical to the success----
    Senator Cantwell. But if we just did those, and we did not 
do the supply side, that would be a problem. Correct?
    Mr. Frost. I completely agree.
    Senator Cantwell. That is the point I am trying to get out, 
particularly today, that this is the debate in front of us; 
that you can spend a lot of money on those issues, but if you 
are not increasing supply, then you are not going to have a 
place for these individuals to go.
    And so we have to make sure that we are putting in a solid 
number. We proposed, in a bipartisan fashion with our 
colleagues here--Senator Young, Senator Portman--$29 billion in 
the affordable housing tax credit--well, a proposal to increase 
it by 50 percent. So there is good bipartisan support, and the 
reason is, people know how unique the program is; that you can 
do lots of different things within your own States and 
jurisdictions. I mean, you can build something just for 
veterans. You can build something just for a workforce. You can 
do all sorts of things. So the flexibility of it is pretty 
supported. And frankly, I just hope we put this money there 
right now that is needed.
    So, Mr. Wilson, I just want you and Ms. Pagan, on the 
innovation side--you know, we worked hard to give USTR the 
resources of more lawyers so we can dispute our claims 
internationally, and obviously build capacity internationally 
for those countries that do not have quite the same capacity we 
do to judge these cases.
    But on this issue of technology, don't we need to be, first 
of all, getting the world community behind us on these 
telecommunications issues, that the only way you are going to 
have acceptable frameworks is if you have a rule of law. If you 
basically have a court system and a government that does not 
own the technology, or has a back door to it, don't we need to 
speak loudly on this point, Mr. Wilson?
    Mr. Wilson. Thanks, Senator Cantwell. I agree completely 
with you. I think that capacity building and emphasis on 
respect for the rule of law has to be a critical part of our 
promotion of innovation through trade policy generally, and 
specifically in the areas of emerging technology. And I look 
forward to working with you on it.
    Senator Cantwell. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. I thank my colleague.
    Next is Senator Grassley.
    Senator Grassley. My first question would be to Mr. 
Bagenstos in regard to the 340B program. Listen while I lead 
into the question. Many Iowa hospitals and pharmacists have 
talked to me about the 340B program, how these drug companies 
are harming access to it. The 340B drug program is an important 
program to keep drug costs low and maintain access for 
patients. Iowa pharmacists and hospitals have communicated to 
me the administrative burdens that the drug companies have 
placed on the 340B program. Last year I pressed the Trump 
administration to do something. They put out some advisories 
that were withdrawn. The administration has written to at least 
six companies about what they have to do, and they have not 
heard back from the companies.
    The IG is investigating this. While the Biden 
administration has taken a different approach from the Trump 
administration--I want you to know that I appreciate the 
efforts of the Biden administration. However, timely resolution 
is needed or this will have financial impact on hospitals and 
pharmacies, and could even hurt patient access. So I want more 
transparency in the 340B program. The status quo is not 
sustainable. So, if confirmed, what additional steps could HHS 
take to protect the program? I hope that HHS has all the tools 
they need. And if not, do you have recommendations for Congress 
to act?
    Mr. Bagenstos. Thank you, Senator Grassley, for that 
question. The 340B program is an incredibly important safety 
net program to ensure that folks in rural areas and other 
underserved areas have access to affordable prescription drugs. 
It matters a lot to me personally. My father actually was from 
a very small town in rural Iowa--my late father, who died about 
10 years ago. He was from a small town called Holstein in 
northwest Iowa, where I am sure you have been. So I take this 
matter very seriously and personally.
    I can tell you, in this administration the drug companies 
that have not been complying with 340B requirements to work 
with contract pharmacies, as you said, Senator, have been 
referred for enforcement. One of the important jobs of the 
General Counsel, should I be confirmed for this position, will 
be to ensure that those enforcement actions proceed as 
effectively as they can. There is also quite a lot of other 
litigation involving 340B which as General Counsel, should I be 
confirmed, I will be required to address. I think it is 
exceptionally important that this administration confirm its 
commitment to the 340B program. And, Senator, if there are 
additional tools that are necessary, I can commit to working 
with you on what those tools might be.
    Senator Grassley. I assume you grew up in Ida Grove or 
Holstein?
    Mr. Bagenstos. So, I grew up--I was born in St. Louis, MO, 
actually. So the big city, by comparison.
    Senator Grassley. Okay.
    Now, Mr. Frost, some economists and politicians have 
contended that due to the historically low interest rates, we 
should not worry about financing new spending. Some even claim 
that it would be foolish not to spend more money, and not to 
worry about it. However, with our national debt now exceeding 
the entire size of our economy, even small increases in the 
interest rates would mean trillions of dollars more spent to 
service that debt.
    Given the sensitivity of our debt to future interest rate 
increases, do you agree it would be fiscally foolish to run up 
our national debt, betting on a wing and a prayer that interest 
rates would remain historically low?
    Mr. Frost. Thank you for the question, Senator. So, in the 
role that I have been nominated for, my fiscal responsibilities 
will be to ensure that for any given level of debt, that that 
is funded in the most efficient manner possible. If I look at 
what signal we are getting here from financial markets about 
what concern is out there about the level of debt and the 
prospective future level of debt, there is not a lot coming 
through at this point.
    The yield curve--or in other words, the levels of interest 
rates to borrow for a shorter term or for a longer term, are 
both quite low. The yield curve is also quite flat, suggesting 
that the markets are not terribly concerned by an increase in 
interest rates in the intermediate to longer term.
    I believe that if the plans that are being proposed are 
adopted, I think the administration's proposals would likely 
result in a modest uptick in the level of debt to GDP over the 
medium term, but bring it down in the longer run.
    The Chairman. I thank my colleague.
    Next is Senator Menendez.
    Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Pagan, is human trafficking a violation of the USMCA?
    Ms. Pagan. Senator Menendez, thank you for that question. I 
am going to have to think about that. Honestly, I wasn't 
prepared for that question.
    Senator Menendez. Okay. Well, from my perspective, it is. 
And the question, what I would ask you, as you are reviewing 
that, is I would like to get your commitment that if human 
trafficking in general is a violation of the USMCA, which I 
believe it is, then I would like your commitment to look at 
what is happening in Mexico with Cuban doctors who are being 
trafficked. They are sent there by the Cuban regime. Their 
passports are taken away. The payment for their services is 
sent to the Cuban regime. They get a subsistence wage. That is 
trafficking.
    And so I would like a commitment from you that you will 
review it and get back to me upon your confirmation.
    Ms. Pagan. Yes, you have my commitment that we will look at 
the issue; thank you. And if there is any more information that 
we can get from you----
    Senator Menendez. We have tons, so I am happy to give it 
all to the department.
    Ms. Pagan. Thank you.
    Senator Menendez. And I know that Ambassador Tai is going 
to be with the committee later today, so we will raise it with 
her as well.
    Mr. Neiman, if confirmed you will be responsible for U.S. 
actions at the international financial institutions. The Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee, which I chair, has considerable 
oversight over these institutions. So I want to explore one or 
two items with you in that regard.
    As part of our efforts to counter and compete with China 
globally, the Senate passed my legislation authorizing a tenth 
general capital increase for the Inter-American Development 
Bank as part of the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act.
    During the pandemic, countries in the hemisphere suffered 
the greatest economic contraction of any region in the world. 
Add to that the enduring challenges of poverty and inequality, 
massive migration flows, the damages caused by natural 
disasters, and we are seeing a region facing widespread 
difficulties. It matters to us not only in being a good 
neighbor but when we see migration flows coming to the United 
States in bulk. It is because of the uncertainty these 
countries are facing, not to mention that China is all over the 
hemisphere in terms of its debt trap diplomacy.
    So, if we are serious about addressing these challenges, we 
need the IDB to have robust resources, and a tenth general 
capital increase is part of that process. If confirmed, do you 
commit to working with me and other congressional stakeholders 
to ensure that the IDB has the resources to address challenges 
in our hemisphere and to advance a tenth general capital 
increase for the bank?
    Dr. Neiman. Thank you, Senator, for that question. And if I 
could start--thank you for your leadership and work on issues 
in that region, in Latin America and the Caribbean, which is 
the focus of the IDB. That is a region that is also of personal 
importance to me. My wife, for example, was born in South 
America. It is also a region, as you noted, that has been 
particularly hard hit during the recent pandemic, something 
that oftentimes is not fully appreciated. And of course, it is 
a neighboring region.
    Senator Menendez. I appreciate that. Does that mean, yes, 
you are going to go to work with me to get to where we need to 
be?
    Dr. Neiman. It does mean--thank you, Senator--it does mean 
that, of course, it would be a very important area and set of 
issues for me. And if confirmed, I would absolutely fully 
engage with you and your staff on all those issues.
    I understand that Treasury, together with IDB management 
and stakeholders, is evaluating opportunities for development 
financing in the region, understanding the current portfolio 
and limitations of development funding.
    Senator Menendez. What I would hope is that you would 
commit to working with Congress to put in place a policy 
framework for the IDB's tenth capital increase that addresses 
U.S. priorities, including democratic governance, climate 
issues, and the need to counter Chinas predatory economic 
practices in the region. Can I get you to agree at least to 
that?
    Dr. Neiman. I absolutely will, if confirmed, commit to work 
with you on those issues.
    Senator Menendez. Now, one other question, in the 45 
seconds I have. I have a real challenge with what is happening 
at the IMF, and the--oh, I should say, the World Bank and the 
IMF--with Kristalina Georgieva, who currently serves as the 
Managing Director of the IMF. She was involved in pressuring 
staff to make specific changes to China's 2018 score in the 
World Bank's annual Doing Business report in an effort to 
increase their ranking.
    That is incredibly disturbing. It damages the integrity and 
reputation of the World Bank and the IMF, and confirms the 
growing trend of the international financial institutions 
bowing to Chinese pressure. The ranking member and I both wrote 
to the Biden administration calling for full transparency and 
accountability at the World Bank, the IMF, and with Ms. 
Georgieva.
    Can you tell me that you will work to provide that 
transparency?
    Dr. Nieman. Senator, if confirmed, I commit to support 
Treasury's efforts to get the IMF to renew their commitment to 
data transparency and other measures like whistleblower 
protections that would safeguard the integrity of the 
international financial institutions.
    Senator Menendez. She has lost my confidence, and I want to 
see how she actually can operate under these circumstances.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Menendez. I believe we 
have Senator Carper on the web, and then Senator Carper would 
be followed by Senator Cassidy, who is here.
    Senator Carper, are you out there in cyberspace?
    Senator Carper. Yes. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Good 
morning. Can you hear me?
    The Chairman. Good morning.
    Senator Carper. To our nominees, congratulations on your 
nominations. Thank you for appearing today, and for all your 
families across the world who are listening as well.
    I would like to start off with a question, if I could, for 
Ms. Pagan dealing with the WTO reform. I always thought it was 
imperfect, and we ought to work to make it better. And there 
has been a great deal of conversation, really on both sides of 
the aisle and across the globe, about the need for reforms in 
the WTO. And we know that the WTO has an important role to play 
in combating unfair trade practices that persist in nonmarket 
economies like China. Unfortunately, the organization continues 
to face challenges with its dispute settlement system, 
including the lack of quorum on the Appellate Board, a body 
that has weakened the WTO's enforcements.
    My question is this, Ms. Pagan. In your opinion, what 
strategy should our country take, the U.S. take, to reforming 
the WTO and addressing the inoperability of the WTO's Appellate 
Body? Please, go right ahead.
    Ms. Pagan. Thank you, Senator Carper.
    The good thing is that we all agree. I think there is 
consensus that the WTO and the Appellate Body need to be 
reformed. I guess, on the other hand, we all have different 
views of what ``reform'' means, and particularly with respect 
to the Appellate Body.
    What we want--and if confirmed, what I will work hard to 
do--is to have conversations so that we can restore the 
Appellate Body and restore the system to what we thought we had 
agreed to. We never intended the Appellate Body to be a rule-
making body. We believe that rules have to be enforced, but it 
has to be the rules as they were negotiated and agreed to by 
the members.
    So, we need to--the USTR has been having this conversation, 
and we will continue to have this conversation, and I suspect I 
will spend a lot of time having conversations with our 
counterparts at the WTO to make sure that we can restore the 
Appellate Body and the system to the way that we envisioned it 
at the beginning. I do not think it is going to be an easy 
conversation, but it is something that I look forward to doing 
while I am there.
    Senator Carper. All right; thanks, Ms. Pagan.
    My second question would be for Dr. Neiman, Mr. Wilson, and 
also for you, Ms. Pagan--for each of you. But let us start off 
with Dr. Neiman.
    I want to begin by again thanking you for joining us and 
for your willingness to serve our country. These are important 
roles. We know that and appreciate it. But one of the biggest 
questions facing our country, I think facing our planet, is how 
to work collectively to address our shared problems. And you 
may have heard the old African proverb, ``If you want to go 
fast, travel alone; if you want to go far, travel together.'' 
And goals like tackling climate change, tackling this pandemic, 
and expanding economic prosperity require global cooperation. 
Unfortunately, the previous administration all too often turned 
away from multilateral engagement, and ultimately ceded U.S. 
leadership on the global stage in a number of instances.
    So here is my question, starting with Dr. Neiman. Should 
you be confirmed, you will represent the U.S. before 
international organizations, and within multilateral 
negotiations. How do you view your role within the broader 
effort to rebuild U.S. leadership on the global stage? Dr. 
Neiman, would you lead us off, please, and then Mr. Wilson, and 
then Ms. Pagan. Thank you.
    Dr. Neiman. Thank you, Senator, for your question. The role 
for which I have been nominated I view as playing a key role in 
Treasury's macroeconomic engagement with the rest of the world, 
whether bilaterally, country by country, or through 
multilateral institutions like the international financial 
institutions, the G7, the G20. And I am very supportive of the 
President's goal of restoring America's global standing and 
leadership in these institutions.
    One good example I think that you mentioned in your 
question is our efforts, including for example, with the 
multilateral development banks, to encourage decarbonization 
efforts, since that is a good example of a problem that, of 
course, only really has a global solution. So that is an 
example of one way in which I would think about your question. 
And if confirmed, Senator, I would be happy to work with you 
and your staff and hear about other ideas you have on asserting 
U.S. leadership in these organizations.
    Senator Carper. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Neiman.
    Mr. Wilson, please: the same question.
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Senator Carper. I have been 
privileged during my years at USTR to serve in a couple of 
roles that have been diplomatic in character. I worked as a 
diplomat representing USTR in Brussels, and then more recently 
at the WTO in Geneva.
    I am a believer in diplomacy, and I am a very strong 
believer in the power of building personal relationships to be 
able to advance policy objectives. And if confirmed, I look 
forward to applying those skills to the task of rebuilding U.S. 
leadership. Thanks.
    Senator Carper. Thank you for that. Mr. Chairman, do I have 
a few seconds for Ms. Pagan to briefly respond?
    The Chairman. Sure. Sure.
    Senator Carper. Thanks. Ms. Pagan, just briefly, please.
    Ms. Pagan. Thank you. As Ambassador Tai recently said, the 
United States is committed to the WTO. If confirmed, it 
certainly would be an honor for me to represent the United 
States there. There are a lot of challenges, like climate 
change and many other things, that need to be collectively 
addressed, and I will do my best to represent the U.S. 
interests at the WTO.
    Senator Carper. All right; thanks for those responses. And 
thanks for your answers here. Good luck.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Carper.
    Senator Cassidy?
    Senator Cassidy. Mr. Bagenstos, I am a gastroenterologist. 
You are a learned law school professor. It is with trepidation 
that I shall engage in this conversation, okay?
    My colleagues and I worked about 2\1/2\ years to pass no 
surprise billings legislation. And we finally got, on a 
bipartisan, bicameral basis last year, signed into law, the No 
Surprises Act. And through that, through these 2\1/2\ years, we 
debated many approaches. And we got all the stakeholders 
together, and we finally--and among these approaches were a 
straight benchmark payment, an independent dispute resolution 
process with the median in-network as the primary factor, and 
finally a more open and robust independent dispute resolution 
framework directing the arbiter to consider a variety of 
factors. That was ultimately what got the stakeholders, both 
parties, and both committees together. Okay? That is the 
prologue, if you will.
    And so, now I apologize for the legalese, but you will 
immediately get this, and if I lose those who are not 
attorneys, I apologize, but this is important. This is how it 
is read: ``In determining which offer is the payment to be 
applied pursuant to this paragraph, the certified independent 
dispute resolution entity with respect to the determination for 
a qualified IDR item or service shall consider: the qualifying 
payment amounts, or QPA, also known as the median in-network 
rate, and subject to subparagraph D, information on any 
circumstance described in clause II, such information as 
requested in subparagraph B, roman numeral two, and any 
additional information provided in subparagraph B, roman 
numeral two.''
    What is in clause II? I will read some of it. ``The 
provider's training and experience, the patient's acuity and 
complexity, the demonstration of good faith efforts or lack 
thereof to enter into a network contract.'' I could go on.
    Clearly it is an ``and.'' You shall consider the median in-
network rate ``and this.'' Now this is how the interim rule 
reads, and imagine the steam coming out of my ears: 
``Accordingly, the certified IDR entity must begin with the 
presumption that the QPA, the Qualified Payment Amount, is the 
appropriate out-of-network rate for the qualified independent 
resolution item or service under consideration.''
    It goes on to say: ``The certified IDR entity must select 
the offer closest to the QPA,'' et cetera. Now I am a 
gastroenterologist, but when I read that--intuitively I 
understand that the statute states that the arbiter shall 
consider the qualified payment along with everything else, and 
this interim rule states the arbiter shall presume that the QPA 
is correct, leaving out the reference to the other items in the 
other paragraph, in direct opposition of a plain reading of the 
text.
    Do you think it is right that HHS has rewritten a law that 
it took 2\1/2\ years for Congress to come to, balancing the 
needs of various stakeholders, and now it seems as if one 
stakeholder has gotten their wishes? Is that a correct thing 
for HHS to do?
    Mr. Bagenstos. Thank you, Senator, for that question. And I 
will say, I hesitate, because it is clear that you are perhaps 
a better lawyer than me, but certainly a better lawyer than I 
am a gastroenterologist. [Laughter.]
    And what I--I would say a couple of things. I mean, the No 
Surprises Act is an incredibly important piece of legislation 
that was agreed to on, as you say, a bipartisan basis. I think 
that is very important. It is a compromise.
    The Department of HHS, as well as the Department of Labor, 
the Department of the Treasury, OPM, have under that statute 
been required to act under a very aggressive timeline set by 
Congress to put out interim final rules to implement the 
statute by the deadline of January. One very important aspect 
of these interim final rules is, they are interim final rules 
with a request for public comment----
    Senator Cassidy. Now I am told, though, that that is almost 
like, this is going to be it. Yes, you are going to get public 
comment, but this is a ship with inertia pushing it, and it is 
not going to be stopped by somebody saying, ``Hey, wait a 
second, you are not going the way the law actually reads.''
    So, I say that just to challenge, because again if I 
thought it would make a difference, I would be less frustrated. 
And here it seems that it is not going to make a difference; it 
is merely a show.
    Mr. Bagenstos. Well, Senator, I can assure you that, should 
I be confirmed as General Counsel, we will take extremely 
seriously the comments that are filed for these interim final 
rules----
    Senator Cassidy. Can I ask, though, really quickly, since 
you will be a counsel, is there a difference between ``shall 
consider'' and ``shall presume''? Because the interim final 
rule says ``shall presume,'' and the way we wrote it was 
``shall consider.''
    Mr. Bagenstos. Senator, so that is, I think, one of the 
very important kind of interpretive questions that the interim 
final rule does address by saying that the other factors should 
be considered as well. But I understand your point, Senator, 
and I think----
    Senator Cassidy. In all seriousness, I am saying this not 
as a ``gotcha,'' because I do not know. You are the professor. 
Is there a difference between ``shall consider'' and ``shall 
presume''?
    Mr. Bagenstos. So I think, in the context of a presumption, 
you would necessarily consider other factors, unless--unless it 
is a conclusive presumption, which it is not in this rule. But 
I think the important point, Senator, that I would like to make 
to you is that I would commit that, should I be confirmed to 
this position, we will definitely take a look at this as the 
comments come in and take very seriously the arguments that are 
made about whether this is consistent with the statute.
    Senator Cassidy. And therefore, because there seems to be 
an equivalency between the two phrases in your mind, could I 
just ask that you would change ``shall presume'' to ``shall 
consider''?
    Mr. Bagenstos. So, as I say, Senator, I would very much 
commit to considering any of the comments that come in----
    The Chairman. We are going to have to move on. I thank 
Senator Cassidy.
    The next two will be Senator Whitehouse, and then Senator 
Lankford.
    Senator Whitehouse. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman, and 
thank you to the witnesses for being here.
    Let me start with Ms. Pagan. There are two issues we have 
been working on that involve the World Trade Organization. One 
is pirate fishing, and in particular the use of forced labor, 
in fact slavery, in pirate fishing. This matters a lot to 
American fisheries because it is really hard to compete with 
foreign fishermen who use slavery to their advantage. And the 
second is ocean plastics. We are headed for a world in which, 
by 2050, there will be more ocean plastic waste than there are 
living ocean fish, if we do not get around this.
    Could you let me know where those two issues will fall in 
your priorities?
    Ms. Pagan. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse.
    On forced labor and fisheries, as you probably know, the 
United States has made a proposal for the fish subsidies 
negotiations that we obviously continue to push and we hope 
will be part of the final outcome. So that is one way of trying 
to get at that issue, which is very important. And it is 
definitely tied to the issue of illegal fishing and harmful 
subsidies that we are trying to curb through the agreement. So 
that is certainly a priority for us.
    On ocean plastics, I know this is another issue that is 
very important to you. I believe there are various--or at least 
one stream of work that is going on at the WTO on this issue, 
and related issues. And so, if confirmed, I will definitely 
work on this and continue to advance these issues in the WTO, 
and hope to work with you and your office on this issue.
    Senator Whitehouse. Thank you. This was a very strong 
bipartisan issue in the Senate. Senator Sullivan of Alaska did 
really terrific work as my main compadre on this. The previous 
President, Secretary of State, and Trade Representative 
actually all talked a good game on this issue, but once it got 
down into the weeds we always collapsed and were outed in the 
world press as being the country that was holding back progress 
on ocean plastics.
    So, something needs to be fixed in the weeds where you will 
be, and I hope you will help fix it.
    Ms. Pagan. If confirmed, I commit to working with you on 
this issue.
    Senator Whitehouse. Dr. Neiman, the Pandora Papers have 
shed new light on the role of kleptocracy and corruption. The 
President, I think, has correctly defined kleptocracy and 
corruption as national security hazards for America. How do you 
propose to prioritize anti-kleptocracy efforts in your proposed 
role?
    Dr. Neiman. Thank you for the question, Senator. It is, of 
course, a very important issue. Anti-corruption is a real 
priority for the Biden administration. And in my role, one way 
in which I could make progress against this priority is via the 
international financial institutions. And so, I would commit to 
work with the executive directors, for example, of the MDBs, to 
promote good governance reforms, anticorruption efforts in the 
lending programs around issues like debt transparency, revenue 
administration, public contracting. There also are instances 
and reasons that we would want to be vigilant about making sure 
there is no corruption within the international financial 
institutions, and I would also keep an eye toward those issues.
    Senator Whitehouse. So you view this as a national security 
issue?
    Dr. Neiman. Absolutely. It is a matter of projecting our 
values to the world. I agree, Senator.
    Senator Whitehouse. And stopping the subsidy and the aiding 
and abetting of our enemies?
    Dr. Neiman. I agree, Senator.
    Senator Whitehouse. Mr. Frost, anti-money laundering 
requirements are really no more effective than money 
launderers' ability to get around them. Our banking 
institutions operate under robust anti-money laundering rules. 
But if you move over into private equity firms, hedge funds, 
venture capital firms, and other entities, the same rules do 
not apply. So it becomes super easy for somebody who wants to 
launder money to simply go through another gate.
    If we really want to fight money laundering, we actually 
have to make sure it does not get through the various gates, as 
opposed to just closing one gate and leaving other gates wide 
open.
    If you are confirmed, what do you intend to do about anti-
money laundering requirements for private equity hedge funds 
and venture capital?
    Mr. Frost. Thank you for the question, Senator. I would 
like to maybe start by acknowledging your leadership in this 
area on anti-money laundering, and more generally on shining a 
light on abuses of our financial system.
    For financial markets to work and perform well, they need 
to be transparent. And investors need to have confidence that 
they are not being manipulated. If confirmed, I would be happy 
to work with you and your staff, and with other offices of the 
Treasury, including the Office of Terrorism and Financial 
Intelligence, to ensure that AML obligations are being met, and 
that there is a level and fair playing field.
    Senator Whitehouse. Is there nothing that you could do by 
regulation?
    Mr. Frost. That is something, if confirmed, I would be 
happy to work with you and your staff----
    Senator Whitehouse. The reason you would be working with me 
and my staff is to do legislative stuff. You do not need to 
work with me and my staff to do regulatory stuff. You can do 
regulatory stuff. Is there not regulatory stuff that you could 
do?
    Mr. Frost. Well, Senator, I would need to circle up with 
the relevant offices at Treasury that are a little bit more 
focused on these issues, but I would be happy to engage with 
them.
    Senator Whitehouse. Thank you.
    My time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse.
    We will have Senator Lankford, and then we will have 
Senator Warren.
    Senator Lankford. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
    I am slightly frustrated by just the diversity of opinions 
here, Mr. Chairman. At some point I would like to be able to 
have more time, because we have such a wide variety of 
different folks who are here, but thanks to you all for your 
service and for being here in the process.
    Let me run quickly through several questions on this. Mr. 
Wilson, let me first start with you in this. In dealing with 
the role you have in protecting intellectual property and its 
unique task on this, the Biden administration so far, one of 
the leading features they have had on intellectual property was 
trying to be able to give away intellectual property dealing 
with the TRIPS waiver. Obviously multiple entities have pushed 
back on that. Other countries are saying, ``Yes, release 
intellectual property. We will try to figure out how to be able 
to manufacture this.''
    What would be your role in trying to be able to protect 
intellectual property of all American companies?
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Senator Lankford. As I mentioned in 
my opening statement, I think the law that creates this 
position gives me a very clear direction to be a vigorous 
advocate for U.S. intellectual property and innovation and is 
the core of the function. And I take that to heart and would 
follow that guidance, if confirmed.
    It is useful for me to have your perspective on the TRIPS 
waiver issue. As somebody inside the walls of USTR but not yet 
confirmed to this position, I have taken care to remove myself 
from active policy deliberations on that issue. But if I am 
confirmed, obviously I will prioritize getting up to speed on 
that issue and the state of play in Geneva, and I will be happy 
to come back to you.
    Senator Lankford. There are quite a few other areas of 
research, and if we get into a point where we say, you know 
what, the whole world needs this, so let's just release this 
intellectual property, then we are going to have a cascading 
effect on other intellectual property. Finding ways to 
accelerate its usefulness and its accessibility is very 
different than just ``that is a great invention you had, and we 
are going to take it away from you.'' That does not encourage 
innovation in the days ahead. So we will count on your 
leadership to protect that, both in China and what they 
actively do, but around the world as well.
    Dr. Neiman, let me ask you about this, about Afghanistan in 
particular. There are $9.5 billion that have been set aside and 
frozen out from the Taliban government at this point. Do you 
see a need to be able to unfreeze that $9.5 billion and release 
it to the Taliban?
    Dr. Neiman. Thank you for your question, Senator Lankford. 
The situation in Afghanistan is, of course, really terrible, 
and my heart goes out to the Afghan people. There is a real 
humanitarian crisis there, and we should do all that we can to 
try to help the Afghan people, for example working with our 
partners in the UN and trying to get funding to people on the 
ground.
    At this point, without having that funding flow through the 
Taliban, right now my understanding is that the U.S. Government 
is taking a strategic pause, or a pause in not granting access 
to those reserves to the Taliban while the international 
community waits and sees how they respond to our concerns on 
treatment of women, treatment of girls, and I do find that 
appropriate at this point.
    Senator Lankford. It would be entirely appropriate, 
actually. Would you favor special drawing rights of the 
International Monetary Fund if they actually get to the 
Taliban?
    Dr. Neiman. I similarly, at this stage, think that the 
paused relationship between the IMF membership and the Taliban, 
so they do not currently have access to the SDR allocation at 
the IMF, is appropriate.
    Senator Lankford. Thank you. I agree.
    Mr. Bagenstos, as you walk into the role as counsel with 
HHS--it is an extremely important role for all of our counsels. 
There is no way you could know at this point, unless someone 
had told you at this point. We have sent some letters to 
Secretary Becerra asking some very specific questions. In fact, 
we outlined 22 questions. He sent us a very nice letter back 
saying thanks for writing, but he has not answered any of the 
22 questions. As we have gone through even some things that he 
stated in the actual nomination hearing when he came through 
here, things like are you going to recuse yourself from cases 
that you were named in as a California AG, but now you are on 
the other side of it, when he was literally suing HHS, now he 
is on the other side of it. He said, ``Nope; not going to do 
that.''
    So we asked just, ``Can you give us a list of the cases you 
are going to recuse yourself from?'' He has not even turned 
over that list of cases that he will recuse himself from, even 
though he said it during his testimony time sitting at that 
same table.
    So are you aware of that? Has that been brought to your 
attention at this point? Is there a need to be able to get that 
kind of list when he has filed so many suits against HHS and 
now he is on the other side of it?
    Mr. Bagenstos. Thank you, Senator. I very much appreciate 
the question and take very seriously the responsibility to be 
responsive to Congress and this committee. And I can tell you, 
should I be confirmed to the position of General Counsel, one 
of the functions of the General Counsel's Office is the ethics 
function at HHS, including monitoring appropriate recusals, and 
I will certainly take seriously the ethics rules in that regard 
and responsiveness to this committee.
    Senator Lankford. We will count on that, because one of the 
very first things that happened then from HHS was when they 
dropped the lawsuit that HHS had against the State of 
California. It was one of the early statements, but we have yet 
to be able to get any clarity whether the Secretary was 
actually involved in dropping the case against his own State 
right after he got into office. We need to be able to clear 
that up, or to be able to deal with the University of Vermont 
Medical Center that had a clear conscience protection issue 
that was placed against them, that then the administration came 
in and dropped immediately and said, ``No, we are not going to 
prosecute that.''
    And we also do not know about the University of Pittsburgh. 
There have been some real questions there about how they have 
handled some of the abortion issues that they have dealt with 
where they are literally harvesting and changing the procedures 
for an abortion, which is against Federal law to be able to 
harvest those organs. The written statements we have seen seem 
to show they have, but we cannot seem to get any information to 
be able to determine whether there is a violation of Federal 
law.
    Those are things that we are going to want to ask in the 
days ahead and to be able to get clarity on.
    Mr. Bagenstos. Thank you, Senator.
    The Chairman. I thank my colleague.
    Senator Warren?
    Senator Warren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Nearly 5 million people have died from COVID-19 worldwide. 
And although over 6 billion doses of the COVID-19 vaccine have 
now been administered globally, less than 1 percent of them 
have been administered in low-income countries. This inequity 
is disgraceful, and it also prolongs the pandemic's 
consequences here in the United States. The Biden 
administration has shown real global leadership in responding 
to the pandemic, but we must continue to use every tool 
available in the fight against COVID worldwide. And I would 
like to discuss some of those tools today.
    Mr. Neiman, let me start with you. The first tool would 
fall under your purview. In August, the IMF approved a historic 
$650 billion in global financial assistance in the form of 
special drawing rights. These SDRs are a lifeline for 
developing countries as they continue to struggle with the 
fallout from the pandemic.
    Mr. Neiman, do you agree that SDRs are a critical tool for 
combating the COVID crisis both globally and at home?
    Dr. Neiman. Thank you for the question, Senator. The 
increased SDR allocation to lower-income countries represented 
a very meaningful increase in their reserves, and therefore 
helped countries that otherwise might have been liquidity-
constrained in their vaccination efforts and their ongoing 
preparedness for public health investments that are much 
needed.
    Senator Warren. Good. So I take it that is a strong 
``yes''?
    Dr. Neiman. That is a strong ``yes.''
    Senator Warren. Good. I appreciate it, and I agree. The 
$650 billion that the Biden administration helped secure is a 
good first step. But the IMF has made clear that the total need 
is somewhere in the neighborhood of $2\1/2\ trillion.
    The House has authorized additional SDRs to meet this 
urgent need. It is time for the Senate to do the same. Of 
course, to respond to the COVID-19 crisis we also need enough 
vaccines, PPE, tests, and treatments for everyone. And this 
brings us to tool number two.
    I was glad to see the Biden administration put people's 
lives over pharma profits by supporting a waiver of 
international intellectual property rules to help ramp up 
global vaccine production in a crisis. But almost 2 years into 
this pandemic, countries still have not reached a deal to get 
it done. So, Ms. Pagan and Mr. Wilson, if confirmed, you would 
both have key roles to play in securing this critical tool for 
global vaccine access. So let me just ask each of you, will you 
commit to making this a priority, and using American leadership 
to secure a TRIPS waiver as soon as possible? Ms. Pagan?
    Ms. Pagan. Senator Warren, thank you for the question. As 
you know, we have been working at the WTO since Ambassador 
Tai's announcement that we support a waiver of intellectual 
property protections for vaccines----
    Senator Warren. I just want to hear a ``yes'' that you are 
committed to this, and that you are going to make it a 
priority.
    Ms. Pagan. We have been working, and we will continue to 
work on securing a successful outcome.
    Senator Warren. Good. Thank you.
    And, Mr. Wilson, can I hear a ``yes'' from you?
    Mr. Wilson. Yes, you can. Ambassador Tai spoke to this 
issue of U.S. leadership in Geneva a week ago, 2 weeks ago. Her 
answer was ``yes'' and so is mine.
    Senator Warren. Good. I like these yeses. Yeses backed up 
by ``I am already working on it.'' Best kind. This is really 
important, and I appreciate your commitments here.
    So, while the U.S. works with partners to approve a TRIPS 
waiver, we still have other tools to accelerate the COVID 
vaccine manufacturing and distribution without depending on an 
international agreement. And that brings me to the third tool 
in the box.
    Mr. Bagenstos, if confirmed will you commit to conducting a 
thorough examination of all of the regulatory authorities at 
the Department's disposal, including the DPA and any 
contractual rights in which HHS is entitled to dramatically 
expand global access to COVID vaccines, including through 
vaccine technology transfer?
    Mr. Bagenstos. Absolutely, Senator. As both the President 
and the Secretary have made clear, we need to do what we can to 
get out of this crisis. And that means considering all of the 
available legal tools--obviously, running them through the 
appropriate processes to make sure we have the authority, but I 
think we have to leave no stone unturned in looking for those 
authorities.
    Senator Warren. I very much like that approach. We have to 
use all of the tools. We are in a crisis, and it puts everyone 
at risk around the world. It puts us at risk here at home.
    This is a global emergency, and we must use all of our 
tools to fight this virus. The pandemic will not end anywhere 
until it ends everywhere, and now is the time for using all our 
tools.
    So, thank you all. I look forward to your speedy 
confirmation and getting you even more tools to work with. 
Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Crapo [presiding]. Thank you.
    Senator Daines?
    Senator Daines. Senator Crapo, thank you.
    I want to talk about intellectual property for a moment. 
Somebody who spent much of my career in global operations--I 
spent 6 years actually living in China working for an American 
corporation, launching American brands to compete against 
Chinese brands there in China--I believe protecting U.S. 
intellectual property has to be a top priority for the U.S. 
Trade Rep.
    As you know, the United States and China signed a Phase One 
trade deal that includes major advancements in the protection 
of U.S. IP. But despite this agreement, China has not lived up 
to their end of the deal, and its forced technology transfers 
and IP violations continue.
    I have sponsored this bipartisan bill--it is the PROTECT IP 
Act--which recently passed the Senate as part of Senate Bill 
1260, that would help boost enforcement in that Phase One China 
deal. In fact, I was over in China meeting face to face with 
Liu He back at the end of that whole negotiation process in 
Beijing, so I have a lot of hands-on personal experience, and 
hence my passion on this issue.
    Mr. Wilson, if confirmed, what actions will you take to 
ensure that IP created in America is protected?
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Senator Daines. It is great to hear 
about your personal experience on these issues. And, as you 
point out, the issue, particularly of China's living up to the 
commitments that it made bilaterally to us in that earlier 
agreement, is critical.
    Ambassador Tai spoke to this recently, and she herself is 
engaging directly with the Chinese. I would expect to do 
likewise, if confirmed, to make sure they are living up to 
those commitments.
    Senator Daines. Thank you. I appreciate that, truly. 
Furthermore, would you support taking more aggressive actions 
against international IP abusers?
    Mr. Wilson. Senator, I think--again, if I am confirmed--one 
of my first priorities would be to open up the toolbox that we 
have at USTR, evaluate the tools, consider where they can be 
used most effectively, and consult with the committee on how we 
do that.
    Senator Daines. Thank you.
    I want to talk for a moment about expanding market access 
for ag producers. Ms. Pagan, a question for you. As you know, 
with 95 percent of the world's consumers outside the United 
States, ensuring that our farmers and ranchers in places like 
Montana and across the U.S. are able to compete on a level 
playing field, is absolutely critical.
    If confirmed, would you commit to ensuring that expanding 
market access for Montana and U.S. ag in foreign markets would 
be a priority and on the agenda in any WTO ag negotiation?
    Ms. Pagan. Thank you for that question. Absolutely, 
leveling the playing field and making sure that our farmers and 
ranchers have access to foreign markets is very important, and 
it will be a priority while I am there.
    Senator Daines. And it really is the future in many ways 
for agriculture, where you see--as I think old Wayne Gretzky 
said, he was successful because he skated where the puck was 
headed, not where it was at. Where it is all going here--again 
95 percent of the world's consumers are outside the United 
States. It continues to be a great opportunity for us, for ag 
producers here in the United States.
    While multilateralism can play an important role in 
achieving global policy objectives, we need to make sure that 
all of our partners operate in a transparent manner. That is 
why I am upset at findings that the current head of the IMF, 
Kristalina Georgieva, who was then head of the World Bank, 
pressured staffers to boost China's ranking in the World Bank's 
annual Doing Business report for 2018.
    Dr. Neiman, I know Senator Menendez brought this issue up 
earlier. Are you concerned by this scandal? And would you agree 
that this episode raises some fundamental questions about 
whether politics plays a role in other decisions being made by 
the IMF as well as the World Bank?
    Dr. Neiman. Thank you for the question, Senator. You know, 
I agree with the Secretary that the WilmerHale report raised 
serious and legitimate issues and concerns. And as an academic 
myself, I understand very viscerally the importance of 
confidence and trust in data, and confidence that analyses are 
conducted not with an eye toward generating any particular 
outcome.
    And so, if confirmed, I would absolutely commit to taking 
strong action to encourage the IMF to make sure that they renew 
their commitments to things like data transparency, safeguards, 
whistleblower protections, at both international financial 
institutions.
    Senator Daines. What is your sense in looking at it so far? 
Do you think politics played a role?
    Dr. Neiman. Do I think politics played a role? I read the 
WilmerHale report and think that the right way to approach 
their findings is to follow the recommendations that they made, 
such that whether politics mattered or not, we maintain the 
integrity and confidence in the international financial 
institutions. That seems to be the critical interest that, if 
confirmed, I would have in my role at Treasury: maintaining 
confidence in the international financial architecture.
    Senator Daines. Dr. Neiman, thank you.
    Dr. Neiman. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Daines. Thank you, Senator Crapo.
    Senator Crapo. Thank you.
    Senator Cortez Masto?
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, Mr. Chair. To the 
nominees, congratulations. I look forward to working with all 
of you. I do not have time to ask all of you questions, so I 
will submit most of those for the record. But there is one 
issue that really is pertinent on my mind right now.
    Mr. Bagenstos, you are going to be critical to addressing 
this. I understand you are familiar with the case of Stanley 
Weber. For those who do not know, he is a former pediatrician 
with Indian Health Service who has been convicted of more than 
13 felony counts relating to the sexual abuse of young boys. 
These assaults began in the early 1990s. They continued for 
more than 20 years.
    Dr. Weber practiced pediatrics through 2015 and did not 
leave the service until May of 2016. In the time since Weber 
was charged and arrested, there have been several 
investigations into his conduct and the systemic failures at 
IHS that enabled this behavior. I would like to focus on one of 
those investigations. It was commissioned by IHS and conducted 
by an independent contractor called Integritas. And that report 
was delivered to the IHS in January of 2020, but it was 
withheld from both members of Congress and the public in what 
the courts have since found to be a violation of the Freedom of 
Information Act.
    The report was made public just 2 weeks ago, and it 
detailed a pattern of failures by IHS management to act upon 
years of credible accusations of assault. Here are my concerns 
when it comes to the involvement of the Office of General 
Counsel. There are two of them. One is this: the Office of 
General Counsel made several critical missteps in the handling 
of the report by refusing to make its counselors available to 
Integris for the investigation, and then by withholding the 
report itself from congressional oversight bodies and the 
public. That is one.
    Two, the report makes clear that, in several instances, the 
HHS General Counsel failed to act in the best interests of IHS 
patients by making oversight recommendations to IHS managers 
that fell far short of the urgency and seriousness that this 
case required. So, my question to you is, I want to know how 
you would handle a similar situation. Are there circumstances 
under which you would direct counselors not to cooperate with 
investigations commissioned by HHS agencies?
    Mr. Bagenstos. Thank you, Senator, for the question. And it 
is an absolutely tragic case that you are talking about. As you 
know, I am not at HHS and so have not had the benefit of being 
able to review the file of this case, but I have certainly read 
the many news reports about this. And I can say this is a 
case--and cases like this, should a case like this occur in the 
future--that really comes at the intersection of three of the 
most sensitive relationships, and most important 
responsibilities that the Department has: to safeguard the 
health of the people who deal with HHS programs, the health and 
welfare of children, and the trust relationship that the U.S. 
Government has with Indian Tribes.
    To fail in all three of those responsibilities, I think is 
just something that is unfathomable, and beyond unfortunate. 
And to think that folks in the office to which I have been 
nominated to head and will lead, if confirmed, actually failed 
to address it is not something that I would want to have 
happen, should I be confirmed.
    So what does that mean? So one thing that I will want to 
do, as soon as I get confirmed, should I be confirmed, is 
actually to review the decisions that were made in this context 
to make sure that--there are always decisions that are made 
about investigative questions. Were these decisions made 
appropriately, and do we need to have new policies for the 
future--not just for IHS, but in general--in dealing with these 
sorts of sensitive relationships?
    And, Senator, I can commit to you that if I am confirmed, I 
will take extremely seriously both the need to protect those in 
the charge of HHS, and the need to be responsive to 
investigators who are duly appointed, as well as to this 
committee and to the Congress.
    Senator Cortez Masto. And do you have any problems 
referring alleged criminal activity to law enforcement for them 
to investigate?
    Mr. Bagenstos. So I think--you know, I have had to do this 
in many government jobs--when one comes across criminal 
conduct, you know, there are procedures for referring that. And 
I think those procedures need to be followed.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Do you think it is appropriate to put 
together some sort of investigative committee that is made up 
of people who are supervised by the individual they are asked 
to investigate?
    Mr. Bagenstos. You know, I would want to look into the 
particular case here because, as I say, I do not really know 
much about the facts. But in general, that would be very much a 
red flag. We want people to be independent of those they are 
investigating.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. It is a serious matter, 
and that is why I have taken up most of my time on it. Listen, 
I get the job that you are doing runs the intersection of 
administration, personnel, and criminal allegations, if that 
happens and that has to be referred. And I understand the nexus 
between all three.
    We failed. IHS failed in this instance in all three of 
those. And that is on the General Counsel's shoulders. And that 
is why your job is so important, because these are the 
consequences if you fail. And so, I am looking for somebody who 
understands that and is willing to step up and do the right 
thing, particularly by the individuals and these young boys who 
suffered at the hands of this doctor for too long. Too long. 
And so, thank you for your comments. And again, thank you, all 
three, for your willingness to serve.
    Mr. Bagenstos. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Crapo. Thank you.
    Senator Brown?
    Senator Brown. Thank you, Senator Crapo. Thanks to Chair 
Wyden. And, Ms. Pagan, thank you for your help drafting the 
Brown-Wyden rapid response mechanism in USMCA. You took another 
corporate trade agreement and turned it into an agreement that 
will actually help workers in all three countries. So thank you 
for that.
    I want to start by saying that China's entry into the WTO 
has been devastating for Ohio workers and Ohio companies. The 
Chinese Government cheats the global system using forced 
technology transfers, intellectual property theft, and chronic 
state-subsidized overcapacity in key industries like steel and 
solar to undermine U.S. industries.
    The WTO can be a tool by which China bullies its 
competitors. If China continues to make a mockery of the World 
Trade Organization, Americans and the rest of the rule-
following world are going to lose faith both in the WTO and 
their own leaders to appeal for relief. That is the lesson that 
is so important for us to understand.
    So, Ms. Pagan, detail for me how you think we should reform 
the WTO so it actually works to address China's abuses, which 
harm American workers and businesses?
    Ms. Pagan. Thank you, Senator Brown. There are a number of 
ways. You know, one important area is transparency. One of the 
areas where China fails is lack of transparency in its 
measures, and we want to improve transparency in terms of 
making sure that members are meeting their current obligations 
and bringing more transparency also to the WTO so we can have 
more conversations.
    The dispute settlement system has to be reformed because it 
has contributed to some of the difficulties for us to combat 
some of the unfair practices, and that is going to be a 
priority, if I am confirmed, in my work forward at the WTO.
    I also--I know this is an important issue, and it is an 
important angle to bring to everything that we do at the WTO, 
which is to bring the worker-centric focus to remind ourselves 
that, after all, we are there to do trade and to facilitate 
trade, but it also means that you have to protect the workers 
that the trade comes from. So there are any number of ways that 
we can address this issue, and, if confirmed, I look forward to 
working with you on this.
    Senator Brown. Thanks, Ms. Pagan. The U.S., thanks to the 
chair, Chair Wyden's efforts and his staff's efforts, has 
changed its approach to trade policy. The WTO must act 
similarly. I have confidence from our conversations, from 
talking to the Ambassador about your work yesterday, that you 
will work toward that goal at the WTO and with other member 
countries. So I know you have committed to that. I know you 
have committed to that over and over, and we count on that.
    Mr. Wilson, I appreciate our conversation the other day, 
how you plan to put workers at the center of our economic 
policy in terms of protecting intellectual property and 
innovation, especially in digital trade agreements. Thank you 
for your private commitment and your public commitment to do 
that.
    And last, Mr. Frost, I want to switch to your work with 
GSEs. I chair the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 
Committee. It used to be the Wall Street Committee. Now it is 
much more about housing.
    We have an affordable housing crisis. We know that. We will 
need our entire housing system, including the GSEs, to work 
together to address it. We have heard from both consumer 
advocates and leaders about the importance of putting GSEs on a 
path to long-term stability so they can carry out their mission 
of providing all Americans with access to affordable housing.
    Would you commit to working with me on strengthening the 
housing system, expanding access to affordable housing?
    Mr. Frost. Absolutely, Senator. I know this is an area that 
you feel passionate about. I do as well. You have provided 
tremendous leadership here.
    The administration is deeply committed to affordable 
housing, and has a number of efforts underway, as you know, to 
lower the cost of housing for American families. If confirmed, 
I am committed to working with Congress to establish a housing 
finance system that works better than the system worked prior 
to the global financial crisis and the entrance into 
conservatorship.
    I think it is important that we have GSEs that work for the 
American people and do not have the too-big-to-fail issues that 
we saw pre-financial crisis. But, if confirmed, I would love to 
work with this committee and you and your staff on making it a 
priority--making GSE reform a priority.
    Senator Brown. We count on that. Thank you, Mr. Frost.
    Thank you, Senator Crapo.
    Senator Crapo. Thank you.
    Senator Barrasso?
    Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Senator Crapo.
    Dr. Neiman, China is the world's largest economy, has 
access to capital, and sizeable reserves in meeting its own 
domestic development needs. Yet China continues to borrow 
billions of dollars from multilateral development banks.
    In 2016, China met the criteria for graduation from the 
World Bank. Since then, China has received $9 billion from the 
World Bank, $7.6 billion from the Asian Development Bank, and 
China obtains sizeable loans. It is engaging in predatory 
lending, likely using that money in developing countries across 
the world.
    So China is now the world's largest official creditor, even 
though it continues to get all of this money, a lot of which 
the United States has been putting into these organizations. 
The United States, I think, has a duty to make sure that U.S. 
taxpayer resources are going to countries that need them most, 
not China. A dollar lent to China is a dollar not available for 
a project to eliminate poverty in the developing world. The 
multilateral development banks need to focus on their 
development mission.
    So what is your strategy to end lending to China at 
multilateral development banks?
    Dr. Neiman. Thank you for the question, Senator. I do agree 
that our MDB efforts and development finance should be 
targeting the lowest-income countries that need that 
assistance, and China has, as you said, by that standard 
graduated years ago now.
    If confirmed, I would be committed to working with the 
executive directors to understand the best way forward to 
achieve that outcome, which I agree with, Senator. I also, if 
confirmed, would be happy to discuss these efforts with you and 
your staff.
    Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
    Another question, Dr. Neiman. There are currently 840 
million people across the globe with no electricity, none, 
right now, today. People who live in poor and developing 
nations want and need a stable energy supply to grow their 
economy, to improve their lives. Energy is, I believe, a single 
critical tool to help countries alleviate poverty.
    The United States should be working to promote an all-of-
the-above energy strategy. But the World Bank, and many of the 
multilateral development banks, are restricting lending for 
traditional energy projects. No modern economy can run on only 
renewable power, which we know is variable. A country needs 
continuous, abundant energy to run a manufacturing plant, a 
data center, or a hospital. And I think in some of my travel to 
Africa where we were talking to hospital staff, their biggest 
issue was lack of power when it comes to maternal death, and 
the death of the baby as well, during delivery.
    So I think these restrictions in the lending only 
exacerbate the global inequities of energy. In fact, all of 
Africa, with a population of 1.3 billion people, accounts for a 
little more than 3 percent of the total global electricity 
generation. If Africa tripled its electricity consumption based 
on only natural gas, it would still be less than 1 percent of 
the annual global emissions footprint.
    So, if you care about people in developing countries, and 
we all do, we attempt to turn the lights on. So, if confirmed, 
will you commit to ensuring that multilateral development banks 
are promoting all forms of energy projects across the globe, 
including oil, gas, and coal?
    Dr. Neiman. Senator, the President and the Secretary have 
both described climate change as an existential threat, and 
that is an assessment that I wholeheartedly agree with. I think 
the way to think of the cost in terms of energy and 
infrastructure that burns carbon, emits carbon, is not just the 
cost today, but also the cost to the future. And so I think it 
is appropriate and important for our efforts with multilateral 
development banks, development financing, per se, to emphasize 
infrastructures that support our goals on climate change.
    Senator Barrasso. Well, I will take that as a direct attack 
against these people who are desperately looking for energy to 
survive today, because that is a decision, this administration; 
I know it is not your position, but it is the administration's 
position. For the existence of those alive today in these 
communities--if you take a look at the number one cause of 
death, environmental death, it is household, indoor smoke for 
cooking, period. No questions asked that that is a concern, and 
I believe it is an affront to these people and an insult for 
the administration to have such a position.
    So, at the U.N., President Biden announced he would once 
again double the U.S. contributions to international climate 
change. In April he pledged to increase contributions for 
global climate financing to $5.7 billion. So this means that, 
since he just said he was going to double it, that is $11.4 
billion a year. This is happening at a time when the American 
people are facing significant challenges at home. Communities 
across the Nation are just emerging from a deadly pandemic. We 
are dealing with stifled economies, soaring debt, declining 
infrastructure.
    In a front-page story in The New York Times today, people, 
under inflation, are looking at the largest increase in prices 
and costs for Thanksgiving dinner. This is The New York Times 
front page today. But whether it is the Green New Deal, the 
U.N. green climate change slush fund, the American people 
cannot afford these disastrous policies.
    So please explain why American taxpayers should support 
borrowing more from countries like China in order to send it 
overseas to international bureaucrats in the name of climate 
change? And I hope to hear more about that than it is an 
existential threat.
    Dr. Neiman. Senator, this is not an easy situation. I just 
want to acknowledge, of course it is a difficult issue, but we 
have tradeoffs that we have to consider. And I agree with the 
assessment that time is running out. It is really important 
that we do all that we can to decarbonize the planet, and I 
think, as such, it is appropriate to emphasize sustainable 
infrastructure projects through our development financing 
policies.
    Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time has 
expired.
    Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Senator Barrasso.
    At this point, Senator Portman, who is on the web, is next. 
But we are not sure that he is back from his vote. Senator 
Portman, are you there?
    [No response.]
    Senator Crapo. Is there any Senator who is on the web who 
is ready to ask questions?
    [No response.]
    Senator Crapo. Well, if not, while we are waiting for the 
chairman to return from voting, I have a couple of questions 
that I might just jump into. The first is for you, Ms. Pagan, 
and also for Chris Wilson, and that is with regard to the TRIPS 
waiver. Ambassador Tai committed at the trade agenda hearing to 
brief this committee on negotiations to waive the U.S. rights 
under the WTO agreement on trade-related intellectual property 
rights, or TRIPS.
    This has not happened. The briefing has not happened. 
Members on both sides of the aisle are concerned about this 
issue, particularly about allowing China and Russia to use our 
intellectual property for vaccines with impunity. My question 
for both of you is the same. Would you commit to opposing a 
waiver or a peace clause for the TRIPS agreement that extends 
to Russia and China? Ms. Pagan?
    Ms. Pagan. Thank you. I know this is a very important 
issue. I would just say that the conversations seem to me to be 
ongoing and are sort of stuck. So, you know, we are trying to 
be constructive over there.
    I will say that, on the issue of China and Russia over 
there--people who should not be getting access to our 
innovations--we will be very clear-eyed, whatever the outcome 
is, to ensure that does not happen. You know, the devil is 
always in the details, and with respect to consulting with you 
and the committees, we will do that.
    Senator Crapo. Thank you.
    Mr. Wilson?
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Senator Crapo. As my colleague has 
said, there are lots of ins and outs of this discussion in 
Geneva that still need to take place. It is very helpful for me 
to understand your particular concern about technology being 
shared with two WTO members in particular. I think it is 
incumbent on us, as we continue to be involved in the 
discussions, to ensure that we are managing the risks as 
effectively as we can.
    Senator Crapo. Well, thank you. And neither of you were 
willing to commit to oppose a waiver of TRIPS for Russia and 
China. I understand that you are working with the 
administration that has already said that it is considering 
doing that. So I would just say, I would encourage you to take 
back advocacy of protecting Americans and American industry and 
technology, rather than yielding access to that technology to 
Russia and China, where the case has not been made that there 
is an emergency that somehow justifies this.
    Next, another question for you, Mr. Wilson, is on 
intellectual property. Actually, I think you answered this 
earlier, but I had to step out, or I got my attention pulled 
away. But, if confirmed, you will be responsible for helping to 
lead the new administration's policy on trade-related 
intellectual property rights, and your leadership will be very 
important for the effort to address acts, policies, and 
practices of foreign governments that have a significant 
adverse impact on the value of U.S. innovation. It will also be 
important in helping to ensure that private intellectual 
property rights are enforced and maintained in the face of 
increased calls to socialize private property and information.
    How will you approach solving the increasingly thorny 
intellectual property disputes, particularly disputes in spaces 
like digital and pharmaceutical industries?
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Senator. As a nominee for this 
position, I take very seriously the responsibility that I would 
have to essentially build and create this new position to 
develop the appropriate priorities, both for myself in the 
position and for the future.
    I think you have pointed correctly to the complex 
intersections between intellectual properly policy and emerging 
technologies, especially in the digital space. I understand 
that those are going to pose particular challenges. It will be 
very important to me, as I work with my colleagues at USTR to 
build the position, to stay in close touch with you, your 
staff, other members of the committee, to make sure that we are 
meeting your expectations.
    Senator Crapo. Thank you.
    And, Mr. Bagenstos, a question for you on advisory 
opinions. The HHS Office of General Counsel has the ability to 
issue advisory opinions which, although they lack the force of 
law, can direct policymaking efforts very powerfully. Where 
members of Congress and the administration disagree on policy 
choices, the administration's rationale can be important for 
Congress to understand why the administration has decided to 
move in a particular way.
    If confirmed, will you be willing to make your advisory 
opinions available to Congress at their request?
    Mr. Bagenstos. Thank you, Senator. I know this is a very 
important matter, and I will say I take very seriously 
Congress's responsibility to exercise oversight. The 
legislative branch of government passes the laws under which 
the departments operate, and it appropriates the money that the 
departments spend. And so, it obviously has a very significant 
oversight responsibility. And part of that responsibility, I 
think, imposes a correlative responsibility on the executive 
branch to let Congress know what the executive branch is doing, 
and why the executive branch thinks they have the authority to 
do it.
    And, if I am confirmed to this position, I can commit to 
you that we will engage in that conversation. And, if there is 
a question about what HHS is doing, and why we think we have 
the authority to do it, should I be confirmed, that will be 
communicated to you.
    Senator Crapo. Well, thank you.
    Okay, I think we may have one more member almost here, and 
I have one more question, so I am going to go ahead with that.
    This one is for you, Dr. Neiman. I am deeply concerned by 
the reporting that senior officials at the World Bank 
manipulated data to improve China's ranking in its Doing 
Business report at the behest of Chinese officials, at a time 
when the World Bank was deep into negotiations with countries, 
including China, for a share capital increase.
    I am even more concerned that since this story was 
reported, one of those officials has been promoted to the 
leadership of the IMF, and, even more egregiously, since the 
story was confirmed in an investigation by an independent law 
firm, the IMF retained that official as its leader.
    If confirmed, what will you do to ensure that foreign 
powers do not undermine or manipulate the international 
institutions like the World Bank, the IMF, and the OECD, that 
are tasked with promoting economic growth and financial 
stability?
    Dr. Neiman. Thank you, Senator, for the question. If 
confirmed, one very important part of my role would be to 
ensure that global confidence remains and we preserve the 
integrity of the international financial institutions. We have 
worked very hard to build them up and make them a particularly 
important tool in the international financial landscape, and we 
would need to work hard to continue safeguarding them.
    And I agree that the reports could reduce confidence if we 
do not take strong action to boost things like accountability, 
and protect the data integrity. The WilmerHale report that you 
are referring to included a number of recommendations. And, for 
example, together with the executive directors, I would review 
those recommendations and strongly consider adding things like 
the possibility--you know, considering possibilities like 
potentially making the analyses more broadly available, doing 
things to protect the actual analysis from any sort of 
involvement of people outside of the team on the political side 
of the institutions.
    Senator Crapo. Well, thank you. And in light of the facts 
of this situation, do you still think it appropriate that the 
administration seeks an increase in SDRs for the IMF?
    Dr. Neiman. I am not aware--I do not believe that Treasury 
is currently considering any additional SDR allocations.
    Senator Crapo. All right; thank you. I am glad to hear 
that. I would just like to let you know that I do not believe 
the United States should support the allocation of any 
additional SDRs to the IMF while the official at issue here 
remains the managing director. And so, I just give you that bit 
of opinion of my own as we approach these kinds of issues.
    With that, is Senator Thune with us?
    [No response.]
    Senator Crapo. Okay. If Senator Thune is not available, 
then that means that you are all done with your questions, with 
the interrogation. I would like to thank each of you for being 
willing to take upon yourself these commitments to serve our 
country, and for being here today, and for your responses, even 
though I did not agree with all of them.
    You will get additional questions in writing. Regarding the 
questions for the record, the deadline for members to submit 
the QFRs will be next Tuesday, November 2nd, at 5 p.m. And for 
our members, that 5 p.m. deadline is firm.
    We also--do we have a time frame for responses? Okay, we do 
not have a specific time frame for responses, but quickly, 
please. We appreciate prompt responses.
    We do thank you all for your cooperation and your 
attendance here. And with that, this hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the hearing was concluded.]

                            A P P E N D I X

              Additional Material Submitted for the Record

                              ----------                              


      Prepared Statement of Samuel R. Bagenstos, Nominated to be 
        General Counsel, Department of Health and Human Services
    Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Crapo, members of the committee, 
thank you for considering my nomination to be General Counsel at the 
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). I am humbled and honored 
by President Biden's decision to nominate me, and I am excited, if 
confirmed, to serve under the leadership of Secretary Xavier Becerra.

    I would like to thank my family for their love and support. Here 
with me today is my wife, Margo Schlanger, who is a terrific and 
accomplished attorney in her own right. Watching from afar are my 
children, Harry and Leila--twins who are in their senior year of 
college--and my mother, Naida Tushnet--who is nominally retired but 
keeps up a full schedule fighting to improve her own community. I would 
also like to thank my supervisors in my government positions: former 
Governor Deval Patrick, former Secretary of Labor Tom Perez, and Acting 
Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Shalanda Young. 
And I would like to thank the two great, now-departed jurists for whom 
I clerked, Judge Stephen Reinhardt and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 
whose memories are a blessing.

    In the more than 28 years since I graduated law school, my work has 
sought to advance the paired principles that should always inform the 
application of the law: no person, no matter how high their position, 
should be above the law's constraints, nor should anyone be beneath its 
protections.

    Perhaps no case illustrates those principles better than that of 
George Lane. George had paraplegia and was a bit down on his luck. When 
he was accused of a minor criminal violation, his hearing was held on 
the second floor of a courthouse with no elevator. And when he couldn't 
make it to the courtroom because his disability kept him from climbing 
stairs, he was arrested for failure to appear in court. I worked with 
George to take his case to the Supreme Court, and--with the help of 
President George W. Bush's Solicitor General--we prevailed. George's 
case showed that, at its best, the law must be open and responsive to 
even the humblest members of our community. I was very proud to have 
achieved this result--and to have worked with congressional and 
administration allies across partisan divides to build support for 
George's case.

    Should I be fortunate enough to be confirmed, I will approach the 
General Counsel role in the same spirit. I will work to ensure that the 
actions of the Department conform to the substantive and procedural 
requirements that Congress has established--as well as the fundamental 
principles and protections of the Constitution. And I will work to 
ensure that the Department advances its critical mission of enhancing 
the health and well-being of all Americans.

    During the Obama-Biden administration, I was the Principal Deputy 
Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of 
Justice. In addition to supervising 200 attorneys across three sections 
of the Civil Rights Division, I led the Department's enforcement of the 
Americans with Disabilities Act.

    Much of my disability rights work has required me to engage with 
State Medicaid programs--to defend the rights of people with 
disabilities to receive services in their own homes and communities. I 
worked with Governors, Sheriffs, and other State and local officials 
across party lines who were committed to providing quality services to 
individuals with disabilities. Through this work, I learned a lot about 
the particular needs of different States and regions. I am especially 
proud of work I did to reach a historic agreement with then-Governor 
Sonny Perdue in Georgia to expand that State's community-based services 
system. In the course of that work, I saw how important tools such as 
telehealth can be in serving rural and other communities without access 
to specialized providers--a lesson that the COVID-19 pandemic has 
underscored for all of us.

    More than a year into that pandemic, the laws that HHS administers 
are essential to the Department's mission. Should I be confirmed, I 
will seek to uphold the law with a commitment to equity, transparency, 
and accountability.

    Thank you, again, for considering my nomination. I look forward to 
your questions.

                                 ______
                                 

                        SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE

                  STATEMENT OF INFORMATION REQUESTED 
                               OF NOMINEE

                      A. BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION

 1.  Name (include any former names used): Samuel Robert Bagenstos.


 2.  Position to which nominated: General Counsel, U.S. Department of 
Health and Human Services.

 3.  Date of nomination: August 10, 2021.

 4.  Address (list current residence, office, and mailing addresses):

 5.  Date and place of birth: January 5, 1970; St. Louis, MO.

 6.  Marital status (include maiden name of wife or husband's name):

 7.  Names and ages of children:

 8.  Education (list all secondary and higher education institutions, 
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted):

        Harvard Law School.
        Dates attended: September 1990-June 1993.
        Degree received: juris doctor.
        Date degree granted: June 1993.

        University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
        Dates attended: September 1987-May 1990.
        Degree received: bachelor of arts.
        Date degree granted: May 1990.

        Princeton High School (Princeton, NJ).
        Dates attended: September 1983-June 1987.
        Degree received: high school diploma.
        Date degree granted: June 1987.

 9.  Employment record (list all jobs held since college, including the 
title or description of job, name of employer, location of work, and 
dates of employment for each job):

        Office of Management and Budget.
        General Counsel (January 2021-present).
        Washington, DC.

        University of Michigan Law School.
        Frank G. Millard professor of law (October 2014-present; on 
        leave since January 2021).
        Professor of law (July 2009-present; on leave July 2009-July 
        2011 and since January 2021).
        Visiting professor of law (August-December 2008).
        Ann Arbor, MI.

        Michigan Employment Relations Commission.
        Member and Chair (December 2019-January 2021).
        Lansing and Detroit, MI.

        Joan and Sanford I. Weill Medical College and Graduate School 
        of Medical Sciences of Cornell University Medicine.
        Contractor--legal research (2017-2019).
        New York, NY.

        U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division.
        Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General (January 2010-July 
        2011).
        Deputy Assistant Attorney General (July-December 2009).
        Washington, DC.

        UCLA School of Law.
        Visiting professor of law (January-May 2009).
        Los Angeles, CA.

        Washington University School of Law.
        Associate dean for research and faculty development (July 2007-
        June 2008).
        Professor of Law (July 2004-June 2008).
        St. Louis, MO.

        Harvard Law School.
        Assistant professor of law (July 2000-June 2004).
        Research fellow and lecturer on law (1999).
        Cambridge, MA.

        Pyle, Rome and Lichten.
        Associate (1998).
        Boston, MA.

        Supreme Court of the United States.
        Law clerk to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (1997-1998).
        Washington, DC.

        U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division.
        Trial attorney, Appellate Section (1995-1997).
        Washington, DC.

        United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
        Law clerk to Judge Stephen Reinhardt (1993-1994).
        Los Angeles, CA.

        Jenner and Block.
        Summer associate (1992).
        Washington, DC.

        Baker and Botts.
        Summer associate (1991).
        Washington, DC.

        FGI, Inc.
        Telemarketer (1990).
        Chapel Hill, NC.

10.  Government experience (list any current and former advisory, 
consultative, honorary, or other part-time service or positions with 
Federal, State, or local governments held since college, including 
dates, other than those listed above):

        In addition to the positions listed above, I also served as a 
        part-time, volunteer member of the Ann Arbor Housing Commission 
        and its affiliated nonprofits, the Ann Arbor Housing 
        Development Corporation and the Ann Arbor Affordable Housing 
        Corporation, from March 2019 until I assumed my position at OMB 
        in January 2021.

11.  Business relationships (list all current and former positions held 
as an officer, director, trustee, partner (e.g., limited partner, non-
voting, etc.), proprietor, agent, representative, or consultant of any 
corporation, company, firm, partnership, other business enterprise, or 
educational or other institution):

        None.

12.  Memberships (list all current and former memberships, as well as 
any current and former offices held in professional, fraternal, 
scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and other organizations dating 
back to college, including dates for these memberships and offices):

        I have undertaken to answer this question as fully as I can. I 
        do not have complete records of my memberships going back the 
        31 years since I graduated college.

        Ann Arbor Reconstructionist Congregation.
        Member (2011-present).
        I served a term on the board and a couple of years on the 
        Rabbinical Search Committee.

        State Bar of Michigan.
        Member (2010-present).

        California State Bar.
        Member (1994-present).

        Disability Rights Bar Association (and predecessor Association 
        of Disability Rights Counsel).
        Member (2011-2021, various years before 2009).
        Executive board (dates unknown).

        National Employment Lawyers Association.
        Member (2011-2020, various years before 2009).

        Public Justice.
        Member (2019-2021).

        American Constitution Society.
        Member (various times since law school but I don't have 
        specific dates. I am not currently a member.)

        ACLU of Michigan.
        Pro bono cooperating attorney (at least 2014-January 2021).

        Association of American Law Schools.
        Member (2000-present).
        Chair, disability law section (one term, dates unknown).

        Law and Society Association.
        Member (various years since approximately 2004).

        Michigan Speech Coaches, Inc.
        Member (2014-2018).

        National Speech and Debate Association.
        Member (2014-2018).
        Member, Michigan District Committee (2017-2018).

        Ann Arbor Racquet Club.
        Member (2011).

13.  Political affiliations and activities:

        a.  List all public offices for which you have been a candidate 
        dating back to the age of 18:

       Michigan Supreme Court (Democratic nominee, 2018).

        b.  List all memberships and offices held in and services 
        rendered to all political parties or election committees, 
        currently and during the last 10 years prior to the date of 
        your nomination:

       I am a member of the Michigan Democratic Party and the Washtenaw 
County Democratic Party. During the past 10 years (but not since 
assuming my current Federal position), I have hosted or co-hosted 
fundraisers for various candidates in Michigan.

        c.  Itemize all political contributions to any individual, 
        campaign organization, political party, political action 
        committee, or similar entity of $50 or more for the past 10 
        years prior to the date of your nomination:

       See table.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Contribution Description                Date         Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty and Justice for All PAC                   7/10/21          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Perez for Governor                            6/21/21        $1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kent County Democratic Party                      6/13/21           $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Nessel for Attorney General                  5/26/21          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Levin for Congress                           5/22/21          $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gretchen Whitmer for Governor                     4/21/21        $1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washtenaw County Democratic--Federal Account      4/17/21          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Ossoff for Senate                            12/22/20          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Ossoff for Senate                            12/22/20          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gretchen Whitmer for Governor                    12/15/20          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Warnock for Georgia                               11/7/20        $62.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Ossoff for Senate                             11/7/20        $62.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Georgia Federal Elections Committee--Federal      11/7/20        $62.50
 Account
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Ossoff for Senate                             11/7/20        $62.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biden for President                              10/31/20          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biden for President                              10/31/20          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Democratic State Central Committee      10/29/20          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Democratic State Central Committee      10/28/20          $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Together Fund PAC                                10/25/20          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peters Victory 2020                              10/25/20          $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gretchen Driskell for Congress                   10/25/20          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biden for President                              10/25/20          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biden Victory Fund                               10/25/20          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Espy for Senate                             10/23/20          $150
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Democratic State Central Committee      10/23/20          $400
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Hoadley for Congress                         10/23/20          $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
12th Congressional District Democrats            10/22/20           $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan House Democratic Fund                   10/20/20          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peters for Michigan                              10/15/20          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peters Victory 2020                              10/12/20          $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Democratic State Central Committee      10/10/20          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Welch for Supreme Court                 10/7/20          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Warnock for Georgia                               10/6/20          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Harrison for U.S. Senate                    10/6/20          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Alan Gross for U.S. Senate                    10/6/20          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peters for Michigan                               10/5/20        $1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cal for NC                                        10/1/20          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peters Victory 2020                               10/1/20        $1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
J Street PAC                                      10/1/20          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scholten for Congress                             10/1/20          $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Democratic State Central Committee       9/29/20          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Laurie Pohutsky for HD 19                         9/29/20           $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biden for President                               9/27/20          $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biden Victory Fund                                9/27/20          $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Katie Porter for Congress                         9/21/20          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peters for Michigan                               9/19/20          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Kelly for Senate                             9/19/20          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Gideon for Maine                             9/19/20          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Theresa Greenfield for Iowa                       9/19/20          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cal for NC                                        9/19/20          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cal for NC                                        9/19/20          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes on 16                                         9/14/20          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Haley Stevens for Congress                        9/11/20          $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis for Congress                          9/11/20          $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Democratic State Central Committee       9/10/20          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Hoadley for Congress                           9/8/20          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gretchen Driskell for Congress                     9/6/20          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friends of Dan O'Neil                              9/3/20          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Daniel Ortiz for State Representative        9/1/20          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biden for President                               8/31/20        $1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biden Victory Fund                                8/31/20        $1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Democratic State Central Committee       8/29/20          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peters for Michigan                               8/22/20          $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Democratic Jewish Caucus                 8/21/20           $72
------------------------------------------------------------------------
J Street PAC                                      8/17/20          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Pulver for State Representative             8/17/20          $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
12th Congressional District Democrats             8/15/20           $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biden for President                               8/13/20        $74.11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biden Victory Fund                                8/13/20        $74.11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tania Ganguly for Canton Trustee                  8/11/20          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gretchen Whitmer for Governor                     8/11/20        $1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Democratic State Central Committee       8/10/20          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Democratic Party                          8/8/20          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio Democratic Party                              8/8/20          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Levin for Congress                            8/3/20        $1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scholten for Congress                             7/31/20          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scholten for Congress                             7/31/20          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Hoadley for Congress                          7/31/20          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Hoadley for Congress                          7/31/20          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Hoadley for Congress                          7/31/20          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Democratic State Central Committee       7/29/20          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Ossoff for Senate                             7/28/20          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Ossoff for Senate                             7/28/20          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jody LaMacchia for State Representative           7/19/20          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washtenaw County Democratic--Federal Account      7/16/20          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gretchen Driskell for Congress                    7/12/20          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cheri Beasley for Supreme Court                   7/12/20          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Hoadley for Congress                           7/8/20          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biden for President                                7/8/20          $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diane for Colorado                                 7/1/20          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gretchen Driskell for Congress                    6/30/20          $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christine A Morse                                 6/30/20          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Democratic State Central Committee       6/29/20          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scholten for Congress                             6/26/20       $272.02
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scholten for Congress                             6/26/20       $227.98
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biden Victory Fund                                6/19/20        $1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biden for President                               6/19/20        $1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Breen for State Representative              6/14/20          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Pulver for State Representative             6/14/20          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peters for Michigan                               6/10/20          $950
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peters for Michigan                               6/10/20           $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bowman for Congress                                6/5/20          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Savit for Prosecuting Attorney                 6/2/20          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Brixie Blue Wave Fund                       5/31/20           $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elissa Slotkin for Congress                       5/29/20          $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Democratic State Central Committee       5/29/20          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rita Hart for Iowa                                5/27/20          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee to Elect Donna Lasinsky                 5/15/20          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biden for President                               5/13/20          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Jewish Democrats Federal Action          5/10/20          $100
 Fund
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Thornton for State Representative          5/3/20           $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Democratic State Central Committee       4/29/20          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Hoadley for Congress                          4/28/20          $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Laurie Pohutsky for HD 19                         4/20/20          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gretchen Driskell for Congress                    4/14/20          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Democratic National Committee                     4/12/20           $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Democratic National Committee                      4/8/20           $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biden for President                                4/8/20          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Democratic State Central Committee       3/29/20          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis for Congress                          3/24/20          $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rashida Tlaib for Congress                        3/21/20          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Laurie Pohutsky for HD 19                         3/11/20          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee to Elect Yousef Rabhi                    3/9/20          $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Travis Radina for City Council                     3/7/20          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peters for Michigan                                3/5/20          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cal for NC                                         3/3/20          $150
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tania Ganguly for Canton Trustee                   3/3/20          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee to Elect Donna Lasinsky                  3/2/20          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friends of Dan O'Neil                             2/29/20          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Democratic State Central Committee       2/29/20          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sommer Foster for Canton Trustee                  2/29/20           $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Warren for President                              2/21/20          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Warren for President                              2/20/20          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jill Karofsky for Supreme Court                   2/19/20          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Welch for Supreme Court                 2/18/20        $1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jody LaMacchia for State Representative           2/16/20           $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Warren for President                     2/5/20          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Democratic National Committee                     1/29/20        $1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elissa Slotkin for Congress                       1/29/20          $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Levin for Congress                           1/15/20          $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Levin for Congress                            1/1/20        $1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan House Democratic Fund                   12/30/19          $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes We Can Democratic Club                       12/19/19          $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Haley Stevens for Congress                       12/17/19          $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Warren for President                             12/16/19          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elissa Slotkin for Congress                      12/16/19          $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scholten for Congress                            12/15/19        $72.02
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scholten for Congress                             12/7/19          $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Hoadley for Congress                          12/7/19          $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wayne Goodwin for Insurance Commissioner          12/2/19          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friends of Mari Manoogian                         12/2/19          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Jewish Democrats Federal Action         11/24/19           $50
 Fund
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Jewish Democrats Federal Action         11/24/20           $50
 Fund
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Ossoff for Senate                            11/19/19          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee to Elect Tedra Cobb                    11/16/19           $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peters for Michigan                              11/15/19          $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mondaire for Congress                            11/15/19          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Democratic State Central Committee       11/9/19          $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wastenaw County Democratic--Federal Account       11/3/19        $87.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Pulver for State Representative            10/23/19          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee to Elect Padma Kuppa                   10/20/19           $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jody LaMacchia for State Representative          10/18/19           $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Warren for President                             10/16/19          $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan House Democratic Fund                   10/13/19          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Jewish Democrats Federal Action          10/2/19           $75
 Fund
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rashida Tlaib for Congress                        9/28/19        $1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elissa Slotkin for Congress                       9/21/19        $1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scholten for Congress                             9/14/19        $1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ActBlue                                           9/14/19          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tania Ganguly for Canton Trustee                   9/9/19          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty and Justice for All PAC                    9/7/19          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Savit for Prosecuting Attorney                 9/5/19          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peters for Michigan                               8/27/19        $1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vote Kelly Breen                                  8/19/19           $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washtenaw County Democratic--Federal Account      8/16/19          $300
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Warren for President                               8/3/19          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Savit for Prosecuting Attorney                 8/2/19          $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Democratic State Central Committee        8/2/19          $120
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Laurie Pohutsky for HD 19                         7/25/19          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis for Congress                          7/22/19          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friends of Mari Manoogian                         7/19/19           $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee to Elect Julia Pulver                   7/18/19           $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee to Elect Julia Pulver                    7/5/19           $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tiffany Caban for District Attorney                7/4/19           $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ActBlue                                           6/30/19          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scholten for Congress                             6/30/19        $1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Democratic Jewish Caucus                 6/25/19          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Haley Stevens for Congress                        6/24/19          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan List                                     6/20/19          $275
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Hoadley for Congress                           5/6/19        $1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vote Kelly Breen                                   5/3/19           $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Warren for President                              4/22/19          $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Haley Stevens for Congress                        3/29/19        $1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friends of Abdullah Hammoud                       3/23/19          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jody LaMacchia for State Representative           2/21/19           $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peters for Michigan                               2/19/19        $1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Hinds for City Council                       2/9/19          $200
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Bagenstos for Supreme Court                11/7/18          $496
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Democratic Party                         11/2/18        $2,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Bagenstos for Supreme Court               10/31/18          $814
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Democratic Party                        10/30/18       $12,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Laurie Pohutsky for HD 19                        10/23/18          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Bagenstos for Supreme Court               10/21/18        $2,146
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Democratic State Central Committee      10/19/18          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Democratic State Central Committee      10/19/18          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Bagenstos for Supreme Court               10/17/18        $2,104
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heidi for Senate                                 10/12/18        $1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heidi for Senate                                 10/12/18          $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Bagenstos for Supreme Court                9/30/18        $1,259
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Bagenstos for Supreme Court                9/15/18        $1,767
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Canton Democratic Club                             9/6/18          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
12th Congressional District Democrats              9/1/18          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Bagenstos for Supreme Court                8/31/18        $1,723
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Democratic Party                         8/17/18        $7,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Bagenstos for Supreme Court                8/10/18        $1,502
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Bagenstos for Supreme Court                 8/9/18       $50,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee to Elect Robert Van Kirk                 8/4/18           $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Bagenstos for Supreme Court                7/31/18        $2,780
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Federation of College Democrats          7/25/18          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friends of Dana Nessel                            7/11/18          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Bagenstos for Supreme Court                6/30/18          $682
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Democratic State Central Committee       6/14/18          $200
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Bagenstos for Supreme Court                5/31/18          $559
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Bagenstos for Supreme Court                 5/7/18           $39
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Bagenstos for Supreme Court                4/30/18          $562
------------------------------------------------------------------------
12th Congressional District Democrats             4/28/18          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Progressive Caucus of the Michigan                 4/1/18           $54
 Democratic Party
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Bagenstos for Supreme Court                3/31/18           $86
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Bieda for Congress                          3/31/18          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Democratic State Central Committee        3/6/18          $450
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Bagenstos for Supreme Court                2/22/18        $5,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Bagenstos for Supreme Court                2/15/18          $312
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Swing Left                                        2/13/18           $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anita Earls for Supreme Court                     1/23/18          $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Swing Left                                        1/13/18           $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Swing Left                                       12/13/17           $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Swing Left                                       11/13/17           $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Jones for Senate Committee                  11/13/17          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pat Miles for Attorney General                   10/19/17          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jocelyn Benson for Secretary of State            10/17/17          $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Swing Left                                       10/13/17           $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Jones for Senate Committee                   9/27/17          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Jealous for Governor                          9/24/17          $200
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Swing Left                                        9/13/17           $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Swing Left                                        8/13/17           $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Swing Left                                        7/13/17           $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Swing Left                                        6/13/17           $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colin Allred for Congress                          6/7/17          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Ossoff for Congress                           5/30/17          $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Swing Left                                        5/13/17           $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Swing Left                                         5/4/17          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Ossoff for Congress                           4/19/17          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Swing Left                                        4/13/17           $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Ossoff for Congress                           4/12/17          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Thompson for Kansas                          4/6/17           $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Quist for Montana                              4/6/17          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Ossoff for Congress                           3/20/17          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Ossoff for Congress                            3/1/17          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Ossoff for Congress                            3/1/17          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes We Can Democratic Club                        1/14/17          $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tammy Baldwin for Senate                         12/31/16          $300
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gretchen Driskell for Congress                   10/19/16          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Ross for Senate                          10/19/16        $62.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maggie for NH                                    10/19/16        $62.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catherine Cortez Masto for Senate                10/19/16        $62.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Katie McGinty for Senate                         10/19/16        $62.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catherine Cortez Masto for Senate                10/19/16        $62.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gretchen Driskell for Congress                   10/19/16          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tammy for Illinois                                8/22/16          $110
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tammy for Illinois                                8/22/16          $110
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hillary Victory Fund                              7/21/16        $2,700
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hillary for America                               7/21/16        $2,700
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Russ for Wisconsin                                6/23/16          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gretchen Driskell for Congress                    3/23/16          $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tammy for Illinois                                3/21/16          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gretchen Driskell for Congress                   12/31/15          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tammy for Illinois                               12/31/15          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Gilbert for Congress                     12/31/15          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Russ for Wisconsin                               12/31/15          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Russ for Wisconsin                               12/31/15          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Russ for Wisconsin                               12/31/15          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hillary for America                              12/23/15        $1,450
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hillary for America                              10/22/15          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hillary for America                               8/15/15          $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hillary for America                               6/30/15          $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Russ for Wisconsin                                5/15/15          $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gretchen Driskell for Congress                    3/11/15          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Totten for Attorney General                 10/19/14          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Schauer for Governor                         10/7/14        $2,050
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Schauer for Governor                         9/30/14          $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Schauer for Governor                         8/25/14          $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peters for Michigan                               7/30/14          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peters for Michigan                               7/30/14          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peters for Michigan                               7/24/14          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peters for Michigan                               7/24/14          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Schauer for Governor                         7/20/14          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Schauer for Governor                         6/26/14          $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friends of Gretchen Driskell                      4/16/14          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pam Byrnes for Congress                           3/30/14          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Totten for Attorney General                  3/16/14          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Schauer for Governor                         2/27/14          $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Schauer for Governor                         2/27/14          $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pam Byrnes for Congress                            1/8/14          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Juliette Kayyem for Governor                       1/6/14          $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peters for Michigan                              12/30/13          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Schauer for Governor                        12/28/13          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Schauer for Governor                        11/27/13          $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Schauer for Governor                         9/24/13          $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peters for Michigan                               9/13/13          $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Juliette Kayyem for Governor                      8/27/13          $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Schauer for Governor                         7/31/13          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Schauer for Governor                         6/30/13          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peters for Michigan                               6/30/13          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Schauer for Governor                          6/5/13          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama for America                                 11/4/12          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama for America                                10/26/12          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friends of Gretchen Driskell                     10/24/12           $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duckworth for Congress                           10/19/12          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama for America                                10/16/12          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama for America                                10/10/12        $1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama Victory Fund 2012                          10/10/12        $1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama for America                                 10/7/12          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama for America                                  9/7/12          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama for America                                 8/31/12          $728
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama for America                                 8/24/12          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee to Elect Carol Kuhnke Circuit           8/23/12           $50
 Court Judge
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama for America                                 8/10/12           $50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duckworth for Congress                             8/9/12          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama for America                                  8/7/12          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama for America                                 7/15/12          $126
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama Victory Fund 2012                           7/15/12          $126
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama for America                                 7/10/12          $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duckworth for Congress                            7/10/12          $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama Victory Fund 2012                           7/10/12          $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Democratic Party of Wisconsin--Federal            5/14/12          $100
 Account
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stabenow for U.S. Senate                          5/14/12          $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------


14.  Honors and awards (list all scholarships, fellowships, honorary 
degrees, honorary society memberships, military medals, and any other 
special recognitions for outstanding service or achievement received 
since the age of 18):

        James T. Neubacher Award, University of Michigan Council for 
        Disability Concerns (2012).

        Bethesda Voices Public Policy Award, Bethesda Lutheran 
        Communities (2011).

        Advocacy Award, National Association of Protection and Advocacy 
        Systems (2001).

        Special Commendation, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of 
        Justice (1996).

        Special Achievement Award, Civil Rights Division, U.S. 
        Department of Justice (1995).

        Phi Beta Kappa (1989).

15.  Published writings (list the titles, publishers, dates, and 
hyperlinks (as applicable) of all books, articles, reports, blog posts, 
or other published materials you have written):

Law Journal Articles and Essays:

      Subordination, Stigma, and ``Disability,'' 86 Va. L. Rev. 397 
(2000).
      The Americans with Disabilities Act as Risk Regulation, 101 
Colum. L. Rev. 1479 (2001).
      The Americans with Disabilities Act as Welfare Reform, 44 Wm. 
and Mary L. Rev. 921 (2003).
      ``Rational Discrimination,'' Accommodation, and the Politics of 
(Disability) Civil Rights, 89 Va. L. Rev. 825 (2003).
      Justice Ginsburg and the Judicial Role in Expanding ``We the 
People'': The Disability Rights Cases, 104 Colum. L. Rev. 49 (2004).
      The Supreme Court, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and 
Rational Discrimination, 55 Ala. L. Rev. 923 (2004).
      The Future of Disability Law, 114 Yale L.J. 1 (2004).
      Has the Americans with Disabilities Act Reduced Employment for 
People with Disabilities?, 25 Berkeley J. Emp. and Lab. L. 527 (2004).
      Comparative Disability Employment Law From an American 
Perspective, 24 Comp. Lab. L. and Pol'y J. 649 (2003) (published 2004).
      Trapped in the Feedback Loop: A Response to Professor Days, 49 
St. Louis U. L.J. 1007 (2005).
      The Promise was Broken: Law as a Negative Force in Bruce 
Springsteen's Music, 14 Widener L.J. 837 (2005).
      The Structural Turn and the Limits of Antidiscrimination Law, 94 
Cal. L. Rev. 1 (2006).
      Disability, Life, Death, and Choice, 29 Harv. J. L. and Gender 
425 (2006).
      Judging the Schiavo Case, 22 Const. Comment. 457 (2005) 
(published 2006).
      The Perversity of Limited Civil Rights Remedies: The Case of 
``Abusive'' ADA Litigation, 54 UCLA L. Rev. 1 (2006).
      Implicit Bias, ``Science,'' and Antidiscrimination Law, 1 Harv. 
L. and Pol'y Rev. 477 (2007).
      Mandatory Pro Bono and Private Attorneys General, 101 NW. U. L. 
Rev. 1459 (2007).
      Hedonic Damages, Hedonic Adaptation, and Disability, 60 Vand. L. 
Rev. 745 (2007) (with Margo Schlanger).
      Abolish the Integration Presumption? Not Yet, 156 U. Pa. L. Rev. 
Pennumbra 157 (2007).
      Spending Clause Litigation in the Roberts Court, 58 Duke L.J. 
345 (2008).
      The Past and Future of Deinstitutionalization Litigation, 34 
Cardozo L. Rev. 1 (2012).
      The Anti-Leveraging Principle and the Spending Clause After 
NFIB, 101 Geo. L.J. 861 (2013).
      Employment Law and Social Equality, 112 Mich. L. Rev. 225 
(2013).
      Keynote Presentation, 11 Rutgers J.L. and Pub. Pol'y 371 (2014) 
(transcript of oral remarks).
      Viva Conditional Federal Spending!, 37 Harv. J.L. and Pub. Pol'y 
93 (2014).
      Universalism and Civil Rights (With Notes on Voting Rights After 
Shelby), 123 Yale L.J. 2838 (2014).
      The Unrelenting Libertarian Challenge to Public Accommodations 
Law, 66 Stan. L. Rev. 1205 (2014).
      Formalism and Employer Liability Under Title VII, 2014 U. Chi. 
Legal F. 145 (2014).
      Bottlenecks and Antidiscrimination Theory, 93 Tex. L. Rev. 415 
(2014).
      Who is Responsible for the Stealth Assault on Civil Rights?, 114 
Mich. L. Rev. 893 (2016).
      Disparate Impact and the Role of Classification and Motivation 
in Equal Protection Law After Inclusive Communities, 101 Cornell L. 
Rev. 1115 (2016).
      Disability Rights and Labor: Is This Conflict Really Necessary?, 
92 Ind. L.J. 277 (2016).
      From Integrationism to Equal Protection: tenBroek and the Next 
25 Years of Disability Rights, 13 U. St. Thomas L.J. 13 (2016).
      The EEOC, the ADA, and Workplace Wellness Programs, 27 Health 
Matrix 81 (2017).
      Educational Equality for Children with Disabilities: The 2016 
Term Cases, 2016-2017 ACS Sup. Ct. Rev. 17 (2017).
      Disability, Universalism, Social Rights, and Citizenship, 39 
Cardozo L. Rev. 413 (2017).
      Implicit Bias's Failure, 39 Berkeley J. Emp. and Lab. L. 37 
(2018).
      Interview with Khaled Beydoun, 52 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 903 
(2019) (transcript of oral remarks).
      Disability Rights and the Discourse of Justice, 73 SMU L. Rev. 
F. 26 (2020).
      This is What Democracy Looks Like: Title IX and the Legitimacy 
of the Administrative State, 118 Mich. L. Rev. 1053 (2020).
      Taking Choice Seriously in Olmstead Jurisprudence, 40 J. Legal 
Med. 5 (2020).
      Who Gets the Ventilator? Disability Discrimination in COVID-19 
Medical-
Rationing Protocols, 130 Yale L.J. Forum 1 (2020).
      Olmstead v. L.C.: The Supreme Court Case, 27 Geo. J. on Poverty 
L. and Pol'y 209 (2020) (transcript of oral remarks).
      The ADA Amendments Act and the Projects of the American 
Disability Rights Movement, 23 UDC L. Rev. 139 (2020).
      Legitimacy and Agency Implementation of Title IX, 43 Harv. J.L. 
and Gender 301 (2020).
      Consent, Coercion, and Employment Law, 55 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. 
Rev. 409 (2020).
      Towards an Urban Disability Agenda, 47 Fordham Urban L.J. 1335 
(2020).
      Disability and Reproductive Justice, 14 Harv. L. and Pol'y Rev. 
273 (2020).
      The Personal Responsibility Pandemic: Centering Solidarity in 
Public Health and Employment Law (with Lindsay F. Wiley), 52 Ariz. St. 
L.J. 1235 (2021).

Articles and Essays in Other Outlets

      The Supreme Court's Week in Review: One Step Forward, Three 
Steps Back, Pacific Standard, June 28, 2013, available at http://
goo.gl/yCNhjv.
      A Supreme Court Case Threatens the Independence of People with 
Disabilities, Huffington Post, Jan. 22, 2014, available at http://
goo.gl/9gm0oW.
      The Preliminary Injunction Provision, in The Voting Rights 
Amendment Act: A Constitutional Response to Shelby County (ACS Issue 
Brief, May 2014), available at http://goo.gl/DH9JQv.
      Obamacare Court Ruling is Nonsensical and Cynical, L.A. Times, 
July 25, 2014, available at http://goo.gl/rjS4Ig (with Jill Horwitz).
      Beware: ``Wellness'' May Be Hazardous to Your Health, Huffington 
Post, March 11, 2015, available at http://goo.gl/coErn5 (with Judith 
Feder).
      The Disability Cliff, Democracy: A Journal of Ideas, Winter 
2015, at 55, available at http://goo.gl/spTLIf.
      The ADA and the Supreme Court: A Mixed Record, 313 J. Am. Med. 
Ass'n 2217 (2015) [no hyperlink available].
      Social Change Litigation as Just Another Political Tool, New 
Rambler Rev., June 2015, available at http://goo.gl/OxjYSr.
      We Don't Need ``Modern Asylums,'' American Prospect, Summer 
2015, available at http://goo.gl/BdPSHN (with Harold Pollack).
      What Went Wrong with Title IX?, Washington Monthly, September/
October 2015, available at http://goo.gl/GTKQI1.
      Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis Never Should Have Gone to Jail, New 
Republic, Sept. 8, 2015, available at http://goo.gl/S7OBbK.
      Technical Standards and Lawsuits Involving Accommodations for 
Health Professions Students, 18 AMA J. Ethics 1017 (2016) [no hyperlink 
available].
      The Spending Clause (with Ilya Somin) and For a Broad Spending 
Power, in Nat'l Constitution Center, Interactive Constitution (2016), 
available at https://goo.gl/ohxtu0.
      Workers' Rights, in What's the Big Idea? Recommendations for 
Improving Law and Policy in the Next Administration (ACS, Oct. 2016), 
available at https://goo.gl/KCxqf4.
      Civil Rights Deja Vu, Only Worse, American Prospect, Winter 
2017, available at https://goo.gl/o5hf2C.
      How Congress is Hacking Away at Disability Rights, Reuters, 
Sept. 25, 2017, available at http://goo.gl/r4R4up.
      Racism Didn't Stop at Jim Crow, Democracy: A Journal of Ideas, 
Fall 2017, available at http://goo.gl/TLLoqM.
      Here's How Gov. Whitmer Can Limit Impact of Medicaid Work 
Requirements, Bridge, May 14, 2019, available at https://perma.cc/H5DT-
B8KT.
      The Hidden Disability Consensus in the 2020 Campaign (with 
Harold Pollack), JAMA Health F., Feb. 7, 2020, available at https://
perma.cc/VE32-NELP.
      Trump Is Already Using the Coronavirus to Push His Right-Wing 
Agenda (with Dahlia Lithwick), Slate, Mar. 30, 2020, available at 
https://perma.cc/EF43-HXY6.
      From Jobs to Health Care, COVID-19 Reveals the Moral Bankruptcy 
of Conservative Politics, Mich. Advance, Apr. 1, 2020, available at 
https://perma.cc/FJ9Y-6USM.
      Don't Deny Ventilators to Disabled Patients, Wash. Post, Apr. 6, 
2020, available at https://perma.cc/KBL9-MJ4V.
      How the Law Harms Public Health (with Lindsay F. Wiley), 
Democracy: A Journal of Ideas, Fall 2020, available at https://
perma.cc/C96C-X86A.
      The Americans with Disabilities Act at 30: A Cause for 
Celebration During COVID-19? (with Joseph J. Fins), The Conversation, 
July 26, 2020, available at https://perma.cc/HZZ7-8Q4Y.
      Disorders of Consciousness and Disability Law (with Joseph J. 
Fins and Megan S. Wright), 95 Mayo Clinic Proceedings 1732 (2020) [no 
hyperlink available].
      The DOJ's COVID-19 Nursing Home Inquiry is Nakedly Corrupt (with 
Margo Schlanger), Slate, Aug. 31, 2020, available at https://perma.cc/
7828-3HJ3.
      Litigation for the People, Dissent, Fall 2020, available at 
https://perma.cc/D2ZC-HZ5S.
      Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dedicated Her Life to Expanding the Circle 
of ``We The People,'' Mich. Advance, Oct. 6, 2020, available at https:/
/perma.cc/53CJ-8W8X.
      Lochner Lives On (Econ. Pol'y Inst., Oct. 7, 2020), available at 
https://perma.cc/EQ68-3LTB.
      Refusing to Certify Legitimate Votes is a Felony (with Justin 
Levitt), Detroit Free Press, Nov. 23, 2020, available at https://
perma.cc/P6FJ-QTXS.

Books and Book Chapters

      Law and the Contradictions of the Disability Rights Movement 
(Yale U. Press, 2009) [no hyperlink available].
      Disability Rights Law: Cases and Materials (Foundation Press 
2010; 2d ed. 2014; 3d ed., 2020) [no hyperlink available].
      A Nation of Widening Opportunities: The Civil Rights Act at 50 
(Ellen D. Katz and Samuel R. Bagenstos, eds., 2015).
      US Airways v. Barnett and the Limits of Disability 
Accommodation, in Civil Rights Stories (Myriam Gilles and Risa 
Goluboff, eds., 2007) [no hyperlink available].
      The Judiciary's Now-Limited Role in Special Education, in From 
Schoolhouse to Courthouse: The Judiciary's Role in American Education 
(Joshua Dunn and Martin West, eds., 2009) [no hyperlink available].
      Federalism by Waiver After the Health Care Case, in The Health 
Care Case: The Supreme Court's Decision and Its Implications (Nathaniel 
Persily, Gillian Metzger, and Trevor Morrison, eds., 2013).
      On Class-not-Race, in A Nation of Widening Opportunities, supra 
(2015).
      Foreword: Thoughts on Responding to the Left Critique of 
Disability Rights Law, in Disability Politics in a Global Economy: 
Essays in Honour of Marta Russell (Ravi Malhotra, ed., 2016) [no 
hyperlink available].
      Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs: Universalism and 
Reproductive Justice, in Reproductive Rights and Justice Stories 
(Melissa Murray, Kate Shaw and Reva Siegel, eds., 2019) [no hyperlink 
available].
      Health Professions and the Law, in Disability as Diversity: A 
Guidebook for Inclusion in Medicine, Nursing, and the Health 
Professions (Lisa Meeks and Leslie Neal-Boylan, eds., 2020) [no 
hyperlink available].

Blogging

      Formerly maintained the Disability Law Blog: https://disability
law.blogspot.com/.
      Guest-blogged at various outlets, including Prawfsblawg, 
SCOTUSBlog, the ACS Blog, Concurring Opinions, Balkinization, the Take 
Care blog, and Just Security.

16.  Speeches (list all formal speeches and presentations (e.g., 
PowerPoint) you have delivered during the past 5 years which are on 
topics relevant to the position for which you have been nominated, 
including dates):

        I do not have a list of all speeches and presentations I have 
        delivered in the last 5 years. I do, however, have records of 
        giving the following presentations (with hyperlinks to the 
        extent I could find them):

          ACS Michigan: 2019-2020 SCOTUS Review, panel discussion 
        hosted by the Michigan Chapter of the American Constitution 
        Society, (July 30, 2020).
          COVID-19: Disability Civil Rights and Health Care Rationing 
        (panel discussion hosted by Wayne State University Law School, 
        April 13, 2020).
          #COVIDChat with Samuel Bagenstos, JD (April 28, 2020).
          Bloggingheads.tv (April 5, 2018).
          Olmstead: The Supreme Court Litigation, panel at Georgetown 
        Journal on Poverty Law and Policy's Symposium on Fulfilling 
        Olmstead: Community Living for People with Disabilities (2019) 
        [transcript of remarks is listed in the publications section 
        above].
          Taking Choice Seriously in Olmstead Jurisprudence, keynote 
        address at Georgia State University's Symposium on Olmstead at 
        Twenty: The Past and Future of Community Integration (2019) 
        [written version of remarks appears in the publications section 
        above].
          The ADA Amendments Act and the Projects of the American 
        Disability Rights Movement, presentation at UDC Law Review's 
        Symposium on Disability Rights: Past, Present, and Future 
        (2019) [written version of remarks appears in the publications 
        section above].
          The Politics of Disability Identity, Richards Lecture on 
        Disability Law, University of Iowa College of Law (2019).
          Educational Equality for Children with Disabilities, Ken 
        Campbell Lecture on Disability Law and Policy, Ohio State 
        University (2017) [written version of remarks appears in the 
        publications section above].
          Disability, Universalism, Social Rights, and Citizenship, 
        presentation at Cardozo Law Review's disability law symposium 
        (2017) [written version of remarks appears in the publications 
        section above].
          Disability Rights and Labor: Is This Conflict Really 
        Necessary?, William R. Stewart Lecture, Indiana University 
        Maurer School of Law (2016) [written version of remarks appears 
        in the publications section above].
          Corporate Wellness Programs: Are They Hazardous to Well-
        Being?, panel discussion at Case Western University School of 
        Law (2016) [written version of remarks appears in the 
        publications section above].

17.  Qualifications (state what, in your opinion, qualifies you to 
serve in the position to which you have been nominated):

        When I decided to become an attorney, I was inspired by the 
        civil rights movement, which used the law to rectify historic 
        injustices. I have been fortunate to have been able to use my 
        legal training to pursue equality and fairness in many 
        important areas--notably those relating to health care and 
        human services. I have litigated cases that helped protect 
        those living with HIV against health-care discrimination, 
        ensure that those who are pregnant do not lose their jobs, 
        secure to those with physical disabilities basic access to 
        government facilities, and provide those who have experienced 
        water contamination a means to hold public officials 
        accountable. Most recently, I engaged in legal and 
        administrative advocacy to ensure that people with preexisting 
        disabilities may not be sent to the back of the line for COVID-
        19 treatments.

        No individual or entity should be above the law's obligations, 
        nor should any be below its protections. Should I be confirmed 
        as General Counsel of the U.S. Department of Health and Human 
        Services (HHS), I will serve in that spirit. If confirmed, I 
        will not be a policymaker; I will have the responsibility of 
        ensuring that policies set by the President and his appointees 
        are developed and implemented in a way that is consistent with 
        the law. That is the role that I currently play as General 
        Counsel at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and that 
        is the role that I am prepared to play as General Counsel at 
        HHS.

        I have spent nearly 30 years litigating, studying, and writing 
        about substantive areas of law that implicate HHS. I have 
        litigated health-related matters in the Michigan courts and in 
        Federal courts throughout the country, including arguing four 
        cases before the Supreme Court of the United States. I also 
        have developed extensive expertise in the regulatory process 
        during my work at OMB, at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), 
        and as an outside advocate. All of these experiences qualify me 
        for the role of General Counsel at HHS.

        Throughout my career, I have worked on complex legal and policy 
        issues that required me to engage with key components of HHS. 
        Those components have included the Centers for Medicare and 
        Medicaid Services, the Centers for Disease Control and 
        Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, the 
        Administration for Children and Families, the Administration 
        for Community Living, the Administration on Aging, the Office 
        of Civil Rights, and the Office of the General Counsel (OGC).

        From 2009 to 2011, I was the Principal Deputy Assistant 
        Attorney General for Civil Rights. In addition to supervising 
        200 attorneys across three sections of DOJ's Civil Rights 
        Division--a division that is almost the same size as the entire 
        HHS OGC, I led the Department's enforcement of the Americans 
        with Disabilities Act. That work frequently required me to work 
        with State Medicaid systems--negotiating amicably with them 
        where possible, suing them where necessary--to defend the 
        rights of people with disabilities to receive community-based 
        services. I have a deep understanding of the legal and 
        regulatory issues that apply to Medicaid (at both the State and 
        Federal levels)--as well as to Medicare.

        For several years, I litigated on behalf of Flint residents who 
        were victims of the city's water crisis--a public health 
        emergency. I successfully argued the case three times before a 
        Federal appeals court. As a result, the Flint residents 
        obtained the chance to make their constitutional case in court 
        and hold accountable those who caused the crisis.

        I am currently the General Counsel at OMB. One of my primary 
        responsibilities in this role is to make sure that regulations 
        and other administrative pronouncements issued by Federal 
        agencies comply with the law--notably the restrictions of the 
        Administrative Procedure Act. Because of my experience working 
        on administrative law issues at OMB, I will be able to do my 
        job at HHS more effectively and efficiently from day one.

                  B.  FUTURE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIPS

 1.  Will you sever all connections (including participation in future 
benefit arrangements) with your present employers, business firms, 
associations, or organizations if you are confirmed by the Senate? If 
not, provide details.

        I will retain my tenure at the University of Michigan but will 
        be on an unpaid leave and receive no salary or benefits (other 
        than continued participation, without new contributions, in my 
        defined-contribution retirement accounts). I have ceased any 
        work in my part-time solo legal practice, and that practice 
        will remain dormant during my government service.

 2.  Do you have any plans, commitments, or agreements to pursue 
outside employment, with or without compensation, during your service 
with the government? If so, provide details.

        No.

 3.  Has any person or entity made a commitment or agreement to employ 
your services in any capacity after you leave government service? If 
so, provide details.

        No (aside from my answer to Question B.1.).

 4.  If you are confirmed by the Senate, do you expect to serve out 
your full term or until the next presidential election, whichever is 
applicable? If not, explain.

        Yes.

                   C. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

 1.  Indicate any current and former investments, obligations, 
liabilities, or other personal relationships, including spousal or 
family employment, which could involve potential conflicts of interest 
in the position to which you have been nominated.

        Any potential conflict of interest will be resolved in 
        accordance with the terms of my ethics agreement, which was 
        developed in consultation with ethics officials at the 
        Department of Health and Human Services and the Office of 
        Government Ethics. I understand that my ethics agreement has 
        been provided to the committee. I am not aware of any potential 
        conflict other than those addressed by my ethics agreement. If 
        I have any questions arise, I will consult with HHS career 
        ethics officials.

 2.  Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial 
transaction which you have had during the last 10 years (prior to the 
date of your nomination), whether for yourself, on behalf of a client, 
or acting as an agent, that could in any way constitute or result in a 
possible conflict of interest in the position to which you have been 
nominated.

        Any potential conflict of interest will be resolved in 
        accordance with the terms of my ethics agreement, which was 
        developed in consultation with ethics officials at the 
        Department of Health and Human Services and the Office of 
        Government Ethics. I understand that my ethics agreement has 
        been provided to the committee. I am not aware of any potential 
        conflict other than those addressed by my ethics agreement. If 
        I have any questions arise, I will consult with HHS career 
        ethics officials.

 3.  Describe any activity during the past 10 years (prior to the date 
of your nomination) in which you have engaged for the purpose of 
directly or indirectly influencing the passage, defeat, or modification 
of any legislation or affecting the administration and execution of law 
or public policy. Activities performed as an employee of the Federal 
government need not be listed.

        In 2017 and 2018, I participated, with several others, in the 
        drafting of Proposals 2 (independent redistricting commission) 
        and 3 (voting rights), State constitutional amendments that the 
        voters of Michigan adopted in the 2018 election.

        In 2012, I testified before the Senate HELP Committee in favor 
        of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

        On numerous occasions, I have assisted public interest 
        organizations in submitting comments on proposed rulemakings by 
        Federal agencies. On occasion, I have also submitted comments 
        on my own behalf, as in response to proposed rules for the SNAP 
        program in 2019, and proposed rules for the Fair Housing Act in 
        that same year.

        Much of the litigation in which I have engaged through my 
        career has ``affect[ed] the administration and execution of law 
        and public policy'' as well.

 4.  Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest, 
including any that are disclosed by your responses to the above items. 
(Provide the committee with two copies of any trust or other 
agreements.)

        Any potential conflict of interest will be resolved in 
        accordance with the terms of my ethics agreement, which was 
        developed in consultation with ethics officials at the 
        Department of Health and Human Services and the Office of 
        Government Ethics. I understand that my ethics agreement has 
        been provided to the committee. I am not aware of any potential 
        conflict other than those addressed by my ethics agreement. If 
        I have any questions arise, I will consult with HHS career 
        ethics officials.

 5.  Two copies of written opinions should be provided directly to the 
committee by the designated agency ethics officer of the agency to 
which you have been nominated and by the Office of Government Ethics 
concerning potential conflicts of interest or any legal impediments to 
your serving in this position.

        I understand that my ethics agreement has been provided to the 
        committee along with the accompanying transmittal documents.

                       D. LEGAL AND OTHER MATTERS

 1.  Have you ever been the subject of a complaint or been 
investigated, disciplined, or otherwise cited for a breach of ethics 
for unprofessional conduct before any court, administrative agency 
(e.g., an Inspector General's office), professional association, 
disciplinary committee, or other ethics enforcement entity at any time? 
Have you ever been interviewed regarding your own conduct as part of 
any such inquiry or investigation? If so, provide details, regardless 
of the outcome.

        No.

 2.  Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged, or held by any 
Federal, State, or other law enforcement authority for a violation of 
any Federal, State, county, or municipal law, regulation, or ordinance, 
other than a minor traffic offense? Have you ever been interviewed 
regarding your own conduct as part of any such inquiry or 
investigation? If so, provide details.

        In 2011, due to an oversight, I failed to renew my car 
        registration in DC. A police officer noticed the expired tag 
        and pulled me over. Rather than issuing me a citation, the 
        officer arrested me. When I arrived at the precinct, the desk 
        sergeant was not pleased that the officer had arrested me 
        rather than having merely given me a ticket. The desk sergeant 
        released me and dismissed the charge without any admission of 
        guilt on payment of a $50.00 fee. (In DC, they call this 
        practice ``post and forfeit.'')

 3.  Have you ever been involved as a party in interest in any 
administrative agency proceeding or civil litigation? If so, provide 
details.

        No.

 4.  Have you ever been convicted (including pleas of guilty or nolo 
contendere) of any criminal violation other than a minor traffic 
offense? If so, provide details.

        No.

 5.  Please advise the committee of any additional information, 
favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be considered in 
connection with your nomination.

        N/A.

                     E. TESTIFYING BEFORE CONGRESS

 1.  If you are confirmed by the Senate, are you willing to appear and 
testify before any duly constituted committee of the Congress on such 
occasions as you may be reasonably requested to do so?

        Yes.

 2.  If you are confirmed by the Senate, are you willing to provide 
such information as is requested by such committees?

        Yes.

                                 ______
                                 
       Questions Submitted for the Record to Samuel R. Bagenstos
                 Questions Submitted by Hon. Ron Wyden
                        transplant system reform
    Question. My staff have become aware of a legal determination, made 
by HHS, which has potentially dire consequences for Americans waiting 
for a transplant. As I've said before, reforming the transplant system 
is an urgent health equity issue. Communities of color are much more 
likely to need lifesaving organ transplants. For example, Black 
Americans are three times more likely to suffer from kidney disease 
than White Americans. Furthermore, experts project a dramatically 
increased need for transplants as a result of COVID-19, which is likely 
to compound the disparities already experienced by minority 
populations.

    Do you believe it is appropriate for HHS to reconsider its legal 
determination on how the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network 
contract is awarded to ensure competition in the next contract cycle?

    Answer. Because I am not at HHS, I have not been involved with 
legal issues concerning the Organ Procurement and Transplantation 
Network (OPTN) contract. But I would be very glad, if confirmed as 
General Counsel, to work with the attorneys in my office and with 
program experts at the Health Resources and Services Administration 
(HRSA) to optimize the OPTN contracting process and the Department's 
role in ensuring the efficient and equitable operation of this crucial 
lifesaving program.

    Question. As HHS General Counsel, if confirmed, what will you do to 
address the critical inequities in the transplant system?

    Answer. One of the top priorities of the Biden-Harris 
administration is to address equity issues across the health-care 
sector, including throughout the organ transplant community. HHS is 
making numerous adjustments to its policies to help close these health 
equity gaps.

    I understand that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 
(CMS) recently finalized changes to organ procurement organization 
(OPO) outcome measures to improve the quality of OPO services and hold 
underperformers accountable by using objective, transparent, and 
reliable data. I also understand that CMS recently finalized 
modifications to the End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) Treatment Choices 
Model--one of the agency's first CMS Innovation Center models to 
directly address health equity--to encourage certain health-care 
providers to decrease disparities in rates of home dialysis and kidney 
transplants among ESRD patients with lower socioeconomic status. CMS 
has also announced an intention to issue a request for information that 
would seek public input on all aspects of the organ donation and 
transplant system.

    If confirmed, I intend to work with HRSA and CMS to assist in using 
available authority to improve the function of the organ transplant 
system. I am also committed to working with Congress to support 
appropriate oversight efforts related to organ procurement.
            telehealth following the public health emergency
    Question. As the coronavirus began to spread in the spring of 2020, 
I think one of the most important actions that HHS and Congress took 
together was to provide new flexibilities for telehealth services, 
especially in Medicare. During this pandemic, these flexibilities have 
allowed patients to continue to receive care from their doctors, while 
maintaining social distancing and reducing the spread of the virus. 
Many of these flexibilities are authorized via waivers that last 
through the end of the public health emergency.

    If confirmed as General Counsel at HHS, will you work with this 
committee to ensure a smooth transition for these telehealth 
flexibilities as the public health emergency ends and Congress 
considers long-term approaches to modernizing telehealth policies in 
Medicare?

    Answer. Telehealth, supported by investments in broadband 
infrastructure, is an important tool to that can address health equity 
and improve access. My understanding is that HHS continues to examine 
the telehealth flexibilities developed for the current public health 
emergency and determine how we can build on this work to improve health 
equity and improve access to health care. CMS recently stated that 
certain telehealth services that were available for Medicare payment 
during the public health emergency will continue to be available 
through December 31, 2023 to allow additional time to evaluate whether 
these telehealth services should be paid by Medicare permanently. If 
confirmed, I intend to assist HHS with its review of these important 
services that improve access to health care.
                home and community-based services (hcbs)
    Question. For too long, American families have struggled to help 
their mom, dad, relative, or child with a disability find good quality 
long-term care at home. Millions of Americans receive home and 
community-based services through Medicaid today. But many Americans sit 
on wait lists--sometimes for years--before they can access the services 
they need.

    You have been a powerful advocate on behalf of people with 
disabilities throughout your career. As you know, Congress just made 
major investments in home and community-based services through the 
American Rescue Plan, and we're on the precipice of a historic 
investment through Build Back Better.

    How will your experience advocating on behalf of those with 
disabilities inform your work at HHS, should you be confirmed, and how 
would you help to ensure these investments in home and community-based 
services will benefit American families?

    Answer. I appreciate your leadership in this area. My own 
experience working to expand home and community-based services across 
the Nation gives me an acute understanding of just how far we need to 
go to make these programs a reality for those who want to be served in 
their own homes rather than in nursing homes and other institutions.

    As you noted, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 temporarily 
provides additional Medicaid funding that allows States to enhance, 
expand, or strengthen HCBS under the Medicaid program. I understand 
that CMS is working with States to improve the HCBS system, both in 
response to the COVID-19 public health emergency and in response to 
longstanding priorities.

    If confirmed, I look forward to working with CMS on further 
improving HCBS for all Americans.

                                 ______
                                 
                Questions Submitted by Hon. Richard Burr
    Question. The Family First Prevention Services Act created a new 
Federal category for settings that deliver trauma-informed treatment 
for foster children with serious emotional or behavioral issues in a 
residential setting, known as Qualified Residential Treatment Programs 
(QRTPs). QRTPs are one of the few residential settings that are 
eligible for title IV-E reimbursement.

    On October 19, 2021, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 
(CMS) confirmed QRTPs with more than 16 beds meet the definition of an 
Institutions for Mental Diseases (IMDs), preventing Medicaid 
reimbursement for care in these facilities. Specifically, the CMS 
guidance document stated: ``CMS does not have the authority to utilize 
general enforcement discretion or compliance action to authorize 
reimbursement of services provided to children residing in QRTPs that 
the state has assessed as meeting the definition of an IMD.''

    On a recent call with staff of committee members, you mentioned 
that you have spent a great deal of time thinking about the IMD 
exclusion from Medicaid payments but have not thought about the merits 
of a potential policy change for QRTPs. On the same call, you indicated 
that you had not previously contemplated whether or not you feel there 
is a distinction between these specialized facilities for vulnerable 
children and other IMDs, namely inpatient psychiatric hospitals.

    You have been serving as the General Counsel for the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) since January of 2021. Typically, OMB 
serves as a clearinghouse for agency documents before they are made 
public. According to its website, one of the office's five main 
functions is ``Coordination and review of all significant Federal 
regulations from executive agencies, privacy policy, information 
policy, and review and assessment of information collection requests.''

    Did OMB see the CMS guidance prior to its release on October 19, 
2021?

    Did you see the CMS guidance prior to its release?

    If yes, why did you tell my staff that you had not considered the 
issue previously?

    If no, why would the OMB General Counsel, who has decades of 
experience in disability law and has been nominated to serve in the 
same position as HHS, not review such an important policy guidance?

    Have you provided any more consideration to the issue of whether or 
not QRTPs should be exempted from the IMD payment exclusion, allowing 
children in foster care to have Medicaid coverage in these placements?

    Do you support the exclusion of QRTPs from the definition of IMDs? 
Please provide a ``yes'' or ``no'' answer.

    Answer. The issues surrounding QRTPs are important and complex. I 
understand that CMS's section 1115 demonstration opportunity went 
through appropriate clearance within the Biden-Harris administration. I 
understand that this demonstration opportunity was developed to provide 
Federal matching funds for Medicaid services provided to foster 
children residing in QRTPs. If confirmed, I am committed to working 
across HHS--with both CMS and the Administration for Children and 
Families (ACF)--to broadly evaluate all available administrative and 
legislative authorities to ensure that children in foster care receive 
the medical care that they need and to which they are entitled, in a 
safe and nurturing setting that fosters their growth and development. I 
will similarly work to ensure that children in foster care receive 
necessary medical care without disruption.

    Question. The rapid pace of medical innovation has led to the 
development of novel technologies intended to prevent infectious 
diseases with the potential to benefit individuals with a variety of 
diseases in the future, such as those used in some of the COVID-19 
vaccines. The Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices (ACIP) 
establishes the list of pediatric vaccines distributed by the Secretary 
through the Vaccines for Children (VFC) program. In establishing its 
list, ACIP may include FDA licensed or authorized vaccine products, 
including those that leverage novel and innovative technology, to help 
prevent infectious diseases in children.

    Can you assure the committee that you will provide assistance, to 
the best of your ability, as appropriate, and to the fullest extent of 
your legal authority, to help ensure appropriate access to innovative 
pediatric immunizations for American children?

    Answer. Yes.

    Question. The inability to fully leverage our testing 
infrastructure in the U.S. during the early days of the COVID-19 
pandemic left the U.S. Government unable to accurately track the spread 
of the virus, hampering our ability to effectively control the spread 
of the virus. Thankfully, over the last 18 months, the private sector 
has been highly innovative in developing advanced technology to aid in 
testing and surveillance.

    How does HHS plan to leverage advanced or novel technology 
developed by private sector partners in the near and long-term to help 
rapidly scale surveillance and testing capabilities and capacity to 
better prepare for future pandemics?

    Answer. As HHS continues to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, it is 
important that the Department also look ahead to what can be integrated 
to better prepare for future pandemics. If confirmed, I will support 
this ongoing work.

    Question. Are there any barriers to effective partnerships with 
private-sector innovators?

    Answer. ASPR's Biomedical Advanced Research and Development 
Authority (BARDA) continuously and effectively partners with private-
sector innovators. BARDA provides an integrated, systemic approach to 
the development of necessary vaccines, drugs, therapies, and diagnostic 
tools for public health emergencies, including the current COVID-19 
pandemic. If confirmed, I will support this ongoing work.

    Question. Through the Coronavirus Preparedness and Response 
Supplemental Appropriations Act of March 2020 and otherwise, Congress 
appropriated billions of dollars for the development of COVID-19 
therapeutics and diagnostics. However, I have heard that multiple 
highly promising candidates did not receive funding, and it remains 
unclear whether and how the funding earmarked for the development of 
COVID-19 therapeutics and diagnostics was spent.

    If confirmed, will you commit to investigating on what activities 
and programs the funds appropriated to HHS for the purposes of COVID-19 
therapeutics and diagnostics through the Coronavirus Preparedness and 
Response Supplemental Appropriations Act were spent, and publicly 
release (in a manner that does not affect national security) such 
information, in addition to the amount of funding that remains 
unobligated or unspent?

    Answer. I believe in transparency and, if confirmed, will carry out 
my new role with that perspective in mind. My understanding is that the 
Office of General Counsel at HHS has been consistently involved in 
decision-making regarding the use of HHS's COVID funding, in 
coordination with the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Financial 
Resources and the HHS Operating and Staff Divisions, and I would have a 
better view of this issue once confirmed.

                                 ______
                                 
                 Questions Submitted by Hon. Todd Young
    Question. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 
finalized reforms in November of 2020 to ensure that organ procurement 
organizations (OPOs) will be held accountable to objective data for the 
first time and that failing OPOs will lose their contracts. The new 
regulation, however, currently does not allow HHS to decertify a 
failing OPO until 2026.

    What actions can HHS take to accelerate that timeline?

    Answer. I understand that CMS recently finalized changes to OPO 
outcome measures to improve the quality of OPO services and hold 
underperformers accountable by using objective, transparent, and 
reliable data. If confirmed, I look forward to working with you, other 
members of Congress, and CMS to use available authority to hold OPOs 
accountable for their performance.

    Question. The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) 
contract has been held by only one entity, the United Network for Organ 
Sharing (UNOS), since 1986. When the contract is up for renewal, UNOS 
is historically the only bidder for the contract due to contract 
requirements set forth by the Health Resources and Services 
Administration (HRSA) that make it nearly impossible for other entities 
to apply.

    What specific steps should HHS take to ensure that all future OPTN 
contracting cycles--including the next, immediate cycle--have a robust, 
competitive bid process?

    Answer. It is my understanding that future contracting cycles will 
utilize past experience and market research to gauge interest and 
capabilities of vendors to handle the entirety of the OPTN operational 
functions. If confirmed, I intend to work with HRSA and CMS to ensure 
we use available authority to improve the function of the organ 
transplant ecosystem.

    Question. What oversight is HHS providing to ensure UNOS is living 
up to the requirements set out in statute?

    Answer. It is my understanding that the current contract includes 
requirements that OPTN policymaking be consistent with existing 
statutes and regulations. If confirmed, I will work with Congress to 
support their oversight efforts related to organ procurement, where 
appropriate.

                                 ______
                                 
                 Questions Submitted by Hon. John Thune
    Question. If confirmed, do you anticipate that you would uphold the 
legal opinion offered by your predecessor related to 340B contract 
pharmacies, which stated that the plain meaning of 340B statute 
requires manufacturers to offer drugs at or below ceiling price without 
qualifiers?

    Answer. The 340B drug pricing program is an important program for 
our safety-net providers serving some of our most vulnerable 
populations. If confirmed, I look forward to working with you and other 
members of Congress to uphold the law and ensure this vital program is 
able to continue supporting vulnerable communities.

    Question. As you know, there have been multiple providers of 
concern at the Indian Health Service. As the Department's attorney, how 
would you ensure that abusive providers are held to account and that 
the Department is transparent with Congress?

    Answer. I am aware of this very troubling issue. If confirmed, I am 
committed to supporting the Indian Health Service's (IHS) policy of no 
tolerance for abusing patients or failing to prevent or report abuse in 
the Indian health system. I will also commit to ensuring that HHS 
follows the law and holds all employees and contractors accountable to 
the advancement of our mission and maintenance of the public's trust in 
our services and programs. If confirmed, I will work with IHS to ensure 
continued transparency regarding sexual abuse within the IHS system and 
to being transparent with Congress and the public.

                                 ______
                                 
                Prepared Statement of Hon. Mike Crapo, 
                       a U.S. Senator From Idaho
    Today we will hear from a panel of nominees who will influence and 
implement a broad range of the administration's priorities.

    Dr. Neiman, the United States is the best place in the world to do 
business. Not surprisingly, that has drawn foreign investment, which 
has benefited our citizens immensely. I look forward to hearing your 
views on how the United States can remain a prized destination for 
foreign investment. I fear that uncontrolled spending, burdensome 
regulations, and potential tax increases--including on the middle 
class--will make America less competitive and less attractive for 
foreign investment. The administration's international tax negotiations 
are concerning, given lack of detailed consultation with Congress as a 
whole.

    I am also concerned about how some of our overseas rivals are 
manipulating international organizations the U.S. helped found, like 
the World Bank. The U.S. and other countries established these 
institutions to promote global prosperity, not to further parochial 
interests.

    Mr. Frost, I look forward to learning about your thoughts on the 
administration's fiscal policy, the debt ceiling, and proposed 
financial market reforms, including the U.S. Treasury securities market 
and the replacement of LIBOR. The debt limit provides an important 
check on both the President's and Congress's policies. And if fiscal 
decisions that will influence debt accumulation moving forward are 
willfully made by one party alone, then the accompanying obligation to 
change the debt limit to accommodate those fiscal choices must also be 
made by the party making unilateral choices. Tools and time are 
available to unilaterally accomplish such a change in the debt limit.

    Along the way, Mr. Frost, I look forward to your commitment to 
ensure that Treasury keeps members of this committee fully and timely 
informed on the Nation's debt, cash balances, and debt management.

    Turning to LIBOR, while recent administrations, the Federal 
Reserve, and market participants have worked successfully to establish 
the Secured Overnight Financing Right as an alternative reference rate, 
nearly $2 trillion in LIBOR-linked exposures are expected to remain 
outstanding after the termination of LIBOR in June 2023. It is 
important to understand how the administration plans to address this 
looming challenge.

    Ms. Pagan, the World Trade Organization is critical to our trading 
interests, but is in need of reform. I look forward to hearing your 
views on how to make the institution more effective.

    Mr. Wilson, if confirmed, you will be the first Deputy U.S. Trade 
Representative for Innovation and Intellectual Property. Strong 
intellectual property protections are critical to America's economic 
prosperity. This is especially true today. I want to know your 
priorities for the position, and how we can combat unfair practices by 
our global competitors, like theft and forced technology transfers, and 
how we can protect intellectual property and private intellectual 
property rights.

    Additionally, the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic has been 
lessened, thanks to innovations borne out of the partnership between 
the American government and American industry. It is critical that we 
not undermine the American people's ability to respond to future 
challenges with intelligence and agility.

    Mr. Bagenstos, as the nominee for General Counsel at HHS, you will 
have a key role in opining on the legality of new regulations. I am 
interested in your perspective on providing legal opinions to Congress 
so that we can understand and discuss policymaking effectively with the 
administration. Already, this administration has shown a disturbing 
tendency to push through its policy preferences despite clear 
indications of the intent of Congress.

    Finally, I again emphasize the importance of responsiveness to this 
committee. While there have been noteworthy exceptions, several 
nominees before this committee have provided late, incomplete, and 
evasive responses to questions from the members of this panel. This 
makes it harder for the Finance Committee and its members to work 
constructively with the administration.

    I strongly urge the nominees here today to commit to timely and 
thorough communication with the committee.

    I congratulate the nominees here before us today, and I look 
forward to our discussion.

                                 ______
                                 
Prepared Statement of Joshua Frost, Nominated to be Assistant Secretary 
           for Financial Markets, Department of the Treasury
    Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Crapo, and members of the committee, 
thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am honored 
to be President Biden's nominee to be Assistant Secretary of the 
Treasury for Financial Markets, and I am grateful to Secretary Yellen 
for her confidence in me.

    Before proceeding, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge my 
family, without whom I would not be sitting here today: my wife Emily, 
my daughter Lily, and my brother Andy. I would also like to thank my 
parents, Robert and Nikki, who instilled in me the importance of public 
service via the example that they set as dedicated public-school 
teachers.

    It was this early example of contributing to the greater good that 
led me to begin my career at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. I 
have spent over 23 years at the New York Fed in a number of roles, and 
in each of those jobs, I saw first-hand the dedication of this 
committed group of public servants who selflessly helped me to develop 
my understanding of how different corners of financial markets operate, 
and how the financial system can better serve the American people.

    If confirmed, I would welcome the opportunity to continue to serve 
our Nation by supporting the President's and Secretary Yellen's 
priorities in leading the Office of Financial Markets. Among other 
responsibilities, this office helps formulate policy on debt management 
at the Federal, State, and local levels; serves to assess the capital 
markets implications of various policy choices; and serves as the 
Treasury's eyes and ears in financial markets. This set of 
responsibilities aligns well with my interests and experience, and 
having spent my entire career focused on these issues, I look forward 
to taking a data-driven, taxpayer-centric approach to policymaking.

    Finally, I would note that managing the Nation's debt is an awesome 
responsibility, and if confirmed, I will be sure to ground any debt 
management decisions in an assessment of what provides for the lowest 
cost of funding over time for the taxpayer. I believe that it is also 
critical to have a resilient and well-functioning Treasury market, and 
I would look forward to working with other agencies to continue to 
ensure that the Treasury market is structured so that it remains the 
deepest, most liquid market in the world.

    Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Crapo, and members of the committee, 
thank you for considering my nomination. If confirmed, I look forward 
to working closely with you and your staff and appreciate the important 
oversight role of this committee. I would be happy to take your 
questions.
                                 ______
                                 

                        SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE

                  STATEMENT OF INFORMATION REQUESTED 
                               OF NOMINEE

                      A. BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION

 1.  Name (include any former names used): Joshua (Josh) Lee Frost.

 2.  Position to which nominated: Assistant Secretary of the Treasury 
for Financial Markets.

 3.  Date of nomination: September 13, 2021.

 4.  Address (list current residence, office, and mailing addresses):

 5.  Date and place of birth: April 19, 1976; Neptune, NJ.

 6.  Marital status (include maiden name of wife or husband's name):

 7.  Names and ages of children:

 8.  Education (list all secondary and higher education institutions, 
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted):

        Shore Regional High School; September 1990-June 1994 (HS degree 
        granted June 1994).

        Rutgers College; September 1994-May 1998 (BA degree in 
        mathematics and psychology granted May 1998).

        New York University; August 2004-May 2006 (MBA degree with a 
        concentration in finance granted May 2006).

 9.  Employment record (list all jobs held since college, including the 
title or description of job, name of employer, location of work, and 
dates of employment for each job):

        Federal Reserve Bank of New York; August 1998-current.
        Various roles, including Director of Treasury Markets, Director 
        of Money Markets, Co-Chair of Large Institution Supervision 
        Coordinating Committee Liquidity Program, Lead of Corporate 
        Credit Facilities, detail to Treasury Department.

10.  Government experience (list any current and former advisory, 
consultative, honorary, or other part-time service or positions with 
Federal, State, or local governments held since college, including 
dates, other than those listed above):

        Same as employment record above.

11.  Business relationships (list all current and former positions held 
as an officer, director, trustee, partner (e.g., limited partner, non-
voting, etc.), proprietor, agent, representative, or consultant of any 
corporation, company, firm, partnership, other business enterprise, or 
educational or other institution):

        Officer of Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

12.  Memberships (list all current and former memberships, as well as 
any current and former offices held in professional, fraternal, 
scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and other organizations dating 
back to college, including dates for these memberships and offices):

        None.

13.  Political affiliations and activities:

        a.  List all public offices for which you have been a candidate 
        dating back to the age of 18.

       None.

        b.  List all memberships and offices held in and services 
        rendered to all political parties or election committees, 
        currently and during the last 10 years prior to the date of 
        your nomination.

       None.

        c.  Itemize all political contributions to any individual, 
        campaign organization, political party, political action 
        committee, or similar entity of $50 or more for the past 10 
        years prior to the date of your nomination.

       Biden for President, $2,800--June 4, 2020.

14.  Honors and awards (list all scholarships, fellowships, honorary 
degrees, honorary society memberships, military medals, and any other 
special recognitions for outstanding service or achievement received 
since the age of 18):

        Rutgers University Presidential Scholar.

        Rutgers University honors program.

        Phi Beta Kappa.

        NYU class valedictorian.

15.  Published writings (list the titles, publishers, dates and 
hyperlinks (as applicable) of all books, articles, reports, blog posts, 
or other published materials you have written):

        Papers:

        Overnight RRP Operations as a Monetary Policy Tool: Some Design 
        Considerations, FRB of New York Staff Report No. 712--February 
        25, 2015, https://privpapers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/
        SSRN_ID2568698_code387943.pdf?ab
        stractid=2568698.

        Other published materials:

        The Effects of MBS Paydowns and Potential Reinvestment 
        Options--August 5, 2010, https://www.federalreserve.gov/
        monetarypolicy/files/fomc20100805memo
        07.pdf.

        Possible Approaches to Providing Monetary Accommodation: 
        Reinvestment Maturity Extension Program, SOMA Portfolio 
        Maturity Extension Program, and Long-Maturity LSAP--September 
        12, 2011, https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/
        FOMC20110912memo01.pdf.

        The effect of an additional $1 trillion LSAP on the exit 
        strategy--August 28, 2012, https://www.federalreserve.gov/
        monetarypolicy/files/FOMC20120828
        memo07.pdf.

        Options for an Additional LSAP Program--August 28, 2012, 
        https://www.
        federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/FOMC20120828memo06.pdf.

        Options for Continuation of Open-Ended Asset Purchases in 
        2013--November 30, 2012, https://www.federalreserve.gov/
        monetarypolicy/files/FOMC20121130
        memo05.pdf.

16.  Speeches (list all formal speeches and presentations (e.g., 
PowerPoint) you have delivered during the past 5 years which are on 
topics relevant to the position for which you have been nominated, 
including dates):

        Speeches/presentations:

        Introducing the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR)--
        November 2, 2017, https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/
        media/newsevents/speeches/2017/Frostpresentation.pdf.

        Presentation by Joshua Frost at the Alternative Reference Rates 
        Committee Roundtable--November 8, 2017, https://
        www.newyorkfed.org/newsevents/speeches/2017/fro171108.

17.  Qualifications (state what, in your opinion, qualifies you to 
serve in the position to which you have been nominated):

        I have spent my entire 23-year career serving the American 
        public in a steady progression of roles at the Federal Reserve 
        Bank of New York, and believe that this experience has left me 
        particularly well-qualified to serve in the role of Assistant 
        Secretary of Financial Markets, if confirmed.

        My professional career began with a 7\1/2\-year stint in the 
        Central Bank and International Account Services area of the New 
        York Fed. In this role, I learned the plumbing of the Treasury, 
        mortgage-backed security, and foreign exchange markets, as well 
        as the importance of the dollar in the global financial system.

        After graduating at the top of my MBA class in finance, I 
        joined the New York Fed's open market desk, where I built a 
        strong understanding of all corners of financial markets. In my 
        12\1/2\ years on the open market desk, I led teams that briefed 
        policymakers on market developments, provided Treasury with 
        debt management advice, and designed the Fed's ``QE'' purchases 
        in the Treasury market. I also led teams that auctioned U.S. 
        Government debt on behalf of the Treasury, implemented monetary 
        policy in domestic money markets, and designed, built, and 
        published the principal successor to LIBOR (the Secured 
        Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR)).

        At the end of 2018, following 2 decades in the New York Fed's 
        Markets Group, I took an opportunity to broaden my knowledge 
        base and led the Federal Reserve's efforts to supervise the 
        liquidity positions and risk management at the Nation's most 
        systemically important banks. After roughly a year and half 
        supervising banks, as the pandemic began to spread, I took on 
        the challenge of leading the two Corporate Credit Facilities, 
        jointly launched by the Treasury and Federal Reserve to ensure 
        that the Nation's largest corporations could continue to play 
        their crucial roles in the global economy and in the labor 
        market.

        Finally, perhaps two of the most rewarding parts of my career 
        have been serving on the committee that sets the New York Fed's 
        strategic priorities and serving as a leadership advisor to the 
        bank's African American and Latino Men's Association employee 
        resource group. Both of these opportunities gave me a fresh 
        perspective on the ways that financial markets have 
        historically served to reinforce some of the inequities present 
        in our society, and have made it clear to me that we need a 
        financial system that works for all Americans.

                   B. FUTURE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIPS

 1.  Will you sever all connections (including participation in future 
benefit arrangements) with your present employers, business firms, 
associations, or organizations if you are confirmed by the Senate? If 
not, provide details.

        Yes. If confirmed by the Senate, I will sever all such 
        connections. Please note that I will remain a participant in 
        the defined benefit plan for employees of the Federal Reserve 
        System. Under this plan, I am eligible to receive a monthly 
        lifetime retirement benefit in the form of a defined benefit at 
        any time after age 50. I will not accrue additional benefits 
        under this plan after I resign from my role at the Federal 
        Reserve Bank of New York.

 2.  Do you have any plans, commitments, or agreements to pursue 
outside employment, with or without compensation, during your service 
with the government? If so, provide details.

        No.

 3.  Has any person or entity made a commitment or agreement to employ 
your services in any capacity after you leave government service? If 
so, provide details.

        No.

 4.  If you are confirmed by the Senate, do you expect to serve out 
your full term or until the next presidential election, whichever is 
applicable? If not, explain.

        Yes.

                   C. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

 1.  Indicate any current and former investments, obligations, 
liabilities, or other personal relationships, including spousal or 
family employment, which could involve potential conflicts of interest 
in the position to which you have been nominated.

        None.

 2.  Describe any business relationship, dealing or financial 
transaction which you have had during the last 10 years (prior to the 
date of your nomination), whether for yourself, on behalf of a client, 
or acting as an agent, that could in any way constitute or result in a 
possible conflict of interest in the position to which you have been 
nominated.

        None.

 3.  Describe any activity during the past 10 years (prior to the date 
of your nomination) in which you have engaged for the purpose of 
directly or indirectly influencing the passage, defeat, or modification 
of any legislation or affecting the administration and execution of law 
or public policy. Activities performed as an employee of the Federal 
government need not be listed.

        None.

 4.  Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest, 
including any that are disclosed by your responses to the above items. 
(Provide the committee with two copies of any trust or other 
agreements.)

        Any potential conflict of interest will be resolved in 
        accordance with the terms of my ethics agreement, which was 
        developed in consultation with ethics officials at the 
        Department of the Treasury and the Office of Government Ethics. 
        I understand that my ethics agreement has been provided to the 
        committee. I am not aware of any potential conflict.

 5.  Two copies of written opinions should be provided directly to the 
committee by the designated agency ethics officer of the agency to 
which you have been nominated and by the Office of Government Ethics 
concerning potential conflicts of interest or any legal impediments to 
your serving in this position.

        Provided to the committee.

                       D. LEGAL AND OTHER MATTERS

 1.  Have you ever been the subject of a complaint or been 
investigated, disciplined, or otherwise cited for a breach of ethics 
for unprofessional conduct before any court, administrative agency 
(e.g., an Inspector General's office), professional association, 
disciplinary committee, or other ethics enforcement entity at any time? 
Have you ever been interviewed regarding your own conduct as part of 
any such inquiry or investigation? If so, provide details, regardless 
of the outcome.

        No.

 2.  Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged, or held by any 
Federal, State, or other law enforcement authority for a violation of 
any Federal, State, county, or municipal law, regulation, or ordinance, 
other than a minor traffic offense? Have you ever been interviewed 
regarding your own conduct as part of any such inquiry or 
investigation? If so, provide details.

        No.

 3.  Have you ever been involved as a party in interest in any 
administrative agency proceeding or civil litigation? If so, provide 
details.

        No.

 4.  Have you ever been convicted (including pleas of guilty or nolo 
contendere) of any criminal violation other than a minor traffic 
offense? If so, provide details.

        No.

 5.  Please advise the committee of any additional information, 
favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be considered in 
connection with your nomination.

        None.

                     E. TESTIFYING BEFORE CONGRESS

 1.  If you are confirmed by the Senate, are you willing to appear and 
testify before any duly constituted committee of the Congress on such 
occasions as you may be reasonably requested to do so?

        Yes.

 2.  If you are confirmed by the Senate, are you willing to provide 
such information as is requested by such committees?

        Yes.

                                 ______
                                 
           Questions Submitted for the Record to Joshua Frost
              Questions Submitted by Hon. Robert Menendez
    Question. Our financial industry has a diversity problem, 
especially at the highest levels. The proportion of minorities in 
financial services drops by 75 percent from entry-level to the C-
Suites. At the highest levels, 90 percent of the C-Suite is White. 
Women of color make up only 2 percent of executives despite being 21 
percent of the entry-level workforce. This is not just an optics 
problem. Lack of diversity leads to real issues in our financial 
system. Treasury Secretary Yellen has previously stated that ``[i]f 
economists are mainly of one gender or race, they are likely to miss 
things that matter.''

    Do you believe the same holds true for executives and senior 
management of financial institutions?

    Answer. I agree. The findings from a broad body of academic 
research on this subject--specifically, that leadership teams that are 
diverse with respect to background and experience outperform those that 
are more homogeneous--are unambiguous.

    Question. Do you agree that the lack of diversity at financial 
institutions means they may be more likely to miss things that matter, 
as Secretary Yellen described?

    Answer. I agree, for the reasons stated above.

    Question. If confirmed, how would you help diversify regulated 
financial institutions?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Assistant Secretary for 
Financial Institutions, the Department's newly appointed Counselor for 
Racial Equity, and other colleagues around the Treasury Department to 
promote a financial system that better reflects the diversity of our 
country. I would work with my colleagues to support policies that lead 
financial institutions to hire and retain a more diverse workforce, 
create opportunities for diverse suppliers, and encourage more diverse 
representation at the board level.

                                 ______
                                 
                 Questions Submitted by Hon. Mike Crapo
               inflation, investment, and economic growth
    Question. Last week, Fed Chair Powell said, ``Supply-side 
constraints have gotten worse. . . . [T]he risks are clearly now to 
longer and more persistent bottlenecks, and thus to higher inflation.''

    I am deeply concerned that trillions of dollars of new social 
spending proposed by this administration will exacerbate inflationary 
trends by sending more dollars after a limited supply of goods and 
services.

    If that happens, I believe the Fed could be constrained in its 
ability to address inflation through rate increases because of the 
large and growing deficits that this social spending requires.

    However, persistent low rates could contribute to inflation even 
further.

    How will financial markets respond to the rising inflation, growing 
budget deficits, and rate policy uncertainty stemming from this 
scenario?

    Answer. The President's infrastructure legislation, including 
investments in infrastructure, would be expected to result in a more 
productive economy in the long run. Upgrading our transportation 
infrastructure will allow more goods and services to be produced and 
enable U.S. firms to access new markets. As our digital economy 
continues to grow, people need reliable broadband in all corners of the 
country. Further, investing in our airports and ports will help 
decrease the supply-chain constraints that are leading to current 
pricing pressures. Therefore, I would expect financial markets, which 
are inherently forward-looking, to react positively to the long-run 
productivity benefits of the proposed legislation. I also agree with 
Secretary Yellen's stated view that these investments are not likely to 
result in an increase in inflation.

    Currently, financial markets are not signaling concern over the 
budget deficit or long-term debt levels. The level and shape of the 
yield curve are not indicative of a market belief that this is a major 
issue today. With respect to interest rates, I respect the independence 
of the Federal Reserve to make those decisions based on its 
congressional mandate to sustain full employment and stable prices

    Question. What effects would uncertainty in the financial markets 
have on business and public sector investment, as well as economic 
growth?

    Answer. In general, excessive financial market uncertainty can 
serve as a drag on investment and growth. This happens because firms 
are reluctant to invest or expand when there is greater uncertainty 
surrounding their prospects. When volatility increases, companies are 
less able to anticipate their long-run cost of capital, which can 
result in lower investment volumes. That is why, if confirmed, I would 
focus on managing the Nation's debt in a regular and predictable manner 
at the lowest cost to the government. I will also work to make sure 
that market participants have confidence in a transparent and well-
functioning Treasury market. I would also note that the 
administration's proposed Build Back Better legislation is likely to 
result in a more productive economy and lower deficits in the long run.

    On the other hand, in August, the Senate passed on a bipartisan 
basis the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which would provide 
more than $550 billion for traditional physical infrastructure.

    Question. Given that so many of our current economic problems stem 
from supply-side constraints, in order to promote economic growth, 
wouldn't financial markets take more comfort from a focus by the 
Federal Government on policies to promote investment in traditional 
physical infrastructure?

    Answer. Investments in physical capital/public infrastructure, like 
the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, will serve as an 
important boost to the economy's long-run growth potential. I agree 
that there are supply-side constraints, and as I noted above, 
improvements to our country's physical infrastructure will be critical 
in staying competitive and providing confidence to our manufacturers 
and workers that the government understands these challenges. However, 
physical infrastructure upgrades alone will not ensure that our economy 
is on the path to sustained growth and full employment. We also need 
investments like those outlined in the Build Back Better Act. Financial 
markets have thus far responded well to the potential for these 
measures to grow the economy.
                               debt limit
    Question. The debt limit represents a statutory limitation on the 
value of debt subject to the limit. Increasing the debt limit serves to 
facilitate fresh borrowing in order to fund past obligations made by 
Congress and signed into law by the President. Increasing the debt 
limit or suspending the debt limit for a fixed future period also 
facilitates increased borrowing to facilitate funding of new 
obligations made by Congress and signed into law by the President 
between the date at which the debt-limit increase (or suspension) was 
made and the date at which the new, higher, debt limit binds (under a 
suspension, there will be a new, higher limit at the date on which the 
limit is reinstated). The debt limit, and any changes in probabilities 
of it being breached, can have domestic and international financial and 
economic effects, and the position to which you have been nominated 
would confront such effects.

    A debt limit increase or suspension is not exclusively limited to 
increasing debt-issuance authorization that would only facilitate fresh 
borrowing to pay obligations that have been made prior to the date of 
the increase or suspension. Do you agree? If not, fully explain why 
not.

    Answer. Increasing the debt limit does not authorize new spending. 
It simply allows the government to finance obligations approved by 
Congress. Today, an increase in or suspension of the debt limit is 
necessary to allow Treasury to borrow to meet obligations resulting 
from laws previously enacted by Congresses and Presidents of both 
parties. I would add that if the Federal Government failed to honor all 
of its obligations, the financial and economic effects would be 
significant.

    Question. It is known that Treasury regularly makes projections of 
its near-term and longer-term operating cash balances and, in periods 
approaching binding of a statutory debt limit, regular (daily, and 
sometimes multiple times per day) projections about how much headroom 
is made available from so-called ``extraordinary measures'' to operate 
under a debt limit with available cash and incoming receipts, given 
incoming due obligations.

    Will you commit to supplying member of this committee and their 
staff with regular updates of projections of cash holdings and 
extraordinary when asked?

    Answer. If confirmed, I commit to working with members of this 
committee and their staffs to share information to assist the committee 
in its oversight capacity. I appreciate the committee's need for 
information regarding projections during debt limit impasses, and if 
confirmed, would look forward to working with the committee on this 
issue.

    Question. Will you commit to ensuring that members of the committee 
and their staff have, upon request, at least as much projection 
information as Treasury supplies to the Federal Reserve Bank of New 
York?

    Answer. I would need to be fully briefed by Treasury staff on the 
exact nature of the information to which you are referring. As a 
general matter, I am fully committed to providing the committee with 
information about the debt limit, consistent with applicable laws, 
procedures, and practices. If confirmed, I would look forward to 
working with you to facilitate the committee's ability to perform its 
important oversight role.

    Question. Treasury officials regularly meet with financial market 
participants, officials from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 
officials from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 
and often others, in the New York Fed's Treasury Market Practices 
Group. When Treasury nears a debt limit that may bind, that Group 
typically engages in discussions of views about effects on markets, 
most prominently on markets related to Treasury securities. Indeed, in 
a September 2, 2021 meeting of the Group which you attended on behalf 
of Treasury, the debt limit was discussed. In that, and several prior 
meetings of the Group, relevance of a Group 2013 ``white paper'' on 
``Operational Plans for Various Contingencies for Treasury Debt 
Payments'' was noted. That report, as the September meeting minutes 
reveal ``focuses on operational practices associated with a delayed 
payment on Treasury debt, in order to reduce the adverse consequence of 
such an even on the markets for these securities.'' The report is, in 
effect, one of the contingency plans we would expect Treasury, the Fed, 
and others to have in place to provide a roadmap of steps to take in 
the event of significant market disruption caused by an inability to 
provide timely payment on U.S. Treasury obligations--where, notably, 
the cause could be a cyberattack, a superstorm that disrupts systems, 
breach of a debt limit, or other contingencies. Such a contingency plan 
is something that, in a prior debt limit scare during the Obama 
administration, neither Treasury nor Fed officials would acknowledge.

    Do you commit, if confirmed, to share contingency plans formulated 
by Treasury to confront adverse contingencies that could affect market 
functioning in markets for Treasury securities, if asked by member of 
this committee?

    Answer. While I cannot speak to the Obama administration's 
practices regarding contingency planning, if confirmed, my intention 
would be to ensure that Treasury is as transparent as possible 
regarding its plans for confronting adverse contingencies.

    Question. Do you commit, if confirmed, to report to this committee 
if you are instructed by anyone to, in turn, instruct officials or 
staff of the Federal Reserve System, including the Federal Reserve Bank 
of New York, to refrain from sharing with members of this committee any 
information about Treasury's cash positions, projected cash positions, 
or projections regarding aspects of ``extraordinary measures''?

    Answer. If confirmed, I would urge Treasury to work in as 
transparent a manner as possible and would not instruct others to 
refrain from sharing information in a manner consistent with applicable 
laws, procedures, and practices.
                 capital markets/securities regulation
    Question. The administration continues with an odd belief that, 
somehow, private-market participants do not fully understand and price-
in risks presented by climate change. The belief, further, is that 
those fallible market participants must face more regulations and 
controls from the perceived infallible Federal regulators, who somehow 
know risks better than others.

    If you agree with the administration's stance on additional Federal 
financial regulations for climate change, can you provide detailed 
examples of exact markets and industries and companies where private-
sector actors do not adequately understand risks that somehow Federal 
regulators know more about?

    Answer. I agree with Secretary Yellen and the FSOC that ``climate 
change is an emerging and increasing threat to America's financial 
system that requires action.'' The steps identified by the FSOC in its 
recent report, including filling climate-
related data and methodological gaps and enhancing public climate-
related disclosures, are important in helping the public and private 
sectors better understand the unique nature of climate risk. I believe 
it is important that Treasury work with Congress on these important 
issues. The FSOC's climate report notes disclosure challenges in a 
number of specific financial sectors on pages 86 and 87 of the report 
(available at https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/261/FSOC-Climate-
Report.
pdf).

                                 ______
                                 
                 Question Submitted by Hon. John Thune
    Question. Inflation is at a 13-year high. Prices of more and more 
goods and services are increasing. Combined with supply-chain 
bottlenecks, labor shortages, and ultra-easy fiscal and monetary 
policies, there's a growing recognition that inflation will be with us 
well into next year or longer. Republicans warned that pouring $1.9 
trillion into the economy earlier this year would fuel inflation, but 
the White House dismissed increasing price pressures as 
``transitory''--despite inflation forecasts having been revised up 
several times already. Now Democrats want to push another multi-
trillion-dollar partisan spending bill onto the economy.

    Do you regard this inflationary increase as transitory, as 
Secretary Yellen has proclaimed, or is rising inflation a persistent 
problem our economy will be dealing with for months, and possibly 
years, ahead?

    Answer. I agree with Secretary Yellen's view, which is widely held 
by most economic forecasters, that the inflation outlook remains 
transitory as the economy pivots from a steep recession back into 
recovery. The pandemic led to a drastic shift in consumption patterns 
towards goods and away from services. The pandemic has also disrupted 
global supply chains and kept some workers on the sidelines. As the 
vaccination rate improves and cases recede, I expect these factors to 
reverse, bringing inflation rates lower.

                                 ______
                                 
                 Question Submitted by Hon. Rob Portman
    Question. You have deep contacts at the New York Fed, which is 
responsible for purchasing debt that the Treasury Department sells. At 
the Treasury Department you will oversee the desk which sells these 
securities.

    Can you detail which safeguards you will put in place to ensure 
these transactions remain lawful and are not subject to any conflict of 
interest?

    Answer. I take the independence of the Federal Reserve very 
seriously and would pledge to never undermine this independence. I know 
that you and this committee are committed to assuring the independence 
of our Nation's central bank, and I want to assure you that I share 
that commitment. I also support the rigorous controls Treasury has in 
place regarding the conduct of its auctions of Treasury securities. If 
I have the honor of being confirmed, I commit to you that I will fully 
embrace the role to which I have been nominated and will respect the 
independence of the Federal Reserve in its monetary policy formulation 
and implementation.

                                 ______
                                 
               Questions Submitted by Hon. James Lankford
    Question. According to estimates from the Congressional Budget 
Office, debt held by the public will reach $35.827 trillion in the year 
2031, climbing to over 106 percent of GDP at that time. While interest 
rates may be low now, with such a significant debt burden, even small 
increases in interest rates will mean trillions in debt servicing 
costs.

    At what point will our Nation's ever-climbing national debt 
threaten our ability to prudently and responsibly fund essential 
services and protect our national security?

    Answer. The current level of debt as a share of GDP is primarily 
the result of the combination of (1) fiscal policies undertaken by 
previous Congresses and Presidents of both parties; and (2) necessary 
emergency actions taken to protect American families and our economy 
from the impacts of COVID. While the emergency actions taken were a 
critical part of the government's response to the pandemic, I agree 
that it is imperative that we ensure that our country is on a path to 
long-term fiscal sustainability.

    Necessary steps on this path include investments in the productive 
capacity of our economy and prudent steps to offset the costs of those 
investments.

    Question. Do you agree that such significant levels of borrowing, 
fueled further by my colleagues' efforts to spend trillions more, 
carries significant risks?

    Answer. As I noted above, it is imperative that we put our country 
on a path to long-term fiscal sustainability. At the same time, it is 
important to invest in our Nation's productive capacity, and I believe 
that right now the risks of doing too little to address long-running 
structural concerns outweigh the risks of doing too much.

    Question. Some of my colleagues have suggested that because 
interest rates are currently low, we should not worry about deficit 
spending and, in fact, some have used it as the rationale for drastic 
increases in spending without any concern to how it will be financed in 
the future.

    Do you agree with their view--that low interest rates eliminate any 
concern of deficit spending?

    Answer. Real interest rates are at quite negative levels, and 
nominal interest rates are very low when compared to history. While 
interest rates are likely to rise over time, the projection is also 
that rates will remain low by historical standards. This outlook is 
supportive of my view that additional investment in improving the 
productive capacity of our economy is likely to be seen by investors in 
Treasury debt as a source of strength, rather than as a threat.

    Question. Are you concerned about our current trajectory of 
continuing to run up our national debt without any plan for reduction 
in the future, while merely hoping that interest rates remain low?

    Answer. As I noted above, it is imperative that we put our country 
on a path to long-term fiscal sustainability. It is also important to 
makeinvestments in our Nation's productive capacity.

                                 ______
                                 
                 Questions Submitted by Hon. Todd Young
    Question. According to The New York Times,\1\ you played an 
important role in the Federal Reserve's quantitative easing (QE) 
measures following the 2008 financial crisis. Given your knowledge and 
experience on this topic, I want to ask you about current QE efforts by 
the Federal Reserve and the relationship those strategies may be having 
on the skyrocketing inflation Hoosiers--and all Americans--are 
currently facing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/business/economy/11fed.html.

    In an effort to stabilize the economy in the wake of COVID-19, the 
Federal Reserve began engaging in QE through purchases of government 
bonds and other assets. Since January 1, 2020, the Federal Reserve has 
added over $4 trillion to its balance sheet, doubling the size of its 
holdings since the start of the pandemic.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/tracker-the-
federal-reserves-balance-sheet/.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Can you please describe the relationship between QE and inflation?

    Answer. The Federal Open Market Committee has stated that it 
``seeks to achieve maximum employment and inflation at the rate of 2 
percent over the longer run'' while seeking to ensure that ``longer-
term inflation expectations remain well anchored at 2 percent.'' As one 
of the tools to meet its statutorily defined mandate, the Fed has been 
purchasing Treasury securities and agency mortgage-backed securities in 
an effort to ensure that ``substantial further progress has been made 
toward its maximum employment and price stability goals.'' As these 
asset purchases proceed, if they led to interest rates being too low 
for a given set of economic and financial conditions, there could be 
upward pressure on rates of inflation.

    Question. Do you believe the elevated levels of inflation we are 
currently experiencing can be attributed more to QE from the Federal 
Reserve or instead to other policies from the Biden-Harris 
administration, such as massive spending?

    Answer. I agree with Secretary Yellen's view that the rate of 
inflation would be expected to be moderately higher as the economy 
transitions between a steep recession and a healthy recovery, and that 
the outlook remains that inflation is transitory. The spending during 
the pandemic has been important to provide support to American 
businesses, communities, and households.

    Question. Are there any lessons that can be learned from the 
Federal Reserve's response to the pandemic and the current inflationary 
environment we are in now?

    Answer. I believe that the Federal Reserve's response has been 
robust and timely given the challenges faced and the magnitude of the 
pandemic's effect on the economy. There is little evidence that the 
policies employed by the Fed had an outsized impact on inflation. As I 
noted above, I agree with Secretary Yellen's view that the rate of 
inflation would be expected to be moderately higher as the economy 
transitions between a steep recession and a healthy recovery.

    Question. Professor Larry Summers, the former U.S. Secretary of the 
Treasury under President Clinton, the former Director of the National 
Economic Council under President Obama, and the Charles W. Eliot 
university professor at Harvard, issued the following series of tweets 
on October 25, 2021:

        Yesterday on @CNN w @jaketapper, @SecYellen said I was wrong 
        about my assertion we are more at risk of losing control of 
        inflation than at any time in my career. She expressed 
        confidence that inflation is decelerating and will be back to 
        target levels by the end of next year. I hope she is right but 
        I think it's much less than a 50/50 chance. When the 
        administration formulated its budget in February, it expected 2 
        percent inflation in 2021, I was warning about inflation. Their 
        forecast is no longer operative. In May and June, @SecYellen 
        expressed confidence that inflation would be back to the 2 
        percent range by late 2021 or early 2022. Now this forecast is 
        no longer operative. In @CNN interview, @SecYellen asserts 
        twice that inflation has decelerated. This is a bit misleading 
        as the 3 month and 12 month CPI inflation rates are both around 
        5 percent on an annual basis. And the trimmed mean and median 
        inflation rates that exclude aberrant sectors (which used to be 
        a stable of administration's rhetoric) are now accelerating. 
        The TIPS market is suggesting inflation in 3 percent range over 
        5 years and more next year. Breakeven inflation over 5 years is 
        up 40 bps in the last month. Expectations data are even more 
        disturbing. This is part of why my alarm is increasing and 
        Treasury should be as well. Given lags in indices, housing 
        inflation is almost certain to soar in coming months. With 
        super tight labor markets, rising strike activity and real 
        wages having declined, increases in wage inflation are likely 
        as well. I actually believe the gap between Treasury and Fed 
        statements and the everyday experience of business and 
        consumers in terms of inflation has widened in recent months. 
        Until the Fed & Treasury fully recognize the inflation reality, 
        they are unlikely to deal with it successfully.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://twitter.com/LHSummers/status/1452698999656534018.

    Do you agree with Professor Summers' analysis and conclusions as 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
set forth above, why or why not?

    Answer. As I noted above, I agree with Secretary Yellen's view that 
the rate of inflation would be expected to be moderately higher as the 
economy transitions between a steep recession and a healthy recovery, 
and that the outlook remains that inflation is transitory. The pandemic 
saw a drastic shift in consumption towards goods and away from 
services, while also disrupting the production and distribution of 
goods. These effects of the pandemic have raised goods inflation over 
the past year. The consensus expectation, which I agree with, is that 
these price pressures will abate in the near term as the pandemic 
recedes and return to levels that are consistent with the Federal 
Reserve's target.

    Question. The Federal Reserve of San Francisco recently released an 
analysis suggesting that President Biden's $1.9-trillion American 
Rescue Plan contributed to the inflationary crisis we find ourselves in 
today.\4\ In fact, the Federal Reserve's key measure of inflation, the 
personal consumption expenditure price index, is on track to hit a 40-
year high.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/18/business/economy/fed-
inflation-stimulus-biden.html.
    \5\ https://gop-waysandmeans.house.gov/brady-families-fall-further-
behind-as-bidenflation-pushes-prices-to-highest-in-30-years/.

    Given these facts, do you have concerns that another massive 
injection of money into the economy, particularly through President 
Biden's revised Build Back Better Act, will only perpetuate the rapid 
inflation we have seen this year? Please answer ``yes'' or ``no.'' If 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
your answer is ``no,'' please explain.

    Answer. No. As I noted above, I agree with Secretary Yellen's view 
that the rate of inflation would be expected to be moderately higher as 
the economy transitions between a steep recession and a healthy 
recovery, and that the inflation outlook remains that inflation is 
transitory. The Build Back Better proposals would expand the productive 
capacity of our economy by raising labor participation rates and 
improving productivity. They also entail expenditures that are critical 
in unlocking our Nation's growth potential.

    Question. According to Federal Reserve survey data, consumers,\6\ 
business,\7\ and markets \8\ all expect inflation to remain at elevated 
levels in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ https://www.newyorkfed.org/microeconomics/sce#/inflexp-1.
    \7\ https://www.atlantafed.org/research/inflationproject/bie.
    \8\ https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/T5YIE.

    What steps should the Biden-Harris administration take to curb 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
inflation before it is too late?

    Answer. As I noted above, I agree with Secretary Yellen's view that 
the rate of inflation would be expected to be moderately higher as the 
economy transitions between a steep recession and a healthy recovery. 
Elevated inflation rates have been driven by the effect of the pandemic 
on our consumption patterns and the workforce. Ending the pandemic is 
central to bringing down inflation rates. In the short term, as COVID-
19 cases recede, inflation rates should follow. Over the longer term, 
it is important to make investments in our Nation's productive 
capacity, and I believe that the risks of doing too little to address 
long-running structural concerns outweigh the risks of doing too much.

    Question. If confirmed to this position, what specific actions 
would you take during the first 60 days of your tenure to address the 
current economic crisis brought on by this administration?

    Answer. If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed, I will work to 
serve our Nation by supporting the President's and Secretary Yellen's 
priorities in leading the Office of Financial Markets. This includes 
making sure we have regular and predictable Treasury debt auctions at 
the lowest cost to the government, ensuring that Treasury market 
participants have confidence in a fair and well-functioning market, 
addressing the transition from LIBOR, and addressing the challenges 
posed by the rapidly growing and changing markets for digital assets.

                                 ______
                                 
Prepared Statement of Brent Neiman, Ph.D., Nominated to be Deputy Under 
Secretary for International Finance and Development, Department of the 
                                Treasury
    Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Crapo, and distinguished members of 
this committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you 
today as nominee to be Deputy Under Secretary/Designated Assistant 
Secretary for International Finance and Development at the Treasury 
Department. I am also deeply grateful to President Biden and to 
Secretary Yellen for placing their confidence in me.

    I would like to introduce my family, most of whom are in Chicago, 
where I was born and raised and live today. Though I didn't end up far 
from where I started, my wife Yael moved from Argentina to New York 
when she was 4 years old. Her family came to the United States seeking 
opportunity and they found it, as my wife was the first in her family 
to finish college. We are so proud of our wonderful kids--our 11-year-
old daughter Tal and our 8-year-old son Lev. My parents, Bill and Gail, 
have always been encouraging and are watching from home right now. I am 
so appreciative of my entire family's support.

    My grandparents are also in my thoughts. My grandmother Margot, who 
fled from Germany in 1939 to Decatur, IL, always encouraged an 
awareness of world affairs and an understanding of other people, 
places, and cultures. My grandfather Julie, who ran a small 
manufacturer, hired me for summer jobs ranging from assembling boxes to 
coding the company's first web page, and taught me about 
entrepreneurship and small business. I'm grateful for what they shared 
with me and imagine that all four of my grandparents would be proud 
today.

    My interest in international macroeconomics started early in high 
school, when I gave a speech about the ECU (the euro's predecessor) for 
the final project in my sophomore year speech class. My teacher 
criticized the topic as hopelessly dry, but I stuck with it. Since 
then, I've worked as the staff economist for international finance at 
the Council of Economic Advisers, written a doctoral dissertation at 
Harvard University, consulted to the IMF and Congressional Budget 
Office, and presented to central banks all around the world. For the 
past 13 years, I've also taught a course called ``International 
Financial Policy'' at the University of Chicago's Booth School of 
Business. I hope I have been able to prove my high school speech 
teacher wrong and instill some excitement about international economics 
in the next generation of leaders.

    My research has uniquely prepared me to serve in this position, at 
this time. I've published papers exploring the changing international 
role of the U.S. dollar and analyzing the financial exposures of U.S. 
investors to emerging market borrowers, including those that issue 
securities through offshore affiliates. My work has evaluated the 
impact of exchange rate movements on productivity during a sudden stop 
crisis and measured the price response of U.S. imports and exports to 
trade policies. I've developed models of how economic activity 
transmits across borders and used them to understand the formation and 
resolution of external imbalances. Most recently, I've studied cross-
country differences in the ability to work from home during the 
pandemic.

    The past 2 years have brought unprecedented challenges, with all of 
us struggling to stay physically safe while doing our best to satisfy 
economic, educational, and emotional needs. Our government's bold 
policies have helped tremendously, but many lower-income countries have 
less capacity to act and face a daunting situation in coming years.

    The pandemic has underscored how interconnected the world economy 
is. Continuing hardship in foreign countries spurs families to leave, 
seeking better opportunities elsewhere. Disruptions in the global 
supply chain keep our workers waiting for equipment and our consumers 
waiting for goods that both need. Slow growth abroad restricts markets 
for American businesses, large and small. Helping to alleviate 
suffering and restore financial and physical health to the rest of the 
world is worthy in its own right, but also benefits the U.S. economy 
and our national security.

    The position for which I've been nominated plays a key role in 
directing Treasury's macroeconomic engagement with other countries, 
bilaterally and through multilateral institutions including the G7, 
G20, and the IMF. The United States must lead in these engagements and 
bring about a sustained global recovery with smart, implementable 
policies that enhance stability and create opportunity for all American 
workers and their families. If confirmed, working closely with the 
members and staff of this committee and with the distinguished civil 
servants in the Office of International Affairs at Treasury, I will 
dedicate myself fully toward this task.

    Thank you again for the privilege of appearing here today, and for 
your consideration of my nomination. I look forward to answering your 
questions.

                                 ______
                                 

                        SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE

                  STATEMENT OF INFORMATION REQUESTED 
                               OF NOMINEE

                      A. BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION

 1.  Name (include any former names used): Brent Neiman.

 2.  Position to which nominated: Deputy Under Secretary/Designated 
Assistant Secretary of Treasury for International Finance and 
Development.

 3.  Date of nomination: August 10, 2021.

 4.  Address (list current residence, office, and mailing addresses):

 5.  Date and place of birth: September 1, 1977; Highland Park, IL.

 6.  Marital status (include maiden name of wife or husband's name):

 7.  Names and ages of children:

 8.  Education (list all secondary and higher education institutions, 
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted):

        Harvard University, September 2002-June 2008, Ph.D. in 
        economics.

        Oxford University, September 1999-September 2000, master of 
        science in numerical analysis and scientific computing.

        University of Pennsylvania, September 1995-June 1999, bachelor 
        of science in economics and bachelor of applied science in 
        engineering.

 9.  Employment record (list all jobs held since college, including the 
title or description of job, name of employer, location of work, and 
dates of employment for each job):

        University of Chicago, Booth School of Business, professor, 
        Chicago, 2008-present.

        Council of Economic Advisers, Staff Economist, Washington DC, 
        2003-2004.

        Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, graduate summer intern, 
        Chicago, Summer 2003.

        McKinsey and Company, business analyst, San Francisco, 2000-
        2002.

10.  Government experience (list any current and former advisory, 
consultative, honorary, or other part-time service or positions with 
Federal, State, or local governments held since college, including 
dates, other than those listed above):

        None.

11.  Business relationships (list all current and former positions held 
as an officer, director, trustee, partner (e.g., limited partner, non-
voting, etc.), proprietor, agent, representative, or consultant of any 
corporation, company, firm, partnership, other business enterprise, or 
educational or other institution):

        Director, Initiative on International Economics, Becker 
        Friedman Institute, University of Chicago, 2017-present.

        Co-director, Initiative on Global Markets, Chicago Booth, 2019-
        present.

        Limited partner, Hirsch Family Partners LP, 2017 (est.)-
        present.

        Co-member, Neiman Family Partnership LLC, 2005-2021 (terminated 
        in June).

        Co-trustee, Neiman Survivorship Insurance Trust, 2002-present.

        Associate Editor, American Economic Review, 2017-present.

        Associate Editor, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2014-present.

        Associate Editor, Journal of International Economics, 2013-
        present.

        I have served as a consultant to the following businesses and 
        institutions during the past 5 years: Arete Wealth Management, 
        2017; Beacon Capital Partners, 2020; Congressional Budget 
        Office, 2019; Hound Partners, 2016, 2017, 2019; and 
        International Monetary Fund, 2016.

12.  Memberships (list all current and former memberships, as well as 
any current and former offices held in professional, fraternal, 
scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and other organizations dating 
back to college, including dates for these memberships and offices):

        Member, KAM Isaiah Israel Synagogue, 2021-present.

        Research Fellow, Center for Economic Policy Research, 2019-
        present.

        Member, Northmoor Country Club, 2016-present.

        Research Associate, National Bureau of Economic Research, 2016-
        present.

        Member, Macro-Finance Society, 2017-2019.

        Faculty Research Fellow, National Bureau of Economic Research, 
        2010-2016.

        Affiliate, Chicago Council on Global Affairs, 2009-present.

        Community of Support, Muchin College Prep, 2009-2011.

        Auxiliary Board Member, Teach for America Chicago, 2008-2011.

        American Economic Association, 2008-present (various years).

13.  Political affiliations and activities:

        a.  List all public offices for which you have been a candidate 
        dating back to the age of 18.

       None.

        b.  List all memberships and offices held in and services 
        rendered to all political parties or election committees, 
        currently and during the last 10 years prior to the date of 
        your nomination.

       None.

        c.  Itemize all political contributions to any individual, 
        campaign organization, political party, political action 
        committee, or similar entity of $50 or more for the past 10 
        years prior to the date of your nomination.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Date                         Recieient               Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 13, 2020              Casten for Congress                 $1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 1, 2020             Biden Action Fund                     $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 1, 2020             Biden for President                   $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 3, 2019             Casten for Congress                   $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 21, 2018                 Casten for Congress                 $1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 16, 2018             Quigley for Congress                  $300
------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 28, 2017            Casten for Congress                 $1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------


14.  Honors and awards (list all scholarships, fellowships, honorary 
degrees, honorary society memberships, military medals, and any other 
special recognitions for outstanding service or achievement received 
since the age of 18):

        Economics in Central Banking Award (with Maggiori and 
        Schreger), 2020.

        William Ladany Faculty Scholar, 2019-2020.

        AQR Insight Award (with Maggiori and Schreger), 2018.

        Sloan Research Fellowship, 2014-2016.

        Rosenfield Grant, 2015.

        Neubauer Family Faculty Fellow, 2014-2015.

        Emerging Leader, Chicago Council of Global Affairs, 2009-2011.

        Charles E. Merrill Scholar, 2009-2010.

        Chiles Dissertation Completion Fellowship, 2007-2008.

        Harvard University Graduate Fellowship, 2002-2004.

        The Thouron Award, 1999-2000.

        Academic All-Ivy League, 1997-1998.

15.  Published writings (list the titles, publishers, dates, and 
hyperlinks (as applicable) of all books, articles, reports, blog posts, 
or other published materials you have written):

        I performed an exhaustive hard-copy and digital search and to 
        the best of my knowledge and belief, here are the published 
        writings that I can identify:

        Academic Publications

        ``Redrawing the Map of Global Capital Flows: The Role of Cross-
        Border Financing and Tax-Havens'' (with Antonio Coppola, Matteo 
        Maggiori, and Jesse Schreger), Quarterly Journal of Economics, 
        Forthcoming, https://globalcapitalallocation.s3.us-east-
        2.amazonaws.com/CMNS-Paper.pdf.

        ``Exchange Rate Reconnect'' (with Andrew Lilley, Matteo 
        Maggiori, and Jesse Schreger), Review of Economics and 
        Statistics, Forthcoming, https://globalcapitalallocation.s3.us-
        east-2.amazonaws.com/LMNS_Paper.pdf.

        ``Tariff Passthrough at the Border and at the Store: Evidence 
        from U.S. Trade Policy'' (with Alberto Cavallo, Gita Gopinath, 
        and Jenny Tang), American Economic Review: Insights, Vol 3., No 
        1, 2021, https://brentneiman.com/research/CGNT.pdf.

        ``How Many Jobs Can be Done at Home?'' (with Jonathan Dingel), 
        Journal of Public Economics, 2020, Volume 189 Preprint: COVID 
        Economics, Vetted and Real-Time Papers, 2020, Issue 1, p. 16-
        24, https://brentneiman.com/research/DN.pdf.

        ``International Currencies and Capital Allocation'' (with 
        Matteo Maggiori and Jesse Schreger), Journal of Political 
        Economy, 2020, Volume 128, Issue 6, https://brentneiman.com/
        research/MNS.pdf.

        ``The Rise of the Dollar and Fall of the Euro as International 
        Currencies'' (with Matteo Maggiori and Jesse Schreger), AEA 
        Papers and Proceedings, 2019, Volume 109, p. 521-526, https://
        brentneiman.com/research/MNS_PandP.pdf.

        ``Accounting for Factorless Income'' (with Loukas 
        Karabarbounis), NBER Macroeconomics Annual, 2018, Volume 33, p. 
        167-228, http://brentneiman.com/research/Factorless_Income.pdf.

        ``The Global Rise of Corporate Saving'' (with Peter Chen and 
        Loukas Karabarbounis), Journal of Monetary Economics, 2017, 89, 
        p. 1-19, https://brentneiman.com/research/CKN.pdf.

        ``Obstfeld and Rogoff's International Macro Puzzles: A 
        Quantitative Assessment'' (with Jonathan Eaton and Sam Kortum), 
        Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 2016, 72, p. 5-23, 
        https://brentneiman.com/research/EKN_
        OR.pdf.

        ``Trade and the Global Recession'' (with Jonathan Eaton, Sam 
        Kortum, and John Romalis), American Economic Review, 2016, 
        106(11), p. 3401-3438, https://brentneiman.com/research/
        EKNR.pdf.

        ``The Price Impact of Joining a Currency Union: Evidence from 
        Latvia'' (with Alberto Cavallo and Roberto Rigobon), IMF 
        Economic Review, 2015, 63(2), p. 281-297, https://
        brentneiman.com/research/CNR_Latvia.pdf.

        ``Currency Unions, Product Introductions, and the Real Exchange 
        Rate'' (with Alberto Cavallo and Roberto Rigobon), Quarterly 
        Journal of Economics, 2014, 129(2), p. 529-595, https://
        brentneiman.com/research/CNR.pdf.

        ``Trade Adjustment and Productivity During Large Crises'' (with 
        Gita Gopinath), American Economic Review, 2014, 104(3), p. 793-
        831, https://brentneiman.com/research/EKNR.pdf.

        ``The Global Decline of the Labor Share'' (with Loukas 
        Karabarbounis), Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2014, 129(1), 
        p. 61-103, https://brentneiman.com/research/KN.pdf.

        ``On Deficits and Unemployment'' (with Jonathan Eaton and Sam 
        Kortum), Revue economique, 2013, 64(3), p. 405-420, https://
        brentneiman.com/research/EKN.pdf.

        ``Trade Prices and the Global Trade Collapse of 2008-2009'' 
        (with Gita Gopinath and Oleg ltskhoki), IMF Economic Review, 
        2012, 60(3), p. 303-328, https://brentneiman.com/research/
        CrisisPrices.pdf.

        ``A State-Dependent Model of Intermediate Goods Pricing,'' 
        Journal of International Economics, 2011, 85(1), p. 1-13, 
        https://brentneiman.com/research/Intermediate_Pricing.pdf.

        ``Growth Accounting with Misallocation: Or, Doing Less with 
        More in Singapore'' (with John Fernald), American Economic 
        Journal: Macroeconomics, 2011, 3(2), p. 29-74, https://
        brentneiman.com/research/Misallocation.pdf.

        ``Stickiness, Synchronization, and Passthrough in Intrafirm 
        Trade Prices,'' Journal of Monetary Economics, 2010, 57(3), p. 
        295-308, https://brentneiman.com/research/Intrafirm.pdf.

        ``The Impact of Post-9/11 Visa Policies on Travel to the United 
        States'' (with Phillip Swagel), Journal of International 
        Economics, 2009, 78(1), p. 86-99, https://brentneiman.com/
        research/VWP.pdf.

        Working Papers

        ``The Rise of Niche Consumption'' (with Joe Vavra), NBER 
        Working Paper, No. 26134, 2020, https://brentneiman.com/
        research/NV.pdf.

        ``Capital Depreciation and Labor Shares Around the World: 
        Measurement and Implications'' (with Loukas Karabarbounis), 
        NBER Working Paper, No. 20606, 2014, https://brentneiman.com/
        research/KN2.pdf.

        Other Writings

        ``A new map of global capital allocation'' (with Antonio 
        Coppola, Matteo Maggiori, and Jesse Schreger), FDI Magazine, 
        June 2021, https://content.yudu.com/web/43wcl/0A43wm9/
        fDiJuneJuly2021/html/index.html?page=
        84&origin=reader.

        ``The Global Capital Allocation Project'' (with Matteo Maggiori 
        and Jesse Schreger), NBER Reporter, Number 1, 2021, https://
        www.nber.org/reporter/2021number1/global-capital-allocation-
        project.

        ``Making a good job of remote work'' (with Jonathan Dingel), 
        Financial Times, February 2021, https://on.ft.com/2LxeKIC.

        ``Tariff Passthrough at the Border and at the Store: Evidence 
        from U.S. Trade Policy'' (with Alberto Cavallo, Gita Gopinath, 
        and Jenny Tang), VoxChina, September 2020, http://voxchina.org/
        show-3-194.html.

        ``What has coronavirus taught us about working from home'' 
        (with Jonathan Dingel), Economics Observatory, June 2020, 
        https://www.coronavirusandthe
        economy.com/question/what-has-coronavirus-taught-us-about-
        working-home.

        ``How Many Jobs Can Be Done At Home'' (with Jonathan Dingel), 
        VoxEU.org, April 2020, https://voxeu.org/article/how-many-jobs-
        can-be-done-home.

        ``How Many Jobs Can be Done at Home? In the United States, It's 
        37 percent'' (with Jonathan Dingel), ProMarket.org, April 2020, 
        https://promarket.org/how-many-jobs-can-be-done-at-home-in-the-
        united-states-its-37-percent/.

        ``Three Pillars of the Economic Policy Response to the COVID-19 
        Crisis'' (with Eric Budish, Anil Kashyap, and Ralph Koijen), 
        IGM Forum, March 2020, http://www.igmchicago.org/wp-content/
        uploads/2020/03/Coronavirus-032320-final.pdf.

        ``Exchange Rate Reconnect'' (with Andrew Lilley, Matteo 
        Maggiori, and Jesse Schreger), VoxEU.org column, January 2020, 
        https://voxeu.org/article/exchange-rate-reconnect.

        ``The Rise of Niche Consumption'' (with Joe Vavra), VoxEU.org 
        column, September 2019, https://voxeu.org/article/rise-niche-
        consumption.

        ``What to Do with Missing Payments to Factors of Production'' 
        (with Loukas Karabarbounis), VoxEU.org column, June 2018, 
        https://voxeu.org/article/what-do-missing-payments-factors-
        production.

        ``The Rise of the Dollar and Fall of the Euro in Global Asset 
        Trade'' (with Matteo Maggiori and Jesse Schreger), VoxEU.org 
        column, June 2018, https://voxeu.org/article/rise-dollar-and-
        fall-euro-global-asset-trade.

        ``Factorless Income and Some Skepticism on the Case for Rising 
        Markups'' (with Loukas Karabarbounis), Premarket Blog, Chicago 
        Booth Stigler Center, May 2018, https://promarket.org/
        factorless-income-skepticism-case-rising-markups/.

        ``Trends in Factor Shares: Facts and Implications'' (with 
        Loukas Karabarbounis), NBER Reporter, Number 4, 2017, https://
        www.nber.org/reporter/2017number4/trends-factor-shares-facts-
        and-implications.

        ``Labour Shares, Inequality, and the Relative Price of 
        Capital'' (with Loukas Karabarbounis), VoxEU.org column, 
        November 25, 2014, http://www.voxeu.org/article/labour-shares-
        inequality-and-relative-price-capital.

        ``The Research Agenda: Loukas Karabarbounis and Brent Neiman on 
        the Evolution of Factor Shares'' (with Loukas Karabarbounis), 
        The EconomicDynamics Newsletter, 15(2), November 2014, https://
        brentneiman.com/research/The_
        Research_Agenda.pdf.

        ``Pricing to Market and Eurozone Membership: Evidence from 
        Latvia'' (with Alberto Cavallo and Roberto Rigobon), VoxEU.org 
        column, August 22, 2014, http://www.voxeu.org/article/pricing-
        and-ez-membership-evidence-latvia.

        ``The Euro and Price Convergence'' (with Alberto Cavallo and 
        Roberto Rigobon), VoxEU.org column, November 29, 2013, http://
        www.voxeu.org/article/euro-and-price-convergence.

        ``Comment on the Decline of the U.S. Labor Share by Michael 
        Elsby, Bart Hobijn, and Aysegul Sahin,'' Brookings Panel of 
        Economic Activity, September 2013, https://brentneiman.com/
        research/Neiman_Comments_for_BPEA.pdf.

        ``The Great Trade Quantities Collapse'' (with Gita Gopinath and 
        Oleg ltskhoki), VoxEU.org column, July 28, 2012, http://
        www.voxeu.org/article/great-trade-quantities-collapse.

        ``Trade and the Global Recession,'' Chicago Council on Global 
        Affairs, 2012 Summit Expert Commentaries, May 2012 (link 
        unavailable).

        ``Trade Accounting in the Recent Recession'' (with Jonathan 
        Eaton, Sam Kortum, and John Romalis), VoxEU.org column, July 7, 
        2010, http://www.
        voxeu.org/article/trade-accounting-recent-recession.

        ``Computers: Why the Party's Over'' (with Mike Cho), McKinsey 
        Quarterly, Q1 2002, https://go.gale.com/ps/
        anonymous?id=GALE%7CA82535799&sid=google
        Scholar&v=2.1⁢=r&Jinkaccess=abs&issn=00475394&p=AONE&sw=w.

        ``A Mathematical Model of Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia,'' MSc 
        Dissertation, Oxford University, September 2000, https://
        core.ac.uk/download/pdf/96488.pdf.

        I'm happy to update and supplement this submission should I 
        discover additional information.

16.  Speeches (list all formal speeches and presentations (e.g.. 
PowerPoint) you have delivered during the past 5 years which are on 
topics relevant to the position for which you have been nominated, 
including dates):

        I performed an exhaustive hard-copy and digital search and to 
        the best of my knowledge and belief, here are the speeches and 
        public presentations that I can identify:

        Presentations of ``Redrawing the Map of Global Capital Flows: 
        The Role of Cross Border Financing and Tax-Havens'' (with 
        Antonio Coppola, Matteo Maggiori, and Jesse Schreger; digital 
        copy filename: ``CMNS.pdf''): 2021: International Monetary 
        Fund, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, Peterson Institute for 
        International Economics; 2020: U.S. State Department, 
        University of Texas, NBER Conference on Emerging and Frontier 
        Markets: Capital Flows, Risks, and Growth, Virtual 
        International Trade and Macro Seminar, Harvard University, Bank 
        of England; 2019: Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, Federal 
        Reserve Bank of Chicago, University of Chicago.

        Presentations of ``International Currencies and Capital 
        Allocation'' (with Matteo Maggiori and Jesse Schreger; digital 
        copy filename: ``MNS.pdf''): 2019: NBER-CCER Conference in 
        Beijing; 2018: Stanford University, University of British 
        Columbia, Northwestern University, International Monetary Fund, 
        University of Illinois at Chicago, Bank for International 
        Settlements; 2017: University of Michigan, University of 
        Maryland, University of Houston, Duke University, European 
        Central Bank, Goethe University, Carlson School of Management, 
        University of Toronto, Bank of Canada, NBER Conference in 
        Neemrana.

        Presentations of ``Obstfeld and Rogoff's International Macro 
        Puzzles: A Quantitative Assessment'' (with Jonathan Eaton and 
        Sam Kortum; digital copy filename: ``EKN.pdf''): 2016: Central 
        Bank of Argentina, Central Bank of Chile, Central Bank of 
        Mexico, NBER IFM Summer Institute.

        Presentations of ``Accounting for Factorless Income'' (with 
        Loukas Karabarbounis; digital copy filename: ``KN.pdf''): 2018: 
        Columbia University, University of Chicago, NBER MacroAnnual, 
        UCLA, Congressional Budget Office; 2017: University of 
        Pittsburgh--Carnegie Mellon.

        Presentations of ``The Rise of Niche Consumption'' (with Joe 
        Vavra; digital copy filename: ``NV.pdf''): 2019: NBER 
        Conference on Economics of Mega-Firms and Changes in Market 
        Power, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Federal Reserve 
        Bank of New York, Boston College.

        Presentation of ``Real Exchange Rate Behavior: New Evidence 
        from Matched Retail Prices'' (with Alberto Cavallo and Roberto 
        Rigobon; digital copy filename: ``CNR.pdf''): 2017: Federal 
        Reserve Board of Governors.

        Other presentations/talks: November 2019: Congressional Budget 
        Office (digital copy filename: ``CBO.pdf''); October 2019: 
        Ethical Humanist Society (digital copy filename: ``EHS.pdf''); 
        May 2019: Macro Finance Society (digital copy filename: 
        ``MFS.pdf''); and May 2018: International Monetary Fund 
        (digital copy filename: ``IMF.pdf'').

        The presentations referenced above by their digital copy 
        filenames were included in the file Presentations.zip.

        I'm happy to update and supplement this submission should I 
        discover additional information.

17.  Qualifications (state what, in your opinion, qualifies you to 
serve in the position to which you have been nominated):

        My research career has focused on applied topics in 
        international finance, trade, and macroeconomics that are 
        important for the prosperity and stability of the United States 
        and for global economic development. I have studied the 
        changing international role of the U.S. dollar, analyzed the 
        exposures of U.S. investors to emerging market borrowers, and 
        evaluated the impact of trade policies on U.S. importers and 
        exporters. I have developed models of how changes in economic 
        activity transmit across countries and used them to study the 
        formation and resolution of trade imbalances. My work has 
        documented how emerging market firms respond to crises and how 
        multinational firms respond to changes in exchange rates and 
        exchange rate regimes. This body of work gives me a deep 
        appreciation for how interconnected our economy is with the 
        rest of the world and for how effective international financial 
        policies can improve outcomes.

        I am a co-founder of the Global Capital Allocation Project, a 
        research lab which produced several of the above studies and 
        distributes codes and data useful for researchers and 
        practitioners. As director of the Initiative on International 
        Economics at the Becker Friedman Institute, I cofounded and 
        coorganize a conference on international macro finance that is 
        now in its 9th year and includes researchers from academia, 
        international financial institutions, and central banks. For 13 
        years, I have taught a course for MBA students called 
        ``International Financial Policy.''

        Finally, I have presented on international macroeconomic topics 
        at central banks and multilateral institutions around the world 
        and served as a consultant to the International Monetary Fund. 
        Earlier in my career, I spent a year working on international 
        finance issues while on the staff of the Council of Economic 
        Advisers. These experiences made clear to me that applied 
        economic research can lead directly to improved economic 
        policy.

                   B. FUTURE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIPS

 1.  Will you sever all connections (including participation in future 
benefit arrangements) with your present employers, business firms, 
associations, or organizations, if you are confirmed by the Senate? If 
not, provide details.

        If confirmed, I will take a leave of absence from my tenured 
        position at the University of Chicago and plan to return after 
        government service.

 2.  Do you have any plans, commitments, or agreements to pursue 
outside employment, with or without compensation, during your service 
with the government? If so, provide details.

        No.

 3.  Has any person or entity made a commitment or agreement to employ 
your services in any capacity after you leave government service? If 
so, provide details.

        If confirmed, I will take a leave of absence from my tenured 
        position at the University of Chicago and plan to return after 
        government service.

 4.  If you are confirmed by the Senate, do you expect to serve out 
your full term or until the next presidential election, whichever is 
applicable? If not, explain.

        I expect to return to the University of Chicago at the end of 
        my leave of absence, which I anticipate will last 2 years.

                   C. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

 1.  Indicate any current and former investments, obligations, 
liabilities, or other personal relationships, including spousal or 
family employment, which could involve potential conflicts of interest 
in the position to which you have been nominated.

        In connection with the nomination process, I have consulted 
        with the Department of Treasury's designated agency ethics 
        official, who has consulted with the Office of Government 
        Ethics, to identify potential conflicts of interest. Any 
        potential conflicts of interest will be resolved in accordance 
        with the terms of the ethics agreement that I have entered with 
        the Department of Treasury's designated agency ethics official 
        and that has been provided to this committee. I am not aware of 
        any other potential conflicts of interest.

 2.  Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial 
transaction which you have had during the last 10 years (prior to the 
date of your nomination), whether for yourself, on behalf of a client, 
or acting as an agent, that could in any way constitute or result in a 
possible conflict of interest in the position to which you have been 
nominated.

        None.

 3.  Describe any activity during the past 10 years (prior to the date 
of your nomination) in which you have engaged for the purpose of 
directly or indirectly influencing the passage, defeat, or modification 
of any legislation or affecting the administration and execution of law 
or public policy. Activities performed as an employee of the Federal 
Government need not be listed.

        None.

 4.  Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest, 
including any that are disclosed by your responses to the above items. 
(Provide the committee with two copies of any trust or other 
agreements.)

        In connection with the nomination process, I have consulted 
        with the Department of Treasury's designated agency ethics 
        official, who has consulted with the Office of Government 
        Ethics, to identify potential conflicts of interest. Any 
        potential conflicts of interest will be resolved in accordance 
        with the terms of the ethics agreement that I have entered with 
        the Department of Treasury's designated agency ethics official 
        and that has been provided to this committee. I am not aware of 
        any other potential conflicts of interest. Should any potential 
        conflict of interest arise in the future, I will seek guidance 
        from a Treasury ethics official.

 5.  Two copies of written opinions should be provided directly to the 
committee by the designated agency ethics officer of the agency to 
which you have been nominated and by the Office of Government Ethics 
concerning potential conflicts of interest or any legal impediments to 
your serving in this position.

        Provided to the committee.

                       D. LEGAL AND OTHER MATTERS

 1.  Have you ever been the subject of a complaint or been 
investigated, disciplined, or otherwise cited for a breach of ethics 
for unprofessional conduct before any court, administrative agency 
(e.g., an Inspector General's office), professional association, 
disciplinary committee, or other ethics enforcement entity at any time? 
Have you ever been interviewed regarding your own conduct as part of 
any such inquiry or investigation? If so, provide details, regardless 
of the outcome.

        No.

 2.  Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged, or held by any 
Federal, State, or other law enforcement authority for a violation of 
any Federal, State, county, or municipal law, regulation, or ordinance, 
other than a minor traffic offense? Have you ever been interviewed 
regarding your own conduct as part of any such inquiry or 
investigation? If so, provide details.

        No.

 3.  Have you ever been involved as a party in interest in any 
administrative agency proceeding or civil litigation? If so, provide 
details.

        No.

 4.  Have you ever been convicted (including pleas of guilty or nolo 
contendere) of any criminal violation other than a minor traffic 
offense? If so, provide details.

        No.

 5.  Please advise the committee of any additional information, 
favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be considered in 
connection with your nomination.

        None.

                     E. TESTIFYING BEFORE CONGRESS

 1.  If you are confirmed by the Senate, are you willing to appear and 
testify before any duly constituted committee of the Congress on such 
occasions as you may be reasonably requested to do so?

        Yes.

 2.  If you are confirmed by the Senate, are you willing to provide 
such information as is requested by such committees?

        Yes.

                                 ______
                                 
       Questions Submitted for the Record to Brent Neiman, Ph.D.
              Questions Submitted by Hon. Robert Menendez
    Question. As I mentioned in my questioning, I am concerned about 
the growing trend of the IFIs bowing to Chinese pressure.

    If you are confirmed, how will you go about approaching malign 
Chinese influence at the IFIs?

    Answer. Countering malign influence in the IFIs depends on 
reasserting American leadership in the IFIs and reaffirming the U.S. 
commitment to multilateralism, which is a priority for the Biden-Harris 
administration. If confirmed, I look forward to working with Secretary 
Yellen, our U.S. Executive Directors, and Congress, as well as like-
minded partners from other countries, in underscoring this message; 
reinforcing the importance of the IFIs' commitment to high standards, 
transparency, and integrity; emphasizing that all shareholders, 
including the PRC, need to play appropriate roles and fulfill 
responsibilities in the IFIs; and delivering financing and policy 
advice to other countries that contribute to increased transparency, 
sound governance and policies, and increased capacity to counter malign 
influence.

    Question. I also want to ask about how you think the IFIs should be 
helping developing countries in their post-COVID economic recovery. G20 
proposals like the Debt-Service Suspension Initiative and the 
authorization of IMF special drawing rights are great tools and have 
helped struggling countries, but it is my belief there is more to be 
done. I know you, in your role at the University of Chicago, have done 
research on this very issue. If you are confirmed, how will you use the 
voice and vote at the IMF and World Bank to ensure that developing 
countries have more flexibility in their post-COVID economic recovery?

    Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to working with Secretary 
Yellen, our U.S. Executive Directors, and Congress to promote robust 
financing and policy advice from the International Financial 
Institutions to support a strong, sustainable, and inclusive recovery 
in both advanced and developing countries, building on the important 
measures that the international community has already implemented for 
COVID-19 response and recovery. If confirmed, I will work with 
colleagues, as well as like-minded partners, to use the U.S. voice and 
vote in the IFIs to promote sound macroeconomic and financial policies, 
good governance, sustainability, inclusion, and private and domestic 
resource mobilization, while providing development assistance that 
responds to countries' own needs, challenges, and investment 
priorities.

    Question. Further, how do you plan on using our voice and vote to 
counter China around the world, or for issues surrounding climate 
change?

    Answer. Countering PRC influence around the world depends on 
reasserting American leadership in the IFIs and reaffirming U.S. 
commitment to multilateralism and working with allies, which is a 
priority for the Biden-Harris administration. If confirmed, I look 
forward to working with Secretary Yellen, our U.S. Executive Directors, 
and Congress, as well as like-minded partners from other countries, to 
use the U.S. voice and vote to underscore this message; reinforce the 
importance of the IFIs' commitment to high standards, transparency, and 
integrity; promote increased mobilization of domestic and private-
sector resources; and deliver financing and policy advice to other 
countries that contribute to increased transparency, sound governance 
and policies, and increased capacity to counter malign influence.

    Similarly, I look forward to working with others in the U.S. 
Government and like-minded partners to use the U.S. voice and vote to 
promote strong IFI engagement on providing financing and policy advice 
to support countries in mitigating and adapting to climate change, 
especially as the IFIs play a key role in meeting our international 
climate finance commitments. I understand that Secretary Yellen has 
been actively engaging with the leadership of the multilateral 
development banks to encourage them to adopt ambitious programs related 
to climate, stand up new facilities targeting climate change, fully 
align their operations with the Paris Agreement, and increase 
mobilization of private finance. If confirmed, I will assist in 
carrying forward these efforts.

    Question. During your hearing, you committed to ``absolutely and 
fully engage'' with me and my office related to a 10th general capital 
increase for the Inter-
American Development Bank. If confirmed, what specific steps would you 
take to advance a 10th general capital increase for the IDB?

    Answer. I understand that IDB Group shareholders have decided on a 
process to examine the policy priorities, challenges, and opportunities 
of the IDB Group and the region, starting with a program of analytical 
work. If confirmed, I look forward to learning more about the details 
of this work, which is examining the utility of new capital for the 
private- and/or public-sector arms of the IDB Group, including 
borrowing countries' interest in the various lending instruments of the 
IDB, and sovereign borrowers' ability to absorb resources. I reaffirm 
my commitment to engage with you and your office regarding the IDB 
Group and Treasury's engagement with the region.

    Question. During your hearing, you committed to work with me and my 
office to develop a policy framework in support of a 10th general 
capital increase for the Inter-American Development Bank, one that 
address longstanding priorities of democratic governance, climate 
change, and countering China's engagement in the hemisphere. If 
confirmed, what steps would you take to work with me and my office to 
develop a framework of policy priorities to accompany a 10th general 
capital increase for the IDB?

    Answer. If confirmed, and as addressed above, I will look forward 
to learning more about the details of work underway at the IDB Board, 
which is examining the utility of new capital for the public- and/or 
private-sector arms of the IDB Group, including borrowing countries' 
interest in the various lending instruments of the IDB, and sovereign 
borrowers' ability to absorb resources. Any new capital contributions 
from the United States to the public- and/or private-sector arms of the 
IDB Group will require authorization, and I am aware that the Senate 
has included authorization for a capital increase for the public-sector 
window of the IDB in the China bill. I commit to engaging with you and 
your office on any policy framework that the administration might 
propose as the basis for a request for authorization and appropriations 
for the private and/or public sector arms of the IDB.

    Question. What would be your policy priorities inside negotiations 
related to a 10th general capital increase for the IDB?

    Answer. If confirmed, my policy priority for the IDB Group is to 
ensure that the IDB Group remains a key partner for the United States 
and the region in advancing market-driven, sustainable, inclusive 
growth in Latin America and the Caribbean, including through promotion 
of good governance and transparency, sound policy advice, and adherence 
to high standards and financial sustainability. I understand that IDB 
Group shareholders have decided on a process to examine the policy 
priorities, challenges, and opportunities of the IDB Group and the 
region, starting with a program of analytical work. If confirmed, I 
look forward to learning more about the details of this work and 
reaffirm my commitment to engage with you and your office regarding the 
IDB Group and Treasury's engagement with the region.

    Question. What is your assessment of how a 10th general capital 
increase for the Inter-American Development Bank could complement the 
Biden administration's Build Back Better World (B3W) initiative?

    Answer. I understand that IDB Group shareholders have decided on a 
process to examine the policy priorities, challenges, and opportunities 
of the IDB Group and the region, starting with a program of analytical 
work. If confirmed, I look forward to learning more about the details 
of this work. Regardless of any future decisions by shareholders as a 
result of this work, the private-sector arm of the IDB Group can be an 
important complement to B3W's emphasis on high-quality, private-sector-
led infrastructure development, given the broader IDB Group's own 
adherence to high social, environmental and fiduciary standards; 
emphasis on fostering good governance, transparency, and private-sector 
development in Latin America and the Caribbean; policy advice and 
financing supporting infrastructure development and investment climate 
reform; and the strong leadership role of the United States and 
partnership with the region.

    Question. Given the social and economic impact of the global COVID-
19 pandemic on Latin America and the Caribbean, what is your assessment 
of the role that the Inter-American Development Bank can play in 
support the region's economic recovery from the pandemic?

    Answer. The IDB has longstanding experience partnering with 
countries to strengthen social protection frameworks, foster private 
sector development, promote equitable access to public services and 
market opportunities, and build capacity in the public sector. Together 
with the IDB's collaboration with other partners in supporting 
equitable and efficient vaccine rollout, these areas are all critical 
to minimize social and economic scarring from the pandemic and support 
inclusive and 
climate-resilient recovery across the region. With many governments in 
the region needing to restore fiscal buffers in the medium-term, the 
IDB's contributions to increasing the effectiveness of public sectors 
and supporting private-sector-led growth will be particularly 
important. The IDB should continue to strengthen its focus on 
governance and transparency in the region.

    Question. Economic growth and development in Latin America and the 
Caribbean have long been limited by a deficiency in modern 
infrastructure. Can the United States help Latin American and Caribbean 
governments meet those needs solely with the capacity of its 
development finance institutions?

    Answer. I do not believe so. Compared to faster-growing regions of 
the world, most of the countries in Latin America and the Caribbean 
have low domestic savings and investment. Several feature extremely low 
tax-to-GDP ratios. Productivity is relatively weak, and much of the 
region remains outside of global value chains. The International 
Financial Institutions and U.S. development agencies provide 
significant financing and policy advice to regional governments, but it 
is essential that domestic policies provide an environment that 
supports international and domestic private-sector investment in 
infrastructure. Bilateral and multilateral development finance 
institutions can offer incentives to create and implement such 
policies, but they cannot overcome local political and security 
obstacles on their own.

    Question. What is your assessment of the role that the Inter-
American Development Bank could play in helping Latin American and 
Caribbean nations address infrastructure deficits?

    Answer. Development finance institutions, including the IDB Group, 
can and do provide substantial financing and policy advice for 
infrastructure projects and to mobilize increased private investment, 
including through reforms and capacity development to improve the 
investment environment. However, to meaningfully address the region's 
infrastructure deficits and improve the investment climate, governments 
must complement such assistance with sound macroeconomic and financial 
policies, commitment to good governance and transparency, rule of law, 
and other efforts to increase savings and investment.

    Question. Would a 10th general capital increase strengthen the 
IDB's ability to help Latin American and Caribbean government's address 
infrastructure needs?

    Answer. I understand that IDB Group shareholders have decided on a 
process to examine the policy priorities, challenges, and opportunities 
of the IDB Group and the region, including as related to infrastructure 
development, starting with a program of analytical work. If confirmed, 
I look forward to learning more about the details of this work. 
Development finance institutions, including the IDB Group, can and do 
provide substantial financing and policy advice for infrastructure 
projects and to mobilize increased private investment, including 
through reforms and capacity development to improve the investment 
environment. However, to meaningfully address the region's 
infrastructure deficits, governments must complement such assistance 
with sound macroeconomic and financial policies, commitment to good 
governance and transparency, rule of law, and other efforts to increase 
savings and investment.

    Question. If the United States is unable to help Latin American and 
Caribbean governments address their infrastructure needs, do you assess 
that the PRC would seek to fill that void? What would be the impact of 
expanded China's investment and presence in Latin America and the 
Caribbean for U.S. national interests?

    Answer. It is important that the United States restores and 
strengthens our partnerships in the region and keeps countries from 
engaging in irresponsible and opaque borrowing, including from the PRC. 
Through the IFIs and with our allies, we must promote high-quality, 
private-sector-led, inclusive, and sustainable growth and development 
policies, with particular focus on democratic governance and respect 
for human rights, anti-corruption and transparency, sound macroeconomic 
and financial management, and debt management capacity and 
transparency. We must aggressively contrast these features with poor 
outcomes experienced in the region, such as the case of Venezuela's 
engagement with China, which include low-quality infrastructures and 
unsustainable debt burdens. If confirmed, I look forward to working 
with Secretary Yellen, our U.S. Executive Directors, and Congress, as 
well as like-minded partners from other countries, to achieve these 
goals.

                                 ______
                                 
                 Questions Submitted by Hon. Mike Crapo
                 international capital flow measurement
    Question. Some of your research identifies relations to work by 
economist Gabriel Zucman in relation to, for example, ``the economic 
impact of tax havens.'' With respect to income and wealth tracing, to 
which some of your work applies, some of Professor Zucman's related 
analyses have been criticized on the bases of measurement and 
incorporation of a normative agenda, leading to results that many view 
as substantially inaccurate and substantially misleading. Some of the 
work that you have undertaken focuses on ``unwinding corporate 
ownership chains and accounting for offshore issuance in tax havens 
around the world.''

    Many statistics and measures have shortcomings and advantages 
relative to the underlying object that those statistics and measures 
are intended to quantify. Some of your work identifies alternative 
measures to foreign investment flows and stocks. Do you believe that 
existing measures, used partly to inform policymaking, with respect to 
global capital allocations, bilateral investment statistics, and global 
capital flows, are fundamentally flawed and in need of revision?

    Answer. In some recent academic work, my coauthors and I report 
several measures of bilateral investment exposures generated using 
methodologies that differ from the residency-based approach that 
underlies most official statistics. For example, we report a set of 
bilateral investment exposures that reflects a nationality-based 
approach as well as a set that reflects the geographic distribution of 
firms' sales. Depending on the question at hand, standard measures or 
our alternative measures may be more appropriate to use for analyses. 
In many cases, analysis can benefit from simultaneously considering 
multiple available measures.

    Question. Do you intend at Treasury, if confirmed to the position 
to which you have been nominated, to work to alter any of the measures 
that have been used to date by academics and policymakers with respect 
to understanding how capital is allocated globally; and, if so, what 
alternative measures will you be advocating?

    Answer. I think economic data and statistics, including those 
covering how capital is allocated globally, are valuable public goods. 
These data improve our understanding of the economy and serve as inputs 
into the design or evaluation of policy decisions. My understanding is 
that entities that collect or compile these statistics, including 
groups at Treasury, are continuously thinking of ways to expand and 
improve upon the usefulness of their economic data, and if confirmed, I 
would support such efforts.
                    economic responses to recessions
    Question. In a March 2020 paper for the IGM Forum, you and several 
coauthors discussed policy responses to the ``COVID-19 Crisis.'' To aid 
economic recovery from shutdowns, one recommendation was that ``. . . 
firms might be incentivized to hire aggressively by using a payroll tax 
cut.'' In March of 2020, the unemployment rate (U-3) was 4.4 percent, 
with a prospect of significant future increases.

    In the event that there is a future severe economic shock likely to 
lead to significant unemployment rate increases, do you still consider 
a payroll tax cut to be a worthwhile policy to consider in response? If 
not, what has changed your thinking relative to your March 2020 paper?

    Answer. A payroll tax cut can stimulate the economy by encouraging 
consumption and increasing employment. If there were a future severe 
economic shock, the advisability of employing this form of economic 
stimulus relative to others would depend on multiple factors, including 
the nature and source of the shock, the anticipated duration of the 
shock, and the way in which the shock affected different households or 
industries. The choice of the optimal form of stimulus would also need 
to take into account other policies in effect at the time.
                  negotiations in international forums
    Question. The position to which you have been nominated, as your 
testimony reveals, ``. . . plays a key role in directing Treasury's 
engagement with other countries, bilaterally and through multilateral 
institutions including the G7, G20, and the IMF.'' Engagement 
internationally under the Biden administration related to Treasury's 
functions has been largely unilateral, with, at best, minimal 
substantive information being shared with Republican members of this 
committee. On international taxes, for example, Republican input has 
not been adequately incorporated into the administration's unilateral 
negotiations. Briefings with staff from Treasury have been void of 
substantive quantitative analyses that must have been performed before 
proclamations have been issued about some sort of international 
``agreement'' on global taxation, including ceding of U.S. rights to 
tax U.S. tax bases. These are important policy decisions that will 
influence constituencies of members from both sides of the aisle, and 
cannot be made unilaterally by one political party.

    Please identify steps that you would take, if confirmed, to ensure 
that the Treasury Department, in international engagements, represents 
member of Congress from both sides of the aisle.

    Answer. I understand that Treasury staff and leaders communicate 
regularly with members of Congress and their staffs from both sides of 
the aisle about key policy priorities, and if confirmed, I will 
continue to do so to ensure that we understand and take into account 
the range of views across the U.S. Government.
                               debt limit
    Question. The debt limit represents a statutory limitation on the 
value of debt subject to the limit. Increasing the debt limit serves to 
facilitate fresh borrowing in order to fund past obligations made by 
Congress and signed into law by the President. Increasing the debt 
limit or suspending the debt limit for a fixed future period also 
facilitates increased borrowing to facilitate funding of new 
obligations made by Congress and signed into law by the President 
between the date at which the debt-limit increase (or suspension) was 
made and the date at which the new, higher, debt limit binds (under a 
suspension, there will be a new, higher limit at the date on which the 
limit is reinstated). The debt limit, and any changes in probabilities 
of it being breached, can have domestic and international financial and 
economic effects, and the position to which you have been nominated 
would confront such effects.

    A debt limit increase or suspension is not exclusively limited to 
increasing debt-issuance authorization that would only facilitate fresh 
borrowing to pay obligations that have been made prior to the date of 
the increase or suspension. Do you agree? If not, fully explain why 
not.

    Answer. Increasing the debt limit does not authorize any new 
spending. It simply allows the government to finance legal obligations 
made by Congresses and Presidents of both parties.
                        legislative information
    Question. If confirmed, do you commit to full transparency 
regarding any proposal put forward by the administration regarding 
Federal debt management, and to ensure that public pronouncements of 
facts can be judged with reference to written details of the proposals 
that are available to all?

    Answer. Federal debt management would not generally be part of my 
responsibilities in the position for which I have been nominated. 
However, if confirmed, I commit to working with this committee to 
enable and facilitate the sharing of information. I respect the 
committee's need for information and look forward to working with the 
committee.
                               inflation
    Question. As I mentioned in the hearing, the Biden administration 
is planning a massive increase in taxes and spending, to be 
accomplished unilaterally by one political party through 
reconciliation. While the size, and indeed contents, of this fiscal 
agenda are still unclear, I am concerned about the possibility that 
they will exacerbate inflation trends, which even former Treasury 
Secretary Larry Summers has described as ``disturbing.''

    In September, the OECD released its Global Economic Outlook interim 
report. It noted:

        Near-term inflation risks are on the upside, particularly if 
        pent-up demand by consumers is stronger than anticipated, or if 
        supply shortages take a long time to overcome. . . . [A] 
        lasting upward move in inflation from the low rates observed 
        before the pandemic is likely to occur only if wage inflation 
        intensifies substantially, or if inflation expectations drift 
        upwards. . . . [S]izeable increases in wages are occurring in 
        some contact-
        intensive sectors that have reopened in the United States, such 
        as leisure and hospitality.

    The report also indicated that household 1-year inflation 
expectations in the United States now exceeds 5 percent.

    In his town hall last Saturday, President Biden was asked whether 
he thought current levels of inflation would last into 2022. The 
president said, ``I don't think so. I don't think it will last if--
depending on what we do. If we stay exactly where we are, yes. If we 
don't make these investments, yes.''

    How will the social spending programs and increased taxes being 
discussed in the administration's reconciliation proposals (the 
``investments'') address pent-up demand, supply shortages, wage 
inflation, and inflation expectations?

    Answer. Treasury has stated that the administration's Build Back 
Better legislation is entirely paid for due to tax increases on 
corporations and well-off individuals. As such, the legislation should 
not contribute significantly to demand pressures and will likely reduce 
deficits over the long term. The legislation includes investments in 
climate change mitigation, education, and health care that should 
increase productivity and long-run aggregate supply as well as 
investments in child care that should help boost short-run labor 
supply.

    Question. What risks do higher domestic taxes and substantial 
inflation pose to the reputation of the United States as a good 
destination for foreign investment?

    Answer. The return to investment in the United States is greater 
when all of our workers are well-educated, healthy, and resilient, and 
when our infrastructure is modern, efficient, and sustainable. The tax 
increases included in the Build Back Better legislation enable such 
investments in our workers and the overall business environment and put 
the U.S. fiscal system on a sounder footing. Further, the agreed 
changes to the international corporate tax environment will end the 
global race to the bottom. These steps will strengthen the reputation 
of the United States as a great destination for foreign investment.

    Question. By contrast, what would be the effects on supply-side 
bottlenecks, inflation, economic growth, and foreign direct investment 
in the United States resulting from investment in traditional physical 
infrastructure, such as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act 
provides for?

    Answer. Investment in physical infrastructure will also boost 
economic potential in the coming years and strengthen the incentives 
for foreign direct investment in the United States. The administration 
has recognized the importance of physical infrastructure and has made 
those a centerpiece of the American Jobs Plan.

    However, there are other essential components for boosting economic 
growth in the long run. Investments in our workforce and increases in 
labor supply from expanding access to child and elder care are also 
critically important. For example, women's labor force participation 
now trails many other advanced countries. The lack of affordable child 
care and elder care is likely an important factor driving this. 
Allowing more workers to participate in the economy can improve the 
allocation of talent, encourage innovation, and raise productivity.

    Question. Some argue, based on things like inflation-expectation 
readings drawn from yield curves, that inflation expectations are 
contained. There are at least three reasons for caution about such 
arguments. One is that the process governing changes in inflation 
expectations, or, more generally, an aggregation of beliefs about the 
future evolution of economic variables relevant for inflation 
determination, is not well understood. Second, yield-curve inferences 
may not provide reliable forecasts. Third, as the financial crisis 
showed, officials who make claims of containment (e.g., housing 
troubles prior to the full onset of the financial crisis) may find that 
the claims are not borne out by subsequent, quite devastating 
realizations.

    Given that inflation and expectations about inflation are being 
generated in an unusual, perhaps unprecedented, environment with not-
well understood ``supply chain'' breakage dynamics, should we not be 
extra prudent and avoid stoking inflationary pressures at this point 
using massive increases in fiscal outlays, as in the reconciliation 
bill being considered by one party in Congress, on the heels of already 
massive fiscal policies that have pumped trillions of dollars into 
spending, incomes, and savings?

    The U.S. is the best place in the world to do business. It is a 
prized destination for foreign investment. I want to keep it that way.

    If confirmed, I encourage you to use your position to ensure the 
U.S. remains the premier destination for international investment.

    Answer. The Build Back Better proposals are fundamentally different 
than the American Rescue Plan or earlier relief packages adopted on a 
bipartisan basis during the pandemic. First, the Build Back Better 
proposals contemplate spending gradually over the course of a decade, 
with a substantial component devoted to infrastructure spending which 
takes time to outlay. Second, these proposals are more than fully paid 
for, and are estimated to reduce deficits in the long run. Third, the 
Build Back Better agenda would meaningfully boost the productive 
capacity of the U.S. economy. Improving transportation infrastructure, 
building more affordable housing, lowering drug prices, and increasing 
labor force participation are all disinflationary. These proposals 
would help ensure that we remain an attractive destination for foreign 
investment.
                  foreign exchange value of the dollar
    Question. Do you believe in a ``strong dollar'' policy and, if so, 
can you define what that means and how the administration's policies 
advance such a policy?

    Answer. As only the Treasury Secretary should speak on matters of 
the dollar, let me repeat what Secretary Yellen has stated: the value 
of the U.S. dollar and other currencies should be determined by 
markets. Markets adjust to reflect variations in economic performance 
and generally facilitate adjustments in the global economy.

    Question. What do you believe will be the effect on the exchange-
value of the dollar of the significant increases in inflation that we 
have recently seen, and which may persist for a significant future 
period given ongoing, unresolved supply-chain frictions?

    Answer. The dollar has appreciated by roughly 3 percent over the 
course of 2021, reflecting a wide range of factors including the 
strength of our economy.

    Question. What do you believe is the policy utility of the Exchange 
Stabilization Fund in stabilizing exchange rates governing the U.S. 
dollar relative to foreign currencies, and how, if at all, would you 
use the Exchange Stabilization Fund to execute whatever are the 
administration's foreign-exchange objectives?

    Answer. Over the past 20 years, foreign exchange interventions by 
the major economies have been rare. When appropriate, Treasury has used 
the Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF) to intervene in foreign exchange 
markets in coordination with the Federal Reserve and with other major 
partners to stem excess volatility and disorderly movements in foreign 
exchange markets. The ESF continues to retain its policy utility in 
this regard.

                                 ______
                                 
               Questions Submitted by Hon. James Lankford
    Question. As we discussed during your confirmation hearing, on 
August 15, 2021, the Treasury Department froze the Afghan government's 
reserves held in the United States (mostly in the Federal Reserve Bank 
of New York), which have an estimated value of as high as $9.5 billion. 
As a result of this action, the Taliban government has not had access 
to this reserve capital of Afghanistan's central bank, Da Afghanistan 
Bank.

    Under what circumstances would the administration unfreeze the Da 
Afghanistan Bank's reserve assets in U.S. financial institutions?

    Answer. It is important to note, first, that a U.S. decision on 
this question will involve other entities, including the Federal 
Reserve and the State Department. It is too early to say at this time 
if or when a decision to unfreeze Da Afghanistan Bank's reserve assets 
will be made. If confirmed, I look forward to working with others in 
the U.S. Government, Congress, and other stakeholders to examine these 
issues in more detail.

    Question. Under what circumstances would the administration vote to 
lift current restrictions on lending to Afghanistan at the World Bank 
or International Monetary Fund?

    Answer. It is too early to say at this time. If confirmed, I look 
forward to working with others in the U.S. Government, Congress, and 
other stakeholders to examine these issues in more detail, including to 
examine options to provide humanitarian support to the Afghan people 
while preventing the flow of funds to any person or entity seeking to 
harm the United States.

    Question. A big part of your job description will be oversight over 
U.S. policy and strategy at Multilateral Development Banks and 
International Financial Institutions (IFIs) such as the International 
Monetary Fund, World Bank, and Inter-
American Development Bank.

    What is your strategy to coordinate the efforts of U.S. Executive 
Directors at the IMF, World Bank and IDB are in alignment with our 
broader foreign policy agenda across all multilateral entities?

    Answer. U.S. participation in the International Financial 
Institutions is critical to achieving our foreign policy objectives. I 
will work closely with our Executive Directors at each IFI to identify 
opportunities to advance important U.S. foreign policy interests, and I 
will coordinate their efforts to ensure that we are moving in sync 
across institutions. My understanding is that Treasury International 
Affairs oversees several processes to coordinate interagency review of 
IFI projects, programs, and major policy decisions and provide 
direction to the U.S. Executive Directors on the exercise of the U.S. 
voice and vote. If confirmed, I will fully support these robust 
processes and will maintain Treasury's ongoing dialogue with other 
institutions within the U.S. Government, including the White House and 
the State Department, to ensure that our work in the IFIs reinforces 
key U.S. policy objectives.

    Question. The influence of China at International Financial 
Institutions and other multilateral organizations is well-documented 
and a top concern of this committee. It recently came to light that the 
IMF had elevated China's ranking on the Doing Business report, which is 
the IMF's annual index that measures the business environment in 190 
countries and ranks them based on how friendly their investment and 
regulatory climate.

    What is your strategy to elevating American leadership in the 
entities within your portfolio? Specifically, how do you plan to 
leverage US influence and counter China's malign influence at 
international financial institutions, which is counter to the interests 
of the U.S. and our allies?

    Answer. It is critical that we ensure the integrity of the 
international financial institutions and the credibility of their 
analysis and reports. If confirmed, I will work with other key 
countries represented in these institutions to push for improved 
governance processes and protections for whistleblowers. I will also 
work to ensure fair and equal treatment for all members of these 
institutions, and that all members, including China, fulfill the 
obligations, appropriate roles, and responsibilities of membership in 
these institutions.

    Question. China is still considered a ``developing country'' at the 
World Bank, despite exceeding the Bank's own graduation threshold since 
2016. In December 2019, the Board of Governors approved the Country 
Partnership Framework with China, which continues loans to China for an 
additional 5 years. China's continued receipt of this development 
financing from the World Bank frees up other capital it raises through 
taxation and other means to support its predatory Belt and Road 
Initiative.

    Will you work to ensure that countries who have exceeded the 
graduation threshold (currently measured at a country's gross national 
per capita income level of $6,795) such as China do not receive World 
Bank financing?

    Answer. I believe the PRC meets the International Bank for 
Reconstruction and Development's criteria for graduation, given its 
high per capita income, institutional capacity, and ample access to 
other sources of finance. If confirmed, I will press for the PRC's 
graduation, and will seek to advance this position by working with the 
U.S. Executive Director, World Bank Management, Secretary Yellen and 
Treasury colleagues, Congress, and other U.S. agencies, as well as 
like-minded partners. I understand that as part of the reform 
commitments accompanying its 2018 capital increase, the World Bank 
committed to decrease the share of lending going to countries with per 
capita income above the graduation threshold, more fulsomely identify 
the constraints to graduation for countries with per capital incomes 
above the graduation threshold, and better target lending in those 
countries on addressing the constraints identified. If confirmed, I 
will encourage the World Bank to adhere to those commitments, in 
coordination with the U.S. Executive Director and Treasury colleagues.

    Question. While well-intentioned, I am concerned that an SDR 
issuance would be counterproductive to two paramount U.S. objectives: 
stabilizing the economy and countering Chinese influence. Since many 
developing countries already have high levels of indebtedness to China, 
this liquidity boost could simply enable them to pay back Beijing what 
they already owe.

    Prior to supporting additional SDRs, what steps will you take to 
ensure that borrowing countries will not use some or all of the funds 
from their SDR issuance to pay back Belt and Road Initiative loans to 
China?

    How will you ensure that borrowing countries are forthcoming and 
transparent about their respective debt exposures to the PRC and other 
predatory lenders?

    Answer. As SDRs are an international reserve asset, any support for 
a new SDR allocation would be based on an assessed deficit in global 
reserves, something I do not currently expect based on the global 
economic outlook. SDRs, as an international reserve asset, are an 
unconditional source of liquidity, so neither the United States nor the 
IMF can directly control their use by other countries. However, I will 
continue to press the importance of IMF support and consultation with 
countries considering the use of their SDRs and oppose their use to 
support new unsustainable or irresponsibly contracted sovereign debt 
obligations, including to China. I will also press the IMF and World 
Bank to improve public debt transparency practices and debt data 
disclosure from borrowing countries.

    Question. Do you believe the United States should oppose loans to 
Iran and other state sponsors of terrorism at the IMF and World Bank?

    Answer. Yes; consistent with U.S. law, the United States should 
oppose any IFI loans to Iran or other state sponsors of terrorism.

    Question. China has increased investments in Latin America as part 
of its Belt and Road Initiative in an attempt to strengthen its 
relationships in the Americas and peel away U.S. partners.

    What is your strategy to utilize U.S. influence and leadership at 
the Inter-
American Development Bank to provide an alternative to China's 
predatory lending to our friends in Latin America?

    Answer. It is important that the United States restores and 
strengthens our partnerships in the region and keeps countries from 
engaging in irresponsible, opaque, or unsustainable borrowing, 
including when borrowing from the PRC. To do this, we must reassert 
American leadership in the IFIs, including the IDB Group, and reaffirm 
the U.S. commitment to multilateralism, which is a priority for the 
Biden-Harris administration.

    Through the IFIs and with our allies, we must promote high-quality, 
private-
sector-led, inclusive, and sustainable growth and development policies, 
with particular focus on democratic governance and respect for human 
rights, anti-
corruption and transparency, sound macroeconomic and financial 
management, and debt management capacity and transparency. We must 
aggressively contrast these features with poor outcomes experienced in 
the region, such as the case of Venezuela's engagement with China, 
which include low quality infrastructures and unsustainable debt 
burdens.

    If confirmed, I look forward to working with Secretary Yellen, our 
U.S. Executive Directors, and Congress, as well as like-minded partners 
from other countries, to achieve these goals.

    Question. Over the last few months, my Democratic colleagues have 
proposed trillions in tax increases. I am concerned that such tax 
increases will discourage growth and investment, and will put U.S. 
companies and their workforces at a competitive disadvantage.

    Do you believe that a competitive tax code and a reasonable 
regulatory environment are necessary for attracting foreign investment 
to the United States?

    Answer. The investment climate surely benefits from a sound tax and 
regulatory environment, and the return to investment in the U.S. also 
increases when all of our workers are well-educated, healthy, and 
resilient and when our infrastructure is modern, efficient, and 
sustainable. The tax increases included in the Build Back Better 
legislation enable such investments in our workers and the overall 
business environment and put the U.S. fiscal system on a sounder 
footing. Further, the agreed changes to the international corporate tax 
environment will end the global race to the bottom. These steps will 
strengthen the reputation of the U.S. as a great destination for 
foreign investment.

    Question. How can we ensure that the U.S. remains a prime 
destination for domestic and foreign sourced investment?

    Answer. It is important that we make adequate investments that lead 
to sustained productivity growth, including repairing roads and 
bridges, expanding broadband access, investing in the education and 
training of U.S. workers, from early childhood through higher 
education, and taking serious actions that respond to the reality of 
climate change. These sorts of public investments require tax revenue, 
and the United States raises much less tax revenue as a share of GDP 
than do most peer nations. Improved infrastructure and well-trained 
workers are complements to private capital and will help keep the U.S. 
a prime destination for domestic and foreign sourced investment.

    Question. In response to questions from Senator Crapo last week, 
you said that, ``When thinking about the destination of the United 
States for investment, the same things presumably that make it a better 
destination for foreign investment, make it a better place to do 
domestic investment.'' You continued to state that, ``As you raise 
taxes, the question is, are you raising them in a way that contributes 
to the productivity of the workforce, that makes the country's 
infrastructure better, that invites investment, whether it's domestic-
sourced or foreign-sourced?''

    According to the Tax Foundation's preliminary estimates, the 
legislation marked up by the House Ways and Means Committee in 
September would have eliminated hundreds of thousands of full-time 
equivalent jobs and moved the U.S. to 28th place on the International 
Tax Competitiveness Index. Further, according to the Joint Committee on 
Taxation, Americans at every income level would have seen tax increases 
under that legislation.

    Now, under the recently released Build Back Better framework, the 
Tax Foundation estimates that the recently released legislation would 
reduce long-run economic output by nearly 0.4 percent, eliminate 
roughly 103,000 full time jobs, and reduce average after-tax incomes 
for many Americans in the long run.

    Given that data, are you concerned that these proposals could 
threaten the U.S.'s reputation as a prime destination for investment, 
whether foreign or domestic?

    Answer. Other organizations have much more positive assessments of 
the growth potential of these sorts of public investments. For 
instance, a new analysis by Moody's Analytics projected that if the 
bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Build Back 
Better Act are enacted, total GDP will increase by nearly $3 trillion 
relative to the baseline over the next decade. Moody's Analytics 
estimates that the two historic bills will also raise annual employment 
over the next decade by an average of 1.5 million jobs. An earlier 
International Monetary Fund analysis of the American Rescue Plan, the 
American Jobs Plan, and the American Families Plan--the infrastructure 
deal and reconciliation bill are based on the latter two--found that 
the plans would boost the level of GDP by 1 percent in 2030.

    Question. Are you concerned that these proposals, contrary to your 
statement, would diminish productivity of our workforce and discourage 
investment--throwing off the balance that you said is necessary?

    Answer. Given the considerations in my prior answers, I believe 
these proposals will help U.S. workers and improve the environment for 
U.S. investment.

    Question. Congress has expressed concern in the past about the 
relatively short term lengths (2 years) of the Executive Directors and 
Alternative Executive Directors at International Financial Institutions 
compared to Ambassadorships and other comparable political 
appointments, and whether this short length of service impedes U.S. 
influence in multilateral forums compared to our competitors. The FY 
2021 appropriations bill directs Treasury to submit a report containing 
a review of amending the term length for the United States Executive 
Director and the United States Alternate Executive Director of the 
World Bank by June 25, 2021, but the Department has yet to do so.

    If confirmed, will you commit to (A) thoroughly examining all 
options on this matter and (B) ensuring this report is delivered to 
Congress?

    Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I look forward to learning more about 
this issue and consulting further with you and your staff.

                                 ______
                                 
                 Questions Submitted by Hon. Todd Young
    Question. Secretary Yellen has been negotiating the OECD ``Pillar 
One'' agreement. She has suggested that Pillar One can be implemented 
without a treaty--and thus without the approval of two-thirds of the 
Senate.

    Does Pillar One implementation in the United States require Senate 
ratification of a treaty, yes or no? Please explain your answer in 
detail.

    Answer. I understand that Pillar One is subject to ongoing 
international discussion, and what is needed to implement Pillar One 
will depend on the details of those discussions. If confirmed, I hope 
to work with Congress and my colleagues at Treasury and the State 
Department to determine the appropriate approach to implementing an 
agreement.

    Question. The United States has been working with G20 countries to 
provide debt relief to developing countries in the wake of the COVID-19 
pandemic. This cooperation is taking place under the Common Framework 
agreement reached in November 2020 among G20 members. However, China, 
the world's largest sovereign lender, is not complying with its 
commitments under the Common Framework. Its existing loans are not 
transparent and are riddled with loopholes and requirements designed to 
trap developing countries. One recent report suggests that developing 
countries now owe over $385 billion in hidden debts to China.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.aiddata.org/publications/banking-on-the-belt-and-
road.

    Should anything more be done to ensure China complies with its 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
commitments under the Common Framework agreement?

    Answer. I have heard concerns that China is not complying with its 
commitments. I am also concerned about China's participation in the 
Common Framework. If confirmed, I will work within Treasury as well as 
with our partners in the G7 and G20 and the IMF and World Bank to 
address these issues.

    Question. What are the consequences of China not participating 
fully in the Common Framework and other debt relief efforts?

    Answer. Without China's full and transparent participation in the 
Common Framework, countries will not be able to receive timely and 
effective debt treatments to restore debt sustainability. This will 
compound the current difficulties that low-income countries are facing, 
including rising poverty levels, increasing inequality and a lack of 
fiscal space.

    Question. What are the risks of China squeezing its debtor 
countries?

    Answer. My understanding is that China has resorted to various 
strategies and methods to exert pressure on debtor countries, such as 
the insertion of non-
disclosure and collateral arrangements to maximize Chinese repayment 
prospects. If I am confirmed, I will work with allies and partners to 
hold China accountable for practices that could be harmful to debtor 
countries.

    Question. What can be done to pressure China to increase 
transparency on its overseas lending activities?

    Answer. If I am confirmed, I will work to push for greater debt 
sustainability and transparency in various international forums, 
particularly at the IMF and the World Bank.

    Question. The World Bank, IMF, and other development banks have 
provided hundreds of billions in emergency support in response to the 
COVID-19 pandemic. Yet most of this has been in the form of loans, 
which may create debt sustainability risks as interest rates rise. And, 
of course, multilateral development bank (MDB) funding pales in 
comparison to the amounts these same countries owe China under obscure 
and non-transparent terms.

    How can we ensure that multilateral bank lending is sustainable and 
does not overly burden developing countries with additional debt they 
cannot pay off?

    Answer. The MDBs calibrate the terms and assistance envelope 
available to countries based on assessments of per capita income, 
creditworthiness, and debt sustainability, with poorer, less 
creditworthy countries receiving concessional assistance and the 
poorest countries with the highest risk of debt distress receiving 
grants or highly concessional loans. The World Bank regularly produces 
debt sustainability analyses jointly with the IMF for low-income 
countries to assess the risk of debt distress. The MDBs also play an 
important role in collecting and reporting on debt data from developing 
countries, promoting debt transparency, and providing financial and 
technical assistance to build debt management capacity in developing 
countries.

    Question. What steps can the United States take to ensure that the 
World Bank or other multilateral development bank assistance is not 
used to simply pay off Chinese loans?

    Answer. The World Bank and other MDBs can play an important role in 
collecting and reporting on debt data from developing countries, 
promoting debt transparency, and providing financial and technical 
assistance to build debt management capacity in developing countries. I 
understand that the International Development Association (IDA) has a 
Sustainable Development Finance Policy (and other MDB concessional 
windows have adopted or are in the process of adopting such a policy) 
that incentivizes IDA-eligible countries to undertake reforms related 
to debt management capacity and transparency on an annual basis and in 
some cases limits non-concessional borrowing. If confirmed, I will 
advocate for continued focus on this work and strong support for 
implementing the G20 Common Framework. Similarly, I will work with the 
U.S. Executive Directors to promote strong internal controls, auditing, 
and evaluation of MDB projects to help monitor that MDB assistance is 
going towards its intended purposes and delivering strong development 
results.

    Question. If confirmed, what would be your approach to engaging 
with China on global debt transparency standards?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will work with allies and partners, as well 
as with Chinese counterparts, bilaterally and in multilateral 
institutions, to pressure China to improve debt transparency in line 
with international standards and practices, including the G20 
Operational Guidelines for Sustainable Financing.

    Question. On October 16, 2021, when asked by CNN's Jake Tapper 
whether it sounded tone deaf to suggest that rising prices and empty 
grocery store shelves are ``high-class problems,'' White House Press 
Secretary Jen Psaki responded, ``A year ago, people were in their 
homes, 10 percent of people were unemployed, gas prices were low 
because nobody was driving, people weren't buying goods because they 
didn't have jobs. Now more people have jobs, more people are buying 
goods, that's increasing the demand. That's a good thing. At the same 
time, we also know that the supply is low because we're coming out of 
the pandemic. And because a bunch of manufacturing sectors across the 
world have shut down because ports haven't been functioning as they 
should be. These are all things we're working through. What people 
should know is that inflation will come down next year. Economists have 
said that. They're all projecting that.''\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/10/15/jen-psaki-ron-
klain-inflation-retweet-tapper-lead-vpx.cnn.

    Based on your considerable experience and expertise as an 
economist, do you agree with the White House's explanation for the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
inflationary environment America is currently facing? Why or why not?

    Answer. I agree that the pandemic has greatly shifted consumption 
patterns and disrupted production in a way that has put upward pressure 
on prices. First, since the start of the pandemic, U.S. households have 
shifted their consumption away from services and towards goods; demand 
for goods is still about 10 percent above pre-pandemic trend. This 
positive demand shock for goods has resulted in pricing pressures and 
put stress on international shipping and distribution networks since 
goods are generally more tradable than are services. Second, COVID-19 
outbreaks have shut down some factories and ports in different 
countries and at different times. This negative supply shock has 
further added to pricing pressures. Finally, rising commodity prices 
have been contributing to headline inflation.

    As more people are vaccinated and treatments are rolled out in the 
U.S. and around the world, the impact of COVID-19 will hopefully 
decrease, and this should alleviate both these demand and supply 
factors. With a global recovery from COVID-19, the composition of 
demand should shift back towards services and the cessation of 
shutdowns and return of workers should abate shipping delays and supply 
shortages. This logic forms the basis for the view that recent measures 
of elevated inflation will prove temporary. Consistent with this view, 
monthly core PCE inflation rates have come down sequentially from their 
peak in April through to September.

    Question. As described above, the White House stated that ``all'' 
economists are predicting a return to normal levels of inflation in 
2022. Specifically, when you do you predict inflation will return to 
normal levels? Please describe in detail the assumptions you made in 
developing your response to this question.

    Answer. My research as an academic economist has not focused on 
inflation forecasting. Instead, my recent work has emphasized models of 
international investment, international trade, exchange rate dynamics, 
international use of the U.S. dollar, and the differential implications 
of work-from-home across rich and developing countries. That said, as 
noted in my previous answer, my best assessment is that the COVID-19-
induced shift in demand toward goods and shutdowns of some production 
has caused inflationary pressures. As such, my view is that as the 
world recovers from COVID-19, core inflationary pressures will 
normalize. A quantitative forecast of inflation would also incorporate 
one's view of the monetary policy reaction function, i.e., how the 
Federal Reserve will respond to future economic conditions, and the 
dynamics of inflation expectations.

    A new analysis by Moody's Analytics shows inflation reverting back 
to normal levels in late 2022/early 2023, similar to the timing in 
forecasts from the IMF's World Economic Outlook and the most recently 
released median forecast provided by the Federal Reserve.

                                 ______
                                 
                 Questions Submitted by Hon. Ben Sasse
    Question. If confirmed, will you commit to blocking any assistance 
or financing by the World Bank, IMF, or Asian Development Bank for 
Afghanistan, since its government is now controlled by the Taliban, 
except for humanitarian assistance provided through the UN or other 
international organizations?

    Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to working with others in the 
U.S. Government, Congress, and other stakeholders to examine these 
issues in more detail, including options to provide humanitarian 
support to the Afghan people while preventing the flow of funds to any 
person or entity seeking to harm the United States.

    Question. How does the Biden administration plan to work with the 
World Bank and IMF to address the challenges posed by the Belt and Road 
Initiative on a global scale? In your view, are there situations in 
which the World Bank or IMF should work with Chinese Government-backed 
projects that are part of the Belt and Road Initiative? If so, under 
what criteria? Do you believe that the World Bank and IMF should 
coordinate with the Chinese Government on assistance to third 
countries? If so, under what criteria? What are the prospects for 
closer cooperation between the World Bank and IMF and like-minded 
infrastructure development finance initiatives, such as the Blue Dot 
Network?

    Answer. Countering PRC influence around the world, including 
through their Belt and Road Initiative, depends on reasserting American 
leadership in the IFIs and reaffirming U.S. commitment to 
multilateralism and working with allies, which is a priority for the 
Biden-Harris administration. If confirmed, I look forward to working 
with Secretary Yellen, our U.S. Executive Directors, and Congress, as 
well as like-minded partners from other countries, to use the U.S. 
voice and vote to underscore this message; reinforce the importance of 
the IFIs' commitment to high standards, transparency, and integrity; 
promote increased mobilization of domestic and private sector 
resources; and deliver financing and policy advice to other countries 
that contribute to increased transparency, sound governance and 
policies, and increased capacity to counter malign influence.

    I do not believe that the International Financial Institutions 
should seek to advance the bilateral foreign policy initiative of any 
single shareholder.

    The International Financial Institutions should seek to coordinate 
with China on creditor transparency to understand and report on China's 
lending to developing countries, including the amounts and terms 
(including collateral) and the purpose of such lending so as to reduce 
risks to debt sustainability, facilitate debt relief where necessary, 
and avoid duplication of financing to developing countries.

    The IFIs can be an important complement to multilateral initiatives 
focused on high-quality, private-sector-led infrastructure development, 
given their own adherence to high social, environmental, and fiduciary 
standards; emphasis on fostering good governance, transparency, and 
private-sector development; policy advice and financing supporting 
infrastructure development and investment in climate reform; and the 
strong leadership role of the United States and our allies in these 
institutions.

    Question. Current IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva has 
been credibly accused of manipulating data to inflate China's standing 
in the World Bank's 2018 Doing Business survey when she worked at the 
World Bank. What steps has the Biden administration taken to ensure 
that the World Bank maintains a transparent and accountable system for 
awarding contracts to any Chinese Government-backed state-owned 
enterprises or private Chinese companies?

    Answer. It is critical that the IFIs take steps to ensure their 
integrity and that we promote strong accountability and transparency. 
The Biden-Harris administration is strongly committed to good 
governance and anti-corruption, including in the governance and 
management of the International Financial Institutions and through 
their assistance.

    If confirmed, I look forward to understanding steps the U.S. 
Government has taken within the World Bank regarding procurement 
transparency. If confirmed, I will work with the U.S. Executive 
Director, other U.S. Government officials, and like-minded partners to 
advocate for implementation of a procurement framework focused on 
value-for-money over the full lifecycle of a project, rather than 
awards to the lowest bidder, and greater scrutiny on abnormally low 
bids; added attention to building contracting capacity and transparency 
in public financial management in World Bank recipient countries; and 
enhanced reporting on contract awards for World Bank-funded projects.

    I understand that the U.S. Government has tasked agencies to put 
this into action, and if confirmed, I commit to work with all parts of 
the U.S. Government and the U.S. Executive Directors to do our part to 
seek to keep forced labor out of MDB-funded projects and to apply 
rigorous safeguards and standards to prevent human trafficking and 
forced labor.

                                 ______
                                 
               Questions Submitted by Hon. John Barrasso
    Question. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) with the approval 
of the Biden administration issued $650 billion in special drawing 
rights (SDRs)--the largest in history. Instead of helping the most 
vulnerable nations struggling with the economic impacts of the 
coronavirus, the funds also went to wealthy nations and rogue regimes. 
It appears the majority of the allocations ended up going to those 
countries that need it the least. Media reports indicate that high-
income countries received $400 billion of the pot, while low-income 
countries only received about $21 billion.

    What was the amount of special drawing rights issued to the United 
States and what is the current plan for those resource?

    Answer. As outlined in the IMF's Articles of Agreement, a general 
allocation of SDRs is distributed to all members according to their 
participation, via quota share, in the IMF. Accordingly, the United 
States, with our 17.43 percent quota share, received 17.43 percent of 
the $650-billion SDR allocation, or about 79.5 billion SDRs. The United 
States is currently working with the IMF and other major economies to 
develop mechanisms to channel a portion of these SDRS to vulnerable 
countries through IMF-administered trust funds, and the Biden 
administration's FY 2022 budget includes a request for authorization to 
lend up to 15 billion of our SDRs for that purpose.

    Question. Please provided the amount of funds received by the each 
of the following countries as part of the special drawing rights: 
China, Russia, Syria, and Iran.

    Answer. As noted above, the IMF is required to distribute SDRs to 
all of its members on the basis of their quota share in the IMF. 
Accordingly, China, Russia, Syria, and Iran received about 29.2 billion 
SDRs, 12.4 billion SDRs, 281 million SDRs, and 3.4 billion SDRs, 
respectively. China, which already has ample international reserves, 
has supported efforts to channel SDRs to vulnerable countries. SDRs are 
not a currency and have limited uses on their own. For a country to use 
its allocation for fiscal support it must exchange SDRs for a usable 
currency. The United States retains the right to refuse to voluntary 
exchange SDRs for dollars with any country.

    Question. In June, the G7 urged the International Monetary Fund 
(IMF) to come up with a variety of proposals to channel special drawing 
rights. The IMF now is looking at ways to reallocate reserves from 
higher income countries to developing nations.

    What are the current mechanisms and proposals being considered to 
channel special drawing rights?

    Answer. The administration has worked closely with the IMF and 
other major economies to develop mechanisms to allow donor countries to 
voluntarily channel some of their SDRs to countries in need. One option 
that already exists for SDR channeling is the IMF's Poverty Reduction 
and Growth Trust, which provides low-cost (currently zero-interest 
rate) loans to low-income countries in the context of an IMF-agreed 
program of structural reforms. Since the start of the pandemic, IMF 
members have already provided over 17 billion SDRs in new loans to the 
PRGT to support increased IMF lending to the poorest countries and have 
pledged an additional 5.3 billion SDRs. The IMF and major countries are 
also working to develop a new facility, the Resilience and 
Sustainability Trust, or RST. The RST will be financed by channeled 
SDRs and will provide longer-term financing to countries to build 
climate and pandemic resilience. President Biden joined other leaders 
of the G20 recently in a declaration calling for channeling up to $100 
billion in SDRs to vulnerable countries.

    Question. What protections are in place to ensure that those 
resources a country wants to reallocate to low-income countries does 
not go to countries like China, Syria, and Iran?

    Answer. China has ample international reserves and has no 
foreseeable need for IMF assistance. IMF lending programs require that 
countries agree to a program of reforms to address unsustainable 
policies and structural issues. The regimes in Syria and Iran would be 
unlikely to agree to this conditionality. Moreover, before agreeing to 
disburse funds the IMF conducts an assessment of the borrowing member's 
safeguards to prevent loss or misuse of IMF-provided funds. Given the 
substantial concerns regarding the integrity of key economic 
institutions in Syria and Iran, it is unlikely they would pass these 
assessments.

    Question. In your view, what enhanced transparency and 
accountability measures should be attached to any reallocation effort?

    Answer. The IMF's proposed RST, which would be financed through 
channeled SDRs, will require that borrowing countries have a concurrent 
standard IMF program that includes an agreed macroeconomic framework 
and appropriate policies. Doing so will help ensure that IMF resources 
are used effectively and provide a strong basis for future repayment. 
Since the RST will likely focus on lending to enable countries to build 
resilience to climate and pandemic impacts, the IMF will cooperate 
closely with the World Bank to establish a robust set of policy 
measures focused on these outcomes that will accompany the provision of 
financing.

    Question. The World Bank stopped funding for projects and halted 
operations in Afghanistan after the Taliban took control of the 
country. The International Monetary Fund also suspended payments and 
access to lending to Afghanistan around the same time. The Biden 
administration has also frozen assets of the Afghan central bank that 
are held in the United States.

    Under what conditions, if any, would you recommend the United 
States support the resumption of International Monetary Fund lending 
and World Bank aid to Afghanistan under the control of the Taliban?

    Answer. It is too early to say at this time. If confirmed, I look 
forward to working with others in the U.S. Government, Congress, and 
other stakeholders to examine these issues in more detail, including to 
examine options to provide humanitarian support to the Afghan people 
while preventing the flow of funds to any person or entity seeking to 
harm the United States.

    Question. Under what circumstances, would you recommend allowing 
the Taliban to access assets belonging to the Afghan central bank held 
in U.S. banks?

    Answer. It is too early to say at this time. If confirmed, I look 
forward to working with others in the U.S. Government, Congress, and 
other stakeholders to examine these issues in more detail.

                                 ______
                                 
  Prepared Statement of Maria L. Pagan, Nominated to be Deputy United 
     States Trade Representative, Geneva Office, With the Rank of 
             Ambassador, Executive Office of the President
    Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Crapo, members of the committee, 
good morning. It is an honor to be before you today as the nominee for 
the position of Deputy U.S. Trade Representative in Geneva. I am 
grateful to President Biden for this nomination, and to Ambassador Tai 
for her support.

    I am also grateful to my family--my parents, my two brothers and 
their wives, and my son--for their support, love, and inspiration. My 
parents are doctors and have dedicated their professional lives to 
advancing public health in Puerto Rico. I learned from them the value 
of public service, of taking pride in what you do, and that there is 
nothing you can't achieve if you just give it a try. They couldn't be 
here with me, but I am sure they are watching from home. My son 
couldn't be here either, as he is a first-year law student on the west 
coast, but his support is enormously important to me.

    I come before you today having spent nearly 30 years as a civil 
servant, first at the Department of Commerce, and for the last 18 
years, at the U.S. Trade Representative's office, representing our 
country in trade negotiations and litigation. After almost 20 years at 
USTR, I know well the challenges we face domestically and abroad, and I 
look forward to drawing on this experience to represent USTR at the 
World Trade Organization, if confirmed.

    I want to underscore Ambassador Tai's recent speech where she 
reaffirmed the United States' commitment to the WTO. However, there is 
a growing recognition that after 25 years, the institution needs to be 
reformed in order to be effective and relevant for the next 25 years. 
If confirmed, it would be an honor to represent the United States in 
Geneva at this critical juncture for the institution.

    In her remarks in Geneva, Ambassador Tai emphasized the Biden-
Harris administration's belief that trade--and the WTO--can be a force 
for good, and she laid out her vision to help the organization reorient 
its mission to better serve and advance the interests of regular 
people. For example, taking steps to address the COVID-19 pandemic 
would be a good start. It also means finding a way to incorporate the 
interests and priorities of workers into the WTO's work. Additionally, 
Ambassador Tai spoke about the need to reform the dispute settlement 
process to help empower members to secure resolutions and provide 
confidence that the system is fair. These challenges are central to the 
WTO's ability to operate as it was envisioned at its founding.

    I know this won't be easy, and any successful reform requires a 
willingness to work cooperatively with other members. As Deputy General 
Counsel at USTR, my job is to get things done, and I will bring that 
can-do approach and attitude to Geneva. We need to be creative; not 
just focus on the areas where we disagree, but find the areas where we 
can agree. That also means listening to each other, not just talking at 
one another. And it means listening to voices outside of Geneva and 
Washington, DC so we are broadening the perspectives that can be 
incorporated into our agenda.

    That includes working with this committee and members of Congress. 
Action--or inaction--at the WTO directly affects communities, workers, 
farmers, and small businesses in your States. If confirmed, I commit to 
maintain open lines of communication with all of you and represent the 
interests of your constituents in Geneva.

    We are living in challenging times defined by rapid technological 
innovation, a pandemic, and climate change. Trade has an important role 
to play in all those areas. If confirmed, I look forward to 
representing the United States at the WTO to address these challenges 
and make sure it's a force for good.

    As a longtime member of the USTR family, I know I will be able to 
count on a fantastic career staff to support our efforts in Geneva. 
USTR staff is known for its excellence and hard work, but also for 
creativity and can-do attitude. It is reassuring to know they will be 
there to support me.

    Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you this 
morning, and to President Biden and Ambassador Tai for their support. I 
look forward to answering your questions.

                                 ______
                                 

                        SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE

                  STATEMENT OF INFORMATION REQUESTED 
                               OF NOMINEE

                      A. BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION

 1.  Name (include any former names used): Maria L. Pagan.

 2.  Position to which nominated: Deputy United States Trade 
Representative, Geneva Office.

 3.  Date of nomination: August 10, 2021.

 4.  Address (list current residence, office, and mailing addresses):

 5.  Date and place of birth: February 10, 1963; San Juan, Puerto Rico.

 6.  Marital status (include maiden name of wife or husband's name):

 7.  Names and ages of children:

 8.  Education (list all secondary and higher education institutions, 
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted):

        Name: Cupeyville School.
        Dates attended: August 1977 to May 1981.
        Degree received: High school diploma.
        Date degree granted: May 1981.

        Name: Tufts University.
        Dates attended: August 1981 to May 1985.
        Degree received: B.A. in political science.
        Date degree granted: May 1985.

        Name: Georgetown University Law Center/School of Foreign 
        Service.
        Dates attended: August 1987 to May 1991.
        Degrees received: J.D./Master of Science in Foreign Service 
        (MSFS).
        Date degrees granted: May 1991.

 9.  Employment record (list all jobs held since college, including the 
title or description of job, name of employer, location of work, and 
dates of employment for each job):

        Covington and Burling, LLP, Washington, DC, August 1985 to June 
        1987, paralegal.

        Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of General 
        Counsel, Washington, DC, June 1988 to August 1988, law clerk.

        State Department, Inter-American Affairs Bureau, Office of 
        Press and Public Affairs, Washington DC, June 1989 to August 
        1989, summer intern.

        Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, Washington, DC, September 
        1989 to April 1990, law clerk.

        Collier, Shannon, and Scott, Washington, DC, June 1990 to 
        August 1990, summer associate.

        Rick Swartz and Associates, Inc., Washington, DC, October 1991 
        to July 1993, policy advocate.

        Department of Commerce, Office of Chief Counsel for 
        International Commerce, Washington, DC, November 1993 to 
        October 2003, Senior Counsel.

        Office of the United States Trade Representative, Office of the 
        General Counsel, Washington, DC, October 2003 to present, 
        Deputy General Counsel.

10.  Government experience (list any current and former advisory, 
consultative, honorary, or other part-time service or positions with 
Federal, State, or local governments held since college, including 
dates, other than those listed above):

        None.

11.  Business relationships (list all current and former positions held 
as an officer, director, trustee, partner (e.g.. limited partner, non-
voting, etc.), proprietor, agent, representative, or consultant of any 
corporation, company, firm, partnership, other business enterprise, or 
educational or other institution):

        Department of Commerce Day Care Center: Was a member of the 
        parent board of the DOC Day Care Center while my son was there. 
        Dates would have been around 1997 through 2001.

12.  Memberships (list all current and former memberships, as well as 
any current and former offices held in professional, fraternal, 
scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and other organizations dating 
back to college, including dates for these memberships and offices):

        Member of the Maryland Bar Association since December 1991.

13.  Political affiliations and activities:

        a.  List all public offices for which you have been a candidate 
        dating back to the age of 18.

       None.

        b.  List all memberships and offices held in and services 
        rendered to all political parties or election committees, 
        currently and during the last 10 years prior to the date of 
        your nomination.

       None.
        c.  Itemize all political contributions to any individual, 
        campaign organization, political party, political action 
        committee, or similar entity of $50 or more for the past 10 
        years prior to the date of your nomination.

       None.

14.  Honors and awards (list all scholarships, fellowships, honorary 
degrees, honorary society memberships, military medals, and any other 
special recognitions for outstanding service or achievement received 
since the age of 18):

        Recipient of Sloan Foundation Minority Program Award, for 
        internship at the State Department, Summer 1989.

        Attorney of the Year Award at the Department of Commerce, 2001.

15.  Published writings (list the titles, publishers, dates, and 
hyperlinks (as applicable) of all books, articles, reports, blog posts, 
or other published materials you have written):

        Author of ``U.S. Legal Requirements Affecting Trade with Cuba'' 
        published in 2 Tulsa J. of Comp. and Int'I Law 291 (Spring 
        1995) and VII Pace Int'I Law Rev. 485 (Spring 1995).

        Speaker at Practicing Law Institute's Department of Commerce 
        Speaks program, on ``Recent U.S. Trade and Investment 
        Initiatives in Latin America and the Caribbean,'' October 1994.

16.  Speeches (list all formal speeches and presentations (e.g., 
PowerPoint) you have delivered during the past 5 years which are on 
topics relevant to the position for which you have been nominated, 
including dates. Provide the committee with one digital copy of each 
formal speech and presentation):

        None.

17.  Qualifications (state what, in your opinion, qualifies you to 
serve in the position to which you have been nominated):

        I have served as a trade lawyer for the United States 
        Government for 28 years. The last 18 years I have worked in the 
        Office of the General Counsel at USTR, starting as a junior 
        staff attorney and rising to become Deputy General Counsel. I 
        am deeply familiar with U.S. trade law and U.S. trade 
        obligations. I have participated in trade negotiations in 
        various capacities, including being the lead lawyer for various 
        free trade agreements, most recently the United States-
        Mexico-Canada Agreement. I bring years of experience not only 
        in the law (domestic and international), but also the policy 
        dimensions of trade for the United States. I understand that 
        U.S. policy must reflect a vast array of stakeholders, in 
        particular congressional. I have been proud to represent the 
        U.S. Government not only in negotiations but also in litigation 
        before the World Trade Organization, and believe I can use my 
        knowledge and experience to further advance a U.S. trade policy 
        that works for all at the World Trade Organization.

                   B. FUTURE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIPS

 1.  Will you sever all connections (including participation in future 
benefit arrangements) with your present employers, business firms, 
associations, or organizations if you are confirmed by the Senate? If 
not, provide details.

        N/A.

 2.  Do you have any plans, commitments, or agreements to pursue 
outside employment, with or without compensation, during your service 
with the government? If so, provide details.

        No.

 3.  Has any person or entity made a commitment or agreement to employ 
your services in any capacity after you leave government service? If 
so, provide details.

        No.

 4.  If you are confirmed by the Senate, do you expect to serve out 
your full term or until the next presidential election, whichever is 
applicable? If not, explain.

        Yes.

                   C. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

 1.  Indicate any current and former investments, obligations, 
liabilities, or other personal relationships, including spousal or 
family employment, which could involve potential conflicts of interest 
in the position to which you have been nominated.

        None.

 2.  Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial 
transaction which you have had during the last 10 years (prior to the 
date of your nomination), whether for yourself, on behalf of a client, 
or acting as an agent, that could in any way constitute or result in a 
possible conflict of interest in the position to which you have been 
nominated.

        None.

 3.  Describe any activity during the past 10 years (prior to the date 
of your nomination) in which you have engaged for the purpose of 
directly or indirectly influencing the passage, defeat, or modification 
of any legislation or affecting the administration and execution of law 
or public policy. Activities performed as an employee of the Federal 
Government need not be listed.

        None.

 4.  Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest, 
including any that are disclosed by your responses to the above items. 
(Provide the committee with two copies of any trust or other 
agreements.)

        Any potential conflict of interest will be resolved in 
        accordance with the terms of my ethics agreement, which was 
        developed in consultation with ethics officials at USTR and the 
        Office of Government Ethics. I understand that my ethics 
        agreement has been provided to the committee. I am not aware of 
        any potential conflict other than those addressed by my ethics 
        agreement.

 5.  Two copies of written opinions should be provided directly to the 
committee by the designated agency ethics officer of the agency to 
which you have been nominated and by the Office of Government Ethics 
concerning potential conflicts of interest or any legal impediments to 
your serving in this position.

        Provided to the committee.

 6.  The following information is to be provided only by nominees to 
the positions of United States Trade Representative and Deputy United 
States Trade Representative:

        Have you ever represented, advised, or otherwise aided a 
        foreign government or a foreign political organization with 
        respect to any international trade matter at any time in any 
        capacity? If so, provide the name of the foreign entity, a 
        description of the work performed (including any work you 
        supervised), the time frame of the work (e.g., March to 
        December 1995), and the number of hours spent on the 
        representation.

        None.

                       D. LEGAL AND OTHER MATTERS

 1.  Have you ever been the subject of a complaint or been 
investigated, disciplined, or otherwise cited for a breach of ethics 
for unprofessional conduct before any court, administrative agency 
(e.g., an Inspector General's office), professional association, 
disciplinary committee, or other ethics enforcement entity at any time? 
Have you ever been interviewed regarding your own conduct as part of 
any such inquiry or investigation? If so, provide details, regardless 
of the outcome.

        No.

 2.  Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged, or held by any 
Federal, State, or other law enforcement authority for a violation of 
any Federal, State, county, or municipal law, regulation, or ordinance, 
other than a minor traffic offense? Have you ever been interviewed 
regarding your own conduct as part of any such inquiry or 
investigation? If so, provide details.

        No.

 3.  Have you ever been involved as a party in interest in any 
administrative agency proceeding or civil litigation? If so, provide 
details.

        No.

 4.  Have you ever been convicted (including pleas of guilty or nolo 
contendere) of any criminal violation other than a minor traffic 
offense? If so, provide details.

        No.

 5.  Please advise the committee of any additional information, 
favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be considered in 
connection with your nomination.

        Not aware of anything.

                     E. TESTIFYING BEFORE CONGRESS

 1.  If you are confirmed by the Senate, are you willing to appear and 
testify before any duly constituted committee of the Congress on such 
occasions as you may be reasonably requested to do so?

        Yes.

 2.  If you are confirmed by the Senate, are you willing to provide 
such information as is requested by such committees?

        Yes.

                                 ______
                                 
          Questions Submitted for the Record to Maria L. Pagan
                  Question Submitted by Hon. Ron Wyden
    Question. The WTO dispute settlement system has played an important 
role in holding member countries accountable for their trade policies, 
but the Appellate Body has fallen short of its promise by overstepping 
its mandate and engaging in judicial overreach--hampering the 
application of U.S. trade enforcement laws, and leaving American 
workers and businesses to pay the price.

    I believe the future of the WTO rests with achievable reforms that 
create trust in the Appellate Body as a functional dispute settlement 
mechanism. The Appellate Body can no longer disregard the rules that 
apply to it and the imbalance in the application of those rules.

    If confirmed, how will you ensure that Appellate Body reform is a 
top priority for the WTO?

    Answer. I share the longstanding, bipartisan concerns expressed by 
the Congress about the Appellate Body. We have seen how Appellate Body 
overreach has undermined and weakened the WTO's ability to negotiate 
and monitor. Appellate Body overreaching has also shielded China's non-
market practices and hurt the interest of U.S. workers and businesses. 
Reforming the dispute settlement system in a way that addresses these 
problems is a top priority. But as Ambassador Tai said in her recent 
keynote speech in Geneva, reforming dispute settlement is not about 
restoring the Appellate Body for its own sake or going back to the way 
it used to be.

    Instead, the dispute settlement system can and should better 
support the WTO's negotiating and monitoring functions. We want a WTO 
that serves as a venue for discussion and negotiations, rather than 
being imbalanced towards dispute settlement or litigation.

    We have already started engaging with some WTO members, and we 
intend for the reform conversation to be inclusive so we can approach 
the question of WTO reform in a holistic way. A WTO dispute settlement 
system that helps to shield China's non-market distortions is not in 
the best interest of any WTO member.

                                 ______
                                 
                 Questions Submitted by Hon. Mike Crapo
                   special and differential treatment
    Question. One of the major elements for reform at the World Trade 
Organization (WTO) must be reform of ``special and differential 
treatment'' (S&D)--exemptions and flexibilities from WTO obligations 
intended to assist developing countries. The fact that WTO rules allows 
countries to decide for themselves whether they are developing--and 
thus eligible for S&D--undermines the effectiveness of the WTO system. 
Specifically, it undercuts the utility of S&D for countries that truly 
deserve such flexibilities and enable major powers to avoid taking on 
meaningful commitments. In particular, it defies belief that China--the 
second largest economy in the world and a country classified by the 
World Bank as an upper-middle-income country--claims it is a developing 
country entitled to S&D.

    If confirmed, do you commit to pushing WTO members to adopt 
objective criteria regarding whether a member is developing or not, and 
thus eligible for S&D?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will push WTO members to establish 
objective criteria for determining whether a WTO member may avail 
itself of blanket ``special and differential treatment'' (S&D) in 
current and future WTO negotiations. The United States is actively 
engaged in the discussion on how to reform special and differential 
treatment and would like it to be part of the overall reform agenda at 
the WTO.
                  sanitary and phytosanitary measures
    Question. One of the most important WTO agreements is the Agreement 
on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS 
Agreement). The SPS Agreement facilitates agricultural market access by 
ensuring that measures taken to protect human, animal or plant life or 
health are supported by scientific evidence. Various WTO members have 
sought to undermine the effectiveness of the SPS Agreement including by 
failing to notify their SPS measures to the WTO and making spurious 
claims about the SPS Agreement's rules, including in the WTO SPS 
Committee.

    If confirmed, will you be a vigorous champion for ensuring the 
science based disciplines in the SPS Agreement are not compromised, and 
effectively enforced?

    Answer. USTR is committed to ensuring that our trading partners 
live up to their WTO commitments, including their WTO obligation to 
base their SPS measures on scientific principles, and to base measures 
on international standards where they exist, or on risk assessments. I 
am committed to hold accountable countries that establish non-science 
based measures that are inconsistent with international standards, or 
that establish unjustified barriers to safe U.S. agricultural products.
                           dispute settlement
    Question. During the hearing, you noted that WTO rules ``needed to 
be enforced.'' I agree. The impasse over the Appellate Body has brought 
dispute settlement to a standstill--and thus rules are not being 
enforced. I appreciate that reforming the Appellate Body will not 
happen overnight, but neither does litigation before a WTO panel, which 
can take over a year before there is anything to appeal at the 
Appellate Body. We have a number of potential disputes we could 
initiate at the WTO while the United States tries to find a way forward 
on the Appellate Body.

    Do you agree that the United States needs to start moving forward 
on WTO enforcement against foreign trade barriers concurrently with 
reform of the Appellate Body?

    Answer. I believe the United States should continue to bring 
disputes to the WTO when we consider WTO dispute settlement to be the 
most effective way to enforce U.S. rights under the WTO-covered 
agreements. The objective of dispute settlement is to facilitate 
mutually agreed solutions between members. Dispute settlement remains 
capable of supporting that objective for the United States and other 
WTO members, irrespective of the status of the Appellate Body. When it 
is appropriate to do so, we should continue to use WTO dispute 
settlement to ensure that our trading partners live up to their WTO 
commitments.

                                 ______
                                 
              Questions Submitted by Hon. Robert Menendez
    Question. Article 23.3.1(b) of the USMCA states: ``1. Each party 
shall adopt and maintain in its statutes and regulations, and practices 
thereunder, the following rights, as stated in the ILO Declaration on 
Rights at Work: (b) the elimination of all forms of forced or 
compulsory labor.''

    Given this provision, as I raised in my questions during the 
hearing, is human trafficking a violation of the USMCA?

    Answer. Under the USMCA, one right that each party is required to 
maintain in its statutes, regulations, and practices is the elimination 
of all forms of forced or compulsory labor. Human trafficking of anyone 
to Mexico is a violation of Mexico's anti-trafficking laws and should 
be investigated by Mexican authorities. Human trafficking is an issue 
that USTR and the entire administration take very seriously, and if 
confirmed, I am committed to working with interagency colleagues, 
allies, stakeholders, members of Congress, and others to combat human 
trafficking.

    Question. The chapter on Cuba in the Department of State's 2020 
Trafficking in Persons Report raised numerous concerns about the Cuban 
regime's foreign medical missions, including the fact that the missions 
subject Cuban doctors and medical personnel to human trafficking and 
forced labor conditions.

    Do you agree with the Department of State's assessment about Cuba's 
foreign medical missions?

    Answer. USTR is a member of the President's Interagency Task force 
on Human Trafficking. USTR regards the Department of State's Annual 
Trafficking in Persons Report as an important tool to inform USG 
efforts to combat human trafficking in the United States and abroad. We 
are aware of the indicators of forced labor as they relate to Cuba's 
foreign medical missions and will continue to work with the Department 
of State and other interagency partners on this issue.

    Question. Given provisions in USMCA on forced labor and what is 
known about the forced labor conditions present in the Cuban regime's 
foreign medical missions, does Mexico's decision to host a Cuban 
medical mission amount to a violation of USMCA?

    Answer. Human trafficking is an issue that USTR and the entire 
administration take very seriously, and if confirmed, I am committed to 
working with interagency colleagues, allies, stakeholders, members of 
Congress, and others to combat human trafficking and forced labor. We 
are aware of the indicators of forced labor as they relate to Cuba's 
foreign medical missions and will continue to work with the Department 
of State and other interagency partners on this issue.

                                 ______
                                 
                 Questions Submitted by Hon. John Thune
    Question. In December, China will have been a member of the World 
Trade Organization for 20 years. In that time, China has become the 
WTO's largest trading nation and the second largest economy in the 
world--all while doubling down on a state-led, non-market approach to 
trade.

    It makes no sense that a country like China should continue to be 
able to self-designate as a developing country at the WTO to gain 
unfair trade advantages, especially as the Chinese Community Party 
takes advantage of actual developing countries through the predatory 
lending of the Belt and Road Initiative. I have introduced a bipartisan 
resolution to address this issue at the WTO, and I think this is a 
common-sense reform to strengthen the global trading system.

    Do you believe that China declaring itself as a developing country 
at the WTO misidentifies its economic stature and corrodes trust in the 
rules-based trading system?

    Answer. Yes, the United States is very concerned that China 
continues to seek developing country status at the WTO, including in 
ongoing negotiations. We have made that clear to China on several 
occasions, most recently during China's October 2021 Trade Policy 
Review at the WTO.

    Question. One of the problems the U.S. faces at the WTO is that a 
lot of countries are not transparent and we don't know what policies 
they have in place that might affect U.S. agriculture exports.

    If confirmed, what actions would you take to make sure that members 
are living up to their agricultural trade commitments?

    Answer. Transparency is key to being able to understand the global 
agricultural trade landscape and the challenges facing U.S. 
agricultural exports. In addition, without adequate transparency we 
will be unable to make progress in agricultural trade reform efforts. 
If confirmed, I will work closely with like-minded members to improve 
transparency, which is widely recognized as lacking in the WTO. I will 
use a variety of tools, including counternotifications, formal WTO 
Committee Q&A processes, and bilateral engagement to bring more clarity 
regarding members' policies and practices that may impact U.S. 
agricultural exports. In addition, I will to continue to press for 
reform of the WTO's negotiating and monitoring arms, including by 
enhancing U.S.-led efforts to improve the operation and effectiveness 
of notification requirements in order to facilitate greater 
transparency in the WTO.

                                 ______
                                 
                Questions Submitted by Hon. Rob Portman
    Question. One of the challenges facing the World Trade Organization 
(WTO) is the breakdown in the WTO's ability to facilitate the 
negotiation of new agreements, especially to write new rules to 
constrain non-market behavior.

    In my WTO resolution with Senator Cardin, I articulated a set of 
proposed reforms to the WTO aimed at addressing the loss of the 
negotiating function. One of these reforms was the use of plurilateral 
agreements without Most Favored Nation (MFN) requirements.

    Do you agree that non-MFN plurilateral agreements can be a helpful 
tool to work with like-minded countries to restore purpose and 
relevance to the WTO?

    Answer. The United States believes that plurilateral negotiations 
at the WTO can be a useful means to advance issues of interest to 
members and to keep the WTO relevant. We do not view plurilateral 
negotiations and outcomes as undermining multilateral ones. Rather, 
plurilateral initiatives can foster new ideas and creative, flexile 
approaches that can build momentum toward multilateral outcomes.

    Question. Alongside the decrease in successful negotiation, there 
has been an increase in litigation at the WTO. This has led to concerns 
about activism by the Appellate Body (AB). In an attempt to stop 
activism by the Appellate Body both the Obama and Trump administrations 
blocked new appointments to the AB. The loss of the AB is problematic, 
yet we should also not restart the AB without correcting the 
longstanding flaws that the United States has articulated.

    Will you commit to working with WTO members to address AB activism 
in an effort to restart the Appellate Body? How do you propose WTO 
members can work together to reduce judicial activism by the AB?

    Answer. I share the longstanding, bipartisan concerns expressed by 
the Congress about the Appellate Body. We have seen how Appellate Body 
overreaching has undermined the WTO's functioning and weakened the 
WTO's negotiating and monitoring functions. At the same time, Appellate 
Body overreaching has shielded China's non-market practices and hurt 
the interest of U.S. workers and businesses. Reforming the dispute 
settlement system in a way that addresses these problems is a top 
priority. But as Ambassador Tai said in her recent keynote speech in 
Geneva, reforming dispute settlement is not about restoring the 
Appellate Body for its own sake or going back to the way it used to be.

    Instead, the dispute settlement system can and should better 
support the WTO's negotiating and monitoring functions. We want a WTO 
that serves as a venue for discussion and negotiations, rather than 
being imbalanced towards dispute settlement or litigation.

    We have already started engaging with some WTO members, and intend 
for the reform conversation to be inclusive so we can approach the 
question of WTO reform in a holistic way. A WTO dispute settlement 
system that helps to shield China's non-market distortions is not in 
the best interest of any WTO member.

                                 ______
                                 
             Questions Submitted by Hon. Patrick J. Toomey
    Question. So far, the U.S. has mainly relied on unilateral tariffs 
under section 301 to push for market-oriented reforms to the Chinese 
market--but these measures hurt Americans, while not having much effect 
on Chinese trade practices. Instead of unilateral measures, the U.S. 
has the option of working with key allies and utilizing the WTO rules 
to encourage China to adopt reforms. While the WTO needs reform in some 
key areas, the United States has previously utilized the WTO to win a 
significant number of cases against China--especially as the 
complainant, but also as respondent. Uncovering China's WTO violations 
is challenging but possible, and the U.S. can use the WTO to hold China 
accountable, particularly in relation to the areas of intellectual 
property protection, forced technology transfer, and subsidies.

    How can the U.S. better utilize the WTO dispute settlement system 
in addressing the challenges with China's non-market trade policies?

    Answer. Ambassador Tai recently underscored her intent to use the 
full range of tools we have, but also to develop new tools as needed to 
defend American economic interests from harmful policies and practices, 
which include China's unfair economic practices. I believe the United 
States should continue to bring disputes to the WTO when we consider 
WTO dispute settlement to be the most effective way to enforce U.S. 
rights under the WTO-covered agreements. When it is appropriate to do 
so, we should continue to use WTO dispute settlement to address WTO-
inconsistent measures of our trading partners--including China.

    However, even when we have secured victories in our disputes 
against China, we have seen that China's follow-through was 
inconsistent and that it did not change the underlying policies. At the 
same time, we have seen how Appellate Body overreaching has shielded 
China's non-market practices and hurt the interest of U.S. workers and 
businesses. This overreaching by the Appellate Body has undermined our 
ability to protect U.S. workers and businesses from those non-market 
practices. That is why reforming the dispute settlement system in a way 
that addresses these problems is a top priority. A WTO dispute 
settlement system that continues to shield China's non-market 
distortions is not in our interest.

    Question. For those areas of contention that are not well covered 
by WTO rules, how can the United States work with our allies within the 
WTO to develop new rules?

    Answer. To protect ourselves against the damage China continues to 
inflict through its non-market practices--including, among other 
things, through industrial planning and targeting, preferential 
treatment of state-owned enterprises, massive subsidization, forced 
technology transfer, cybertheft and inadequate intellectual property 
enforcement--we need to be prepared to deploy all tools and explore the 
development of new ones, including through collaboration with other 
economies and countries. We are already engaging with allies to address 
China's harmful non-
market policies and practices.

    Additionally, in the G7, G20, and at the WTO, we are discussing 
market distortions and other unfair trade practices, such as the use of 
forced labor in the fisheries sector, and in global supply chains, and 
the use of non-market financing. We will continue to work closely with 
our allies and like-minded partners towards creating a more level 
playing field in the 21st century, including by developing new tools 
and negotiating new rules where appropriate.

    Question. What are the limits of the WTO in dealing with China, and 
how can the U.S. help facilitate reforms to strengthen it?

    Answer. The consensus nature of the WTO limits our ability to forge 
new rules in that forum that would address challenges raised by China's 
embrace of state capitalism and its litany of unfair trade practices. 
Moreover, over time, the core functions of the WTO--monitoring, 
negotiating, and dispute settlement--have become imbalanced towards 
dispute settlement and that imbalance towards litigation has advantaged 
China. Dispute settlement was never intended to supplant negotiations, 
yet China has been able to get around the hard part of diplomacy and 
negotiation by securing new rules through litigation. At the same time, 
Appellate Body overreaching has undermined the WTO's functioning and 
weakened the WTO's negotiating and monitoring functions. This imbalance 
has harmed U.S. interests and advantaged China, helping to shield its 
non- market distortions. Efforts to reform the dispute settlement 
system--and bring about WTO reform more generally--must address these 
problems. Over time, the core functions of the WTO--monitoring 
implementation of existing commitments, negotiating new commitments, 
and dispute settlement--have become imbalanced towards dispute 
settlement and that imbalance towards litigation has advantaged China.

    Question. There have been two recent cases at the WTO that have 
challenged the broad applicability of the General Agreement on Tariffs 
and Trade (GATT) Article XXI, the ``national security exception'' in 
the WTO, as well as Article 73 of the Agreement on Trade-Related 
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).

    A 2020 WTO ruling in a case brought by Qatar against Saudi Arabia 
stated that Saudi Arabia cannot use ``national security'' (TRIPS 
Article 73) as an excuse for failing to protect the intellectual 
property of Qatari rights holders from piracy of their broadcast rights 
for sports, movies, and television programming.

    Additionally, a 2019 WTO ruling on a case between Russia and 
Ukraine clarified the limits of ``national security'' as a defense for 
breaking WTO rules against unjustified barriers to trade, stating that 
any such claim should be ``objectively'' true, relating to weapons, 
war, fissionable nuclear materials or an ``emergency in international 
relations.'' The panel concluded that governmental actions for which a 
national security exception is claimed must ``meet a minimum 
requirement of plausibility in relation to the proffered essential 
security interests.''

    However, the Trump administration disagreed with both rulings 
claiming that measures taken by members for the purposes of national 
security are non-justiciable and cannot be reviewed by a WTO dispute 
settlement panel--siding with Russia and Saudi Arabia in the 
aforementioned disputes.

    Do you believe that actions taken under GATT Article XXI or TRIPS 
Article 73 are reviewable by the WTO? If not, please explain why.

    Do you believe that WTO members should explain a rationale for why 
they are invoking GATT Article XXI/TRIPS Article 73, or are these 
provisions fully ``self-
judging''?

    Answer. Since the negotiation of the GATT in 1947, through the 
establishment of the WTO in 1995, and to the present day, the United 
States has maintained a consistent position: issues of national 
security are political matters not subject to review or capable of 
resolution by GATT/WTO dispute settlement. Every member of the WTO--
including the United States--retains the authority to determine for 
itself those matters that it considers necessary to the protection of 
its essential security interests, as is reflected in the text of 
Article XXI of the GATT 1994. In other words, Article XXI(b) of the 
GATT 1994 and Article 73(b) of TRIPS--which mirrors Article XXI(b)--are 
self-judging. That was the U.S. position during GATT 1947 negotiations, 
and in 1949, when the United States invoked Article XXI(b) in a dispute 
with Czechoslovakia. That was also the U.S. position in 1982, when the 
European Communities and its member states, Canada, and Australia 
invoked Article XXI to justify their application of certain measures 
against Argentina. The United States also expressed similar views in 
1985, after Nicaragua asked the GATT Council to condemn a U.S. embargo 
and to request that the United States revoke these measures 
immediately.

    Article XXI(b) provides that ``[n]othing in this Agreement shall be 
construed to prevent any member from taking any action which it 
considers necessary for the protection of its essential security 
interests.'' Fundamentally, Article XXI(b) is about a member taking an 
action ``which it considers necessary.'' Whether the member 
``considers'' that action necessary for protection of the acting 
member's essential security interests is a subjective question. The 
text also specifies that it is ``its essential security interests''--
the member's in question--that the action is taken for the protection 
of. In identifying such security interests, therefore, it is the 
judgment of the member that is relevant. Only a member like the United 
States--and not WTO adjudicators--can determine for itself what 
comprises that member's essential security interests. Therefore, a WTO 
panel may not second-guess a member's determination of what it 
considers necessary for the protection of its own essential security 
interests. Nor may a member be required to furnish reasons for or 
explanations of an action for which Article XXI is invoked. While a 
member invoking Article XXI may nonetheless choose to make information 
available to other members, in the absence of language imposing a 
requirement to furnish reasons, no such obligation may be imposed on a 
member through dispute settlement.

                                 ______
                                 
               Questions Submitted by Hon. James Lankford
    Question. As our Ambassador to the WTO, you'll be joining the 
negotiations that the Biden administration is supporting regarding the 
waiver of TRIPS protections for COVID-19 vaccines.

    Do you understand the concerns that members of this committee have 
expressed about the TRIPS waiver?

    Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I will consult with members of this 
committee to further understand the concerns that they have expressed.

    Question. In your assessment, what potential pitfalls (if any) does 
a waiver of TRIPS protections for COVID-19 vaccines pose to future 
pharmaceutical and biomedical innovation?

    Answer. If confirmed, as I work with members of the World Trade 
Organization, I will be clear-eyed about potential risks that you have 
raised. I am committed to keeping Congress fully informed of 
developments in the process in the WTO.

    Question. Are there any elements of India and South Africa's 
request that you would consider a non-starter or a red-line in your 
negotiations?

    Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to hearing more from members 
about concerns about specific proposals and will be clear eyed about 
the potential risks.

    Question. Do you believe it is in the national interest for China 
and Russia to have access to the proprietary information behind the 
COVID-19 vaccine? Why or what not?

    Answer. I believe strongly in intellectual property protections and 
the importance of safeguarding American innovation from illicit 
acquisition. If confirmed, as I work with members of the World Trade 
Organization, I will be clear-eyed about potential risks that you have 
raised.

    Question. My primary frustrations with WTO litigation in recent 
years have been the slow pace of the dispute settlement process, as 
well as instances of judicial activism by the Appellate Body that 
disadvantage U.S. interests.

    What are your ideas to speed up the dispute settlement process at 
the WTO and how do you plan to build consensus in Geneva towards that 
end?

    Answer. There have been longstanding, bipartisan concerns with the 
way that the dispute settlement system has been functioning and for 
years the United States has been saying there needs to be a course 
correction. The objective of the dispute settlement system is to 
facilitate mutually agreed solutions between members, yet over time, it 
has become synonymous with litigation that is prolonged, expensive, and 
contentious. Reforming dispute settlement requires finding ways to 
create more opportunities for disputing parties to come together and be 
incentivized to solve the problem instead of prolonging litigation for 
its own sake. We want a WTO that serves as a venue for discussion and 
negotiations, rather than being imbalanced towards dispute settlement 
or litigation. For years, Appellate Body overreaching provided WTO 
members with the wrong incentives and worsened that imbalance. We have 
already started engaging with some WTO members, and we intend for the 
reform conversation to be inclusive so we can approach the question of 
WTO reform in a holistic way.

    Question. What specific reforms is this administration seeking to 
the Appellate Body before it begins providing consent to Appellate Body 
vacancies?

    Answer. This administration shares the longstanding, bipartisan 
concerns expressed by the Congress about the Appellate Body. I believe 
the WTO must undertake fundamental reform if the dispute settlement 
system is to remain viable and credible. We have seen how Appellate 
Body overreaching has undermined the WTO's functioning and weakened the 
WTO's negotiating and monitoring functions. At the same time, Appellate 
Body overreaching has shielded China's non-market practices and hurt 
the interest of U.S. workers and businesses. Reforming the dispute 
settlement system in a way that addresses these problems is a top 
priority. But as Ambassador Tai said in her recent keynote speech in 
Geneva, reforming dispute settlement is not about restoring the 
Appellate Body for its own sake or going back to the way it used to be. 
A WTO dispute settlement system that continues to shield China's non-
market distortions is not in our interest.

                                 ______
                                 
                 Questions Submitted by Hon. Todd Young
    Question. In your opening statement, you mentioned that the WTO 
needs to be reformed in order to stay relevant for the future. However, 
there are limits as to what the WTO can and should do regarding various 
trade and non-trade issues. If the role of the WTO is too weak, then 
major markets will likely continue to react unilaterally. But if the 
organization is too strong, it may become overstrained and overbearing 
on major markets.

    In your opinion, what do you believe are the key issues surrounding 
WTO reform?

    Answer. The reality of the WTO today is that the organization does 
not match the ambition of its goals. The WTO has rightfully been 
accused of being insulated from reality, slow to recognize global 
developments, and not grounded in the experiences of working people. To 
build a more viable and durable multilateral trading system, reform is 
needed throughout the organization. This includes working to address 
problems that have undermined the negotiating function, including 
certain members' lack of transparency and unwillingness to make 
contributions commensurate with their role in trade and the global 
economy. It also includes efforts to revitalize the underappreciated 
monitoring and deliberating function, where members increasingly are 
not responding meaningfully to concerns raised with their trade 
measures. Further, it involves fundamental reform to dispute 
settlement, which has been used to supplant the negotiation of new 
rules through prolonged and contentious litigation, rather than to 
facilitate mutually agreed solutions between members.

    Question. Do you believe the WTO should create a new system of 
governance with new rules or focus on greater policy coherence with 
stronger enforcement?

    Answer. I see a need for reform in all three pillars of the WTO, so 
that the organization can achieve its founding goals: trade that raises 
living standards, ensures full employment, pursues sustainable 
development, and protects and preserves the environment. Refocusing on 
these goals requires that members deliberate issues and monitor 
compliance with existing rules; negotiate new rules that respond to the 
issues we face today, such as the need to protect our planet, address 
widening inequality, and increase economic insecurity; and have 
opportunities to reach mutually agreed solutions to the issues between 
us.

    Question. One of the more troublesome issues with the WTO is its 
inadequate methods for addressing the challenges that China presents in 
regards to IP protections, excessive subsidies, and the predatory 
practices of state-owned enterprises.

    If confirmed, how do you plan to work with Ambassador Tai on these 
concerns when negotiating new WTO rules that address China's predatory 
practices?

    Answer. In a recent speech, Ambassador Tai underscored her intent 
to use the full range of tools we have and develop new tools as needed 
to defend American economic interests from harmful policies and 
practices, which include China's unfair economic practices you 
mentioned. As part of that approach, we will continue to work through 
multilateral channels, as well as bilateral and regional channels, to 
cooperate with like-minded partners who share our strong interest in 
ensuring that the terms of competition are fair. I intend to work with 
other WTO members to rebuild confidence in the system and boost 
motivation for creating a more level playing field in the 21st century, 
including by negotiating new rules where appropriate.

    Question. Since the debate on WTO reform started, China has been 
proactively engaged. It continues to give the portrayal of guardian 
status among the global trading system, but China's pattern of vague 
commitments and adverse actions against the United States and like-
minded nations speaks otherwise.

    In your opinion, what role does China play--or should it be 
playing--in reforming the WTO given its economic weight in the world 
economy?

    Answer. China is the world's largest trader in part because of the 
benefits that WTO membership has provided. When China acceded to the 
WTO 20 years ago, WTO members expected that the terms set forth in 
China's Protocol of Accession would permanently dismantle existing 
Chinese policies and practices that were incompatible with an 
international trading system expressly based on open, market-oriented 
policies. But those expectations have not been realized. The United 
States will continue to use all available mechanisms to move China to 
uphold its WTO obligations.

    Question. Can the WTO be reformed to accommodate two different 
economic regimes--especially with China's stance to safeguard its 
system of state capitalism?

    Answer. The administration is committed to working closely with our 
allies and like-minded partners, including at the WTO, towards building 
a truly fair international trade system that enables healthy 
competition.

                                 ______
                                 
                 Questions Submitted Hon. John Barrasso
    Question. Members from both sides of the aisle have made it very 
clear that the World Trade Organization is in dire need of reform.

    What specific reforms do you believe are needed in order to prevent 
the WTO's Appellate Body from acting as a rulemaking body?

    Answer. The WTO must undertake fundamental reform if the dispute 
settlement system is to remain viable and credible. Over time, certain 
WTO members discovered they could get around the hard part of diplomacy 
and negotiation by securing new rules through litigation. Dispute 
settlement was never intended to supplant negotiations--and the reform 
of these two core WTO functions is intimately linked. We have seen how 
Appellate Body overreaching has undermined the WTO's functioning and 
weakened the WTO's negotiating and monitoring functions. At the same 
time, Appellate Body overreaching has shielded China's non-market 
practices and hurt the interest of U.S. workers and businesses. 
Reforming the dispute settlement system in a way that addresses these 
problems is a top priority. But as Ambassador Tai said in her recent 
keynote speech in Geneva, reforming dispute settlement is not about 
restoring the Appellate Body for its own sake or going back to the way 
it used to be. A WTO dispute settlement system that continues to shield 
China's non-market distortions is not in our interest.

    Question. The U.S. sugar industry generates 142,000 jobs in 22 
States and nearly $20 billion in annual economic activity. These are 
good-paying jobs and critical to the local economies in many rural and 
urban communities. U.S. sugar policy is critical to the health of this 
industry.

    The current world sugar market is highly dysfunctional, driven by 
production and trade-distorting practices employed by nearly all sugar-
producing countries. It is more important than ever that the United 
States maintain its current no-cost sugar policy which provides a 
stable and predictable economic environment for U.S. producers, an 
environment necessary for capital investments and long-run 
sustainability. Then Ambassador-designate Tai indicated during the QFR 
process that any reforms she would pursue regarding the global sugar 
market would be ``consistent with maintaining the current no-cost U.S. 
sugar policy,'' and that she would ``work with like-minded partners to 
ensure that any new rules are consistent with U.S. domestic sugar 
goals.''

    Given the current challenges facing the WTO, do you believe the 
organization is equipped now, or can be made equipped going forward, to 
effectively address the full scope of underlying issues that have 
created the existing distortive global sugar market?

    Answer. To address the full scope of these underlying issues that 
have created the existing distortive global sugar market, one must 
consider both the policies and practices that currently skirt existing 
WTO rules, as well as those that do not necessarily contravene WTO 
rules but are nevertheless distortive and detrimental to U.S. 
interests. I believe more work is needed to reform the WTO to properly 
address these issues. If confirmed, I will re- engage like-minded 
partners who also recognize the importance and necessity of reform of 
the WTO. This will be difficult work, but I remain hopeful that with 
proper U.S. leadership, we can achieve the necessary reform that will 
address such global trade distortions.

    Question. Do you agree that the U.S. should not unilaterally disarm 
regarding existing U.S. sugar policy until such time other countries 
abandon their trade distortive production and export subsidies?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will support and defend the U.S. sugar 
program, including as prescribed in U.S. farm bills enacted by the U.S. 
Congress.

    Question. I'm concerned about the lack of action taken to date by 
this administration to open new markets for U.S. ranching and 
agriculture products. Wyoming's farmers and ranchers take great pride 
in their work. Our beef, barley, sugar, grain, feed and other 
agriculture products are second to none. In order to showcase these 
products around the world, Wyoming's producers need access to 
international markets.

    If confirmed, will you commit to fighting for fair market access 
for America's farmers and ranchers; and

    Answer. The Biden-Harris administration is committed to rebuilding 
America's international alliances and partnerships, and developing a 
trade policy that increases opportunity across the agriculture 
industry.

    I know how important trade is to America's farmers and ranchers, 
and there are several key tools we can use to create opportunities for 
the agriculture industry. We can enforce our existing agreements so 
that our producers can fairly compete, and we can upgrade and expand 
existing trade frameworks to deliver market access opportunities.

    Question. Will you aggressively highlight and push back against 
market access barriers that disadvantage producers in Wyoming and 
across the country?

    Answer. We will use both bilateral and multilateral tools to 
enforce existing agreements, and to eliminate market access barriers 
that disadvantage American farmers and ranchers. As Ambassador to the 
WTO, I will ensure that we use the WTO bodies, such as the Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary Committee, the Technical Barriers to Trade Committee, the 
Committee on Agriculture, and the Dispute Settlement Body to highlight 
and eliminate unfair trade barriers.

    Question. U.S. businesses are often at a disadvantage vis-a-vis 
state-owned enterprises (SOEs) that are not guided by market 
principles. Such SOEs benefit from environmental, health, and labor 
standards below that of publicly traded companies. The uranium miners 
in Wyoming know this only too well, as U.S. mining has come to a 
standstill at the hands of increased imports from places like Russia, 
Uzbekistan and other countries where the Chinese have significant 
mininginvestments. U.S. trade policy needs a clear strategy for 
addressing the SOE imbalance.

    Can you describe in detail how you would approach the WTO with 
respect to the challenges facing U.S. companies with respect to SOEs?

    Answer. We have committed to use the full range of tools we have, 
including those of the WTO, and to develop new tools as needed to 
defend American economic interests from the harmful economic and trade 
policies and practices of others. The Marrakesh Declaration and WTO 
Agreement, on which the WTO is founded, begins with the recognition 
that trade should raise living standards, ensure full employment, 
pursue sustainable development, and protect and preserve the 
environment. We believe that refocusing on these goals can help bring 
shared prosperity to all.The administration is committed to working 
with like-minded partners to seek to update the WTO rulebook with more 
effective disciplines on industrial subsidies, unfair behavior of 
state-owned enterprises, and other trade and market distorting 
practices.

                                 ______
                                 
  Prepared Statement of Christopher S. Wilson, Nominated to be Chief 
 Innovation and Intellectual Property Negotiator, Office of the United 
  States Trade Representative, With the Rank of Ambassador, Executive 
                        Office of the President
    Chairman Wyden, Senator Crapo, members of the committee, good 
morning.

    In 1982, as a college junior, I spent a semester interning for my 
distinguished home-state Senator, Bob Dole. At the time, Senator Dole 
was serving as chairman of this committee. To now find myself sitting 
at this table, in this room, is an honor that is maybe made a little 
more special by virtue of that personal history. I am honored that 
President Biden nominated me to serve as the first-ever Chief 
Innovation and Intellectual Property Negotiator at the Office of the 
United States Trade Representative. And I am grateful to you, Senators, 
for your consideration.

    I also want to acknowledge the many friends and colleagues who have 
enriched my career at USTR over the past 2 decades. I have had great 
teachers and excellent examples among both my fellow civil servants and 
the agency's political leaders over the years.

    I'm glad that my husband, Mark Hegedus, is here this morning, and 
I'm grateful for his love and support.

    If confirmed for this position, I would be the first person to hold 
the title. To do a job for the first time is both exciting and a little 
daunting. Fortunately, Congress has provided a very clear expectation 
about what the position is about, namely to be a ``vigorous advocate on 
behalf of United States innovation and intellectual property 
interests.'' If I'm confirmed, those words will be prominently posted 
on my desk at USTR.

    I understand how protecting U.S. innovation through intellectual 
property rights is key to our economic success. This principle has been 
woven through every position I've held during my years at USTR. In 
addition to serving in USTR's IP office from 2006 to 2008, I have 
worked on important intellectual property issues in my engagements with 
trading partners in Central America, Europe and the Middle East, South 
and Central Asia, and in the context of the World Trade Organization.

    This work has reinforced my belief that trade policy must protect 
American innovation and creative endeavors, and that rules governing 
that protection should be effectively enforced. I look forward to your 
input--today and going forward--on how best to advance those 
objectives.

    Senators, one of my early mentors at USTR taught me that, in any 
negotiation as well as in the process of policy development, listening 
is as important as talking. I intend to apply that lesson every day I 
am in this position. My experience has taught me that, perhaps more 
than in many other areas of trade policy, IP is the subject of strongly 
held and often widely divergent views among a broad spectrum of 
stakeholders. If confirmed, my door will be open to all, and I will 
listen carefully. I assure you that this committee and its staff would 
be prominent among those by whom I expect to be guided.

    Ambassador Tai has laid out a worker-centered trade policy that 
ensures, as President Biden often says, our economy grows from the 
bottom up and the middle out. If confirmed, I will always be thinking 
about how we can defend U.S. innovation and intellectual property in 
order to help workers and generate broad-based, durable prosperity.

    Finally, Senators, it will be important to me to ensure that the 
relationship between this new Chief Negotiator function and the 
dedicated career professionals in USTR's IP office is placed on a 
sound, sustainable, and respectful footing.

    Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this morning. I 
look forward to your questions and advice.

                                 ______
                                 

                        SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE

                  STATEMENT OF INFORMATION REQUESTED 
                               OF NOMINEE

                      A. BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION

 1.  Name (include any former names used): Christopher Scott Wilson.

 2.  Position to which nominated: Chief Innovation and Intellectual 
Property Negotiator (USTR).

 3.  Date of nomination: September 13, 2021.

 4.  Address (list current residence, office, and mailing addresses):

 5.  Date and place of birth: January 13, 1962; Butler, MO.

 6.  Marital status (include maiden name of wife or husband's name):

 7.  Names and ages of children:

 8.  Education (list all secondary and higher education institutions, 
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted):

        Sterling High School, Sterling, KS (attended 1976-1980, 
        graduated 1980).

        Sterling College, Sterling, Kansas (attended 1980-1982).

        Georgetown University School of Foreign Service (attended 1982-
        1984, graduated May 1984 with a B.S. in foreign service).

        University of Geneva, Switzerland (attended 1984-1985, 
        certificate program in French language and civilization).

 9.  Employment record (list all jobs held since college, including the 
title or description of job, name of employer, location of work, and 
dates of employment for each job):

        October 1985-April 1987: U.S. Department of Commerce/
        International Trade Administration, Washington, DC.
        Mexico Desk Officer.

        April 1987-March 1995: U.S. Department of State.
        April 1987-September 1987: Junior Officer Training, Washington, 
        DC.
        September 1987-July 1989: Economic Officer, U.S. Embassy, 
        Kigali, Rwanda.
        July 1989-July 1991: Economic Officer, U.S. Embassy, Manila, 
        Philippines.
        July 1991-July 1992: Staff Assistant, Bureau of African 
        Affairs, Washington, DC.
        July 1992-August 1994: Desk Officer, Office of East African 
        Affairs, Washington, DC.
        August 1994-March 1995: Language training, Washington, DC.

        March 1995-July 2000: C&M International, Washington, DC.
        Consultant on trade policy issues, advised corporate and trade 
        association clients.

        July 2000-April 2012: Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.
        July 2000-September 2002: Director for Central America, Office 
        of the Americas, Washington, DC.
        September 2002-August 2006: Senior Trade Representative, U.S. 
        Mission to the European Mission, Brussels, Belgium.
        August 2006-May 2008: Deputy Assistant U.S. Trade 
        Representative, Office of Intellectual Property and Innovation, 
        Washington, DC.
        May 2008-April 2010: Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for 
        Europe and the Middle East, Washington, DC.
        April 2010-April 2012: Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for 
        WTO and Multilateral Affairs, Washington, DC.

        April 2012-March 2014: C&M International, Washington, DC.
        Senior director; consultant on trade policy issues, advised 
        corporate and trade association clients.

        March 2014-present: Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.
        March 2014-February 2019: Deputy Chief of Mission, U.S. Mission 
        to the World Trade Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
        March 2019-present: Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for 
        South and Central Asia, Washington, DC.

10.  Government experience (list any current and former advisory, 
consultative, honorary, or other part-time service or positions with 
Federal, State, or local governments held since college, including 
dates, other than those listed above):

        N/A.

11.  Business relationships (list all current and former positions held 
as an officer, director, trustee, partner (e.g., limited partner, non-
voting, etc.), proprietor, agent, representative, or consultant of any 
corporation, company, firm, partnership, other business enterprise, or 
educational or other institution):

        From 1995-2000 and again from 2012-2014, I was in a non-
        partnership, non-fiduciary role as an employee of Crowell and 
        Moring International, a non-legal consulting affiliate of the 
        Crowell and Moring law firm.

12.  Memberships (list all current and former memberships, as well as 
any current and former offices held in professional, fraternal, 
scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and other organizations dating 
back to college, including dates for these memberships and offices):

        Christ Church Washington Parish (Episcopal)--member since 2010; 
        member of governing council (vestry), 2021-2024.

        Capitol Hill Chorale--member since 2008; member of board of 
        directors 2010-2011.

13.  Political affiliations and activities:

        a.  List all public offices for which you have been a candidate 
        dating back to the age of 18.

       None.

        b.  List all memberships and offices held in and services 
        rendered to all political parties or election committees, 
        currently and during the last 10 years prior to the date of 
        your nomination.

       None.

        c.  Itemize all political contributions to any individual, 
        campaign organization, political party, political action 
        committee, or similar entity of $50 or more for the past 10 
        years prior to the date of your nomination.

_______________________________________________________________________

 
Barbara Bollier-------------------------------------$50-------10/24/2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Bollier                                     $50        9/28/2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Biden                                          $250         9/2/2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Bollier                                    $100        8/31/2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Biden                                          $100        7/20/2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Biden                                          $100        6/18/2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Bollier                                    $100         6/7/2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DSCC                                               $200        4/16/2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Klobuchar                                      $150        2/12/2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Klobuchar                                       $50         2/7/2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Klobuchar                                       $50          1/14/20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Klobuchar                                       $50       10/18/2019
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amy McGrath                                         $50        9/30/2019
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Klobuchar                                       $50        6/27/2019
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pete Buttigieg                                     $200         4/2/2019
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Klobuchar                                      $200        2/11/2019
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hillary Clinton                                    $500        9/13/2016
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barack Obama                                       $300       12/30/2011
------------------------------------------------------------------------


14.  Honors and awards (list all scholarships, fellowships, honorary 
degrees, honorary society memberships, military medals, and any other 
special recognitions for outstanding service or achievement received 
since the age of 18):

        USTR William B. Kelly Award (2007).

        Rotary International Fellowship (study abroad) (1984).

15.  Published writings (list the titles, publishers, dates and 
hyperlinks (as applicable) of all books, articles, reports, blog posts, 
or other published materials you have written):

        None.

16.  Speeches (list all formal speeches and presentations (e.g., 
PowerPoint) you have delivered during the past 5 years which are on 
topics relevant to the position for which you have been nominated, 
including dates):

        None.

17.  Qualifications (state what, in your opinion, qualifies you to 
serve in the position to which you have been nominated):

        I have developed extensive exposure to the trade policy aspects 
        of innovation and intellectual property during my nearly 20-
        year career with the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. 
        From 2006-2008 I served as Deputy Assistant U.S. Trade 
        Representative in USTR's intellectual property office. In this 
        role, I served as principal U.S. delegate to the Council on the 
        Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS Council) 
        at the World Trade Organization; I also engaged on IP trade 
        policy issues with U.S. trading partners in Latin America, and 
        was part of the team producing the annual Special 301 report on 
        IP practices of U.S. trading partners. In addition, I led U.S. 
        negotiations on geographical indications during a sensitive 
        phase of the WTO's Doha Round negotiations. Beyond my role in 
        USTR's IP office, I have encountered IP-related trade policy 
        issues in each of my other USTR assignments, including 
        especially my roles as Assistant USTR for WTO and Multilateral 
        Affairs and as Deputy Permanent Representative at the U.S. 
        Mission to the WTO. Through each of these roles, I have 
        developed both technical expertise and policy sensitivity in 
        this critical area of U.S. trade policy, and have had extensive 
        exposure to the full range of stakeholder perspectives on the 
        intellectual property dimensions of U.S. trade policy.

                   B. FUTURE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIPS

 1.  Will you sever all connections (including participation in future 
benefit arrangements) with your present employers, business firms, 
associations, or organizations if you are confirmed by the Senate? If 
not, provide details.

        Yes.

 2.  Do you have any plans, commitments, or agreements to pursue 
outside employment, with or without compensation, during your service 
with the government? If so, provide details.

        No.

 3.  Has any person or entity made a commitment or agreement to employ 
your services in any capacity after you leave government service? If 
so, provide details.

        No.

 4.  If you are confirmed by the Senate, do you expect to serve out 
your full term or until the next presidential election, whichever is 
applicable? If not, explain.

        Yes.

                   C. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

 1.  Indicate any current and former investments, obligations, 
liabilities, or other personal relationships, including spousal or 
family employment, which could involve potential conflicts of interest 
in the position to which you have been nominated.

        Any potential conflict of interest will be resolved in 
        accordance with the terms of my ethics agreement, which was 
        developed in consultation with ethics officials at USTR and the 
        Office of Government Ethics. I understand that my ethics 
        agreement has been provided to the committee. I am not aware of 
        any potential conflict other than those addressed by my ethics 
        agreement.

 2.  Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial 
transaction which you have had during the last 10 years (prior to the 
date of your nomination), whether for yourself, on behalf of a client, 
or acting as an agent, that could in any way constitute or result in a 
possible conflict of interest in the position to which you have been 
nominated.

        Any potential conflict of interest will be resolved in 
        accordance with the terms of my ethics agreement, which was 
        developed in consultation with ethics officials at USTR and the 
        Office of Government Ethics. I understand that my ethics 
        agreement has been provided to the committee. I am not aware of 
        any potential conflict other than those addressed by my ethics 
        agreement.

 3.  Describe any activity during the past 10 years (prior to the date 
of your nomination) in which you have engaged for the purpose of 
directly or indirectly influencing the passage, defeat, or modification 
of any legislation or affecting the administration and execution of law 
or public policy. Activities performed as an employee of the Federal 
Government need not be listed.

        None.

 4.  Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest, 
including any that are disclosed by your responses to the above items. 
(Provide the committee with two copies of any trust or other 
agreements.)

        Any potential conflict of interest will be resolved in 
        accordance with the terms of my ethics agreement, which was 
        developed in consultation with ethics officials at USTR and the 
        Office of Government Ethics. I understand that my ethics 
        agreement has been provided to the committee. I am not aware of 
        any potential conflict other than those addressed by my ethics 
        agreement.

 5.  Two copies of written opinions should be provided directly to the 
committee by the designated agency ethics officer of the agency to 
which you have been nominated and by the Office of Government Ethics 
concerning potential conflicts of interest or any legal impediments to 
your serving in this position.

        Provided to the committee.

                       D. LEGAL AND OTHER MATTERS

 1.  Have you ever been the subject of a complaint or been 
investigated, disciplined, or otherwise cited for a breach of ethics 
for unprofessional conduct before any court, administrative agency 
(e.g., an Inspector General's office), professional association, 
disciplinary committee, or other ethics enforcement entity at any time? 
Have you ever been interviewed regarding your own conduct as part of 
any such inquiry or investigation? If so, provide details, regardless 
of the outcome.

        No.

 2.  Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged, or held by any 
Federal, State, or other law enforcement authority for a violation of 
any Federal, State, county, or municipal law, regulation, or ordinance, 
other than a minor traffic offense? Have you ever been interviewed 
regarding your own conduct as part of any such inquiry or 
investigation? If so, provide details.

        No.

 3.  Have you ever been involved as a party in interest in any 
administrative agency proceeding or civil litigation? If so, provide 
details.

        No.

 4.  Have you ever been convicted (including pleas of guilty or nolo 
contendere) of any criminal violation other than a minor traffic 
offense? If so, provide details.

        No.

 5.  Please advise the committee of any additional information, 
favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be considered in 
connection with your nomination.

        N/A.

                     E. TESTIFYING BEFORE CONGRESS

 1.  If you are confirmed by the Senate, are you willing to appear and 
testify before any duly constituted committee of the Congress on such 
occasions as you may be reasonably requested to do so?

        Yes.

 2.  If you are confirmed by the Senate, are you willing to provide 
such information as is requested by such committees?

        Yes.

                                 ______
                                 
      Questions Submitted for the Record to Christopher S. Wilson
                 Questions Submitted by Hon. Ron Wyden
    engaging stakeholders and balancing private and public interests
    Question. If confirmed, you'll be the first Chief Innovation and 
Intellectual Property Negotiator in U.S. history--just in time to 
support the historic investments of the Biden administration's Build 
Back Better agenda. The Biden administration has championed a worker-
centric trade policy--a commitment to ensuring that everyday Americans' 
interests are represented when we talk about trade.

    On intellectual property, it's critical that all stakeholders have 
a seat at the table--everyone from large and small businesses and 
creators, to libraries, the disability community, and the general 
public. All these perspectives are important to achieving balanced IP 
policies that protect creators, incentivize innovators, and benefit the 
public at large.

    If confirmed, how do you plan to strike the right balance among the 
interests of varied stakeholders, including those in the public and 
private sectors?

    Answer. Ambassador Tai has noted that creating a more inclusive 
process is the first step to achieving a worker-centered trade policy 
that delivers shared prosperity for all Americans. If confirmed, I will 
engage and consult with a wide range of stakeholders, including those 
from traditionally underrepresented or underserved groups, on 
innovation and intellectual property issues.
                  copyright limitations and exceptions
    Question. U.S. law, as well as international agreements like the 
TRIPS Agreement and Berne Convention, allow for certain limitations and 
exceptions to copyright. In the United States, these provisions serve a 
vital public function: they support the preservation of works by 
libraries and the access to those works by scholars, students, and the 
public; allow fair use, such as the creation of transformative works 
and reproduction for educational purposes; and ensure accessibility for 
people with disabilities.

    If confirmed, will you support efforts by our trading partners to 
adopt copyright limitations and exceptions that align with U.S. law and 
are consistent with international obligations?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will aim for our trading partners to adopt 
or maintain a standard for intellectual property protection similar to 
that found in U.S. law and will carry out my duties as directed by 
relevant U.S. law. I will also engage and consult with a wide range of 
stakeholders, including those from traditionally underrepresented or 
underserved groups, on innovation and intellectual property issues.

                                 ______
                                 
                 Questions Submitted by Hon. Mike Crapo
                              enforcement
    Question. Congress established the Chief Innovation and 
Intellectual Property Negotiator in the Trade Facilitation and 
Enforcement Act of 2015 in part to ``take appropriate actions to 
address acts, policies, and practices of foreign governments that have 
a significant adverse impact on the value of United States 
innovation.'' This is no surprise as American innovation is critical to 
our economic and strategic strength. Indeed, IP-intensive industries 
generate over 38 percent of U.S. annual GDP.

    Do you agree that the following matters are precisely the types of 
issues that a Chief Innovation and Intellectual Property Negotiator 
needs to ``take appropriate action to address''?

          The Cyberspace Administration of China's cybersecurity 
        reviews, which appear to target foreign companies in order to 
        secure their proprietary information including source code;

          India's attempt to amend section 31D of its Copyright Act to 
        incorporate ``Internet or digital broadcasters'' (i.e., 
        streaming services), which would result in price controls that 
        would adversely impact American creative content;

          The European Union's proposed Digital Markets Act, which 
        would require U.S. companies to disclose proprietary 
        intellectual property, including source code for algorithms;

          The failure of various countries, including China and India, 
        to take meaningful action against websites hosting pirated 
        content; and

          High foreign tariffs on IP-intensive goods, including 
        agricultural biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, 
        and Information and Communications Technology (ICT) products.

    Answer. I understand how protecting U.S. innovation through 
intellectual property rights is key to our Nation's economic success. 
If confirmed, I will be a vigorous advocate on behalf of United States 
innovation and intellectual property interests and will take 
appropriate actions to address acts, policies, and practices of foreign 
governments that have a significant adverse impact on the value of 
United States innovation. I will consult with you and other members of 
this committee on your views regarding priority IP issues.

                                 ______
                                 
                Questions Submitted by Hon. Richard Burr
    Question. The Biden administration has announced its support for a 
waiver of the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights 
(TRIPS) agreement in relation to the prevention, containment, or 
treatment of COVID-19 that is being negotiated at the World Trade 
Organization (WTO).

    If you are confirmed, what will you do to ensure that such a waiver 
does not have a negative impact on America's world-leading 
biopharmaceutical industry, or undermine our preparedness for future 
public health threats?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will be a vigorous advocate on behalf of 
United States innovation and intellectual property interests. I am 
familiar with the discussions around promoting innovation and 
intellectual property interests, in the context of public health 
crises, as reflected in agreements such as the United States-Mexico-
Canada Agreement. Given this history, I will be cleared-eyed about the 
potential risks to our biopharmaceutical industry, as well as the goal 
of addressing preparedness for future public health threats.

    Question. According to law, the Chief Innovation and Intellectual 
Property Negotiator ``shall be a vigorous advocate on behalf of United 
States innovation and intellectual property interests,'' and is 
responsible for protecting the intellectual property of American 
innovators in accordance with trade agreements and addressing practices 
that have a significant adverse impact on the value of U.S. innovation.

    How will you advocate for US innovation and the intellectual 
property rights of COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will be a vigorous advocate on behalf of 
United States innovation and intellectual property interests, including 
through outreach to allies and partners.

    Question. In what specific ways does handing over the intellectual 
property of the makers of our COVID-19 vaccines protect the value of 
U.S. innovation meet the mission of the office you aspire to hold?

    Answer. Given my prior service in the intellectual property office, 
I understand how protecting U.S. innovation through intellectual 
property rights is key to our Nation's economic success. I am clear-
eyed about the potential risks of a COVID-19 waiver on innovators. If 
confirmed, I will be a vigorous advocate on behalf of United States 
innovation and intellectual property interests.

                                 ______
                                 
                 Question Submitted by Hon. Rob Portman
    Question. As you know, the origin of the China tariffs, and the 
Phase One agreement, was China's rampant violation of intellectual 
property rights, including forced tech transfer. While there has been a 
lot of focus lately on China's failure to fully live up to its 
purchasing commitments, we shouldn't lose sight of the IP issues at 
stake.

    How do you propose we get China to live up to its Phase One 
commitments on IP?

    Answer. The United States has been closely monitoring China's 
progress in implementing its numerous commitments under the Phase One 
agreement. We have been regularly engaging with China using the 
extensive consultation processes established by the agreement to 
discuss China's implementation progress and any concerns as they arise. 
In addition, the United States and China have also held numerous 
technical-level meetings. We will continue to stay in close touch with 
U.S. stakeholders on their concerns to ensure that China adheres to the 
obligations set forth in the agreement.

                                 ______
                                 
             Questions Submitted by Hon. Patrick J. Toomey
    Question. The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) added 
several positive improvements to the North American Free Trade 
Agreement's (NAFTA) intellectual property (IP) chapter on geographical 
indications, patents, and more. Initially, it also included 10 years of 
IP protection for biologics--one of the most promising categories of 
new medicines.

    These protections were trying to level the playing field for U.S. 
companies by making Mexico protect U.S. companies' IP. However, at the 
last minute, House Democrats eliminated this provision in closed-door 
negotiations. This removal went against decades of U.S. trade policy 
supporting expanding IP protection for American technology-based 
businesses. Trade agreements should encourage the development of the 
American biologics and innovation market, instead of allowing other 
countries to rip us off.

    Your job charges you to be ``a vigorous advocate on behalf of 
United States innovation and intellectual property interests.'' Does 
renegotiating trade agreement text to remove pre-existing IP 
protections for biologics benefit U.S. innovation interests?

    Answer. I understand how protecting U.S. innovation through 
intellectual property rights is key to our Nation's economic success. 
If confirmed, I look forward to consulting with you to better 
understand your concerns regarding intellectual property protections 
for biologics.

    Question. As Chief Innovation and Intellectual Property Negotiator, 
you will have significant influence in negotiating the intellectual 
property (IP) provisions of any future FTAs. Do you agree that we 
should include IP protections for biologics in future FTAs?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will be a vigorous advocate on behalf of 
United States innovation and intellectual property interests and will 
consult closely with this committee on future trade agreement 
negotiations.

    Question. Both Republicans and Democrats agree that we must promote 
technological innovation and encourage the development of important, 
high-knowledge industries based in the United States. Intellectual 
property protections are an indispensable part of attracting these 
critical industries to our country.

    The Biden administration has stated that they want to pursue a 
``worker-
centered'' trade policy. IP-intensive industries employ over 45 million 
Americans, in high-paying domestic jobs. The average worker in an IP-
intensive industry earned about 46 percent more than his counterpart in 
a non-IP industry.

    Do you believe that protecting IP-intensive industries is 
beneficial for U.S. workers?

    Answer. I understand how protecting U.S. innovation through 
intellectual property rights is key to our Nation's economic success. 
If confirmed, I will be a vigorous advocate on behalf of United States 
innovation and intellectual property interests.

                                 ______
                                 
               Questions Submitted by Hon. James Lankford
    Question. As we discussed in your nomination hearing, your role 
will be to protect American innovation from bad actors seeking to steal 
our intellectual property and undercut U.S. economic leadership.

    Do you understand the concerns that members of this committee have 
expressed about the TRIPS waiver?

    Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I will consult with members of this 
committee to further understand the concerns that they have expressed.

    Question. In your assessment, what potential pitfalls (if any) does 
a waiver of TRIPS protections for COVID-19 vaccines pose to future 
pharmaceutical and biomedical innovation?

    Answer. If confirmed, as I work with members of the World Trade 
Organization, I will be clear-eyed about potential risks that you have 
raised. I am committed to keeping Congress fully informed of 
developments in the process in the WTO.

    Question. Do you believe it is in the national interest for China 
and Russia to have access to the proprietary information behind the 
COVID-19 vaccine? Why or what not?

    Answer. I understand how protecting U.S. innovation through 
intellectual property rights is key to our Nation's economic success. 
If confirmed, I will be a vigorous advocate on behalf of United States 
innovation and intellectual property interests.

    Question. Since your portfolio exclusively deals with protecting 
American innovation and intellectual property, can I count on you to 
push back against the pursuit of TRIPS waivers--even if others in 
leadership at USTR are advocating for a waiver of IP protections?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will be a vigorous advocate on behalf of 
United States innovation and intellectual property interests. I am 
committed to keeping Congress fully informed of developments in the 
process in the WTO.

    Question. Business leaders in Oklahoma agree the biggest foreign 
threat to American innovation is China. China's regulatory structures 
force U.S. businesses to choose between access to the Chinese market 
and protection for their intellectual property. Beijing uses its market 
access as leverage to coerce mandatory disclosure of IP and/or full 
technology transfers to Chinese entities. The CCP also engages in 
strategic acquisitions and heavy subsidies to compete with American IP, 
as well as cyber intrusions to steal U.S. trade secrets and other 
confidential business information.

    How do you intend to protect American IP and challenge the PRC's 
economic and technological predations?

    Answer. As Ambassador Tai made clear in her October 2021 speech on 
the U.S.-China trade relationship, the United States continues to have 
grave concerns about the impact of China's state-led, non-market 
economy, including Chinese practices such as industrial planning and 
targeting and cybertheft. Addressing these issues remains a top 
priority in our work with China. In addition, I understand how 
protecting U.S. innovation through intellectual property rights is key 
to our Nation's economic success. If I am confirmed, one of my first 
priorities would be to open up the toolbox that we have at USTR, 
evaluate the existing tools, decide whether new tools are needed, 
consider where they can be used most effectively, and consult with the 
committee on how we do that.

    Question. Given that China and Taiwan both recently submitted 
requests to join CPTPP, do you believe China's record on IP protections 
meet the standard required by CPTPP?

    Answer. I understand that in the 2021 Special 301 Report, USTR 
noted that severe challenges persist in China because of informal 
pressure and coercion to transfer technology to Chinese companies, 
continued gaps in the scope of IP protection, incomplete legal reforms, 
weak enforcement channels, and lack of administrative and judicial 
transparency and independence.

    Question. How do you intend to leverage U.S. influence in entities 
like WIPO to advance American leadership towards strong IP protections?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will work with my U.S. government 
interagency counterparts on how to best leverage U.S. influence at 
international organizations, including WIPO, to advance U.S. innovation 
and intellectual property interests.

    Question. In the Phase One trade agreement negotiated by President 
Trump's team, China committed to referring all cases of IP theft to 
criminal authorities, establishing criminal penalties for trade secret 
misappropriation, and establishing a mechanism for resolving 
pharmaceutical patent disputes.

    In your assessment, has China kept its commitments on the IP 
provisions of the Phase One agreement?

    Answer. China has taken a number of steps to implement its 
commitments under the Intellectual Property Chapter of the Phase One 
agreement. The United States will continue to closely monitor China's 
progress in implementing its commitments under that chapter of the 
agreement.

    Question. What tools do you plan to utilize to enforce compliance--
and punish noncompliance--with the terms of this agreement?

    Answer. The United States has been regularly engaging with China 
using the extensive consultation processes established by the Phase One 
agreement to discuss China's implementation progress and any concerns 
as they arise. In addition, the United States and China have held 
numerous technical-level meetings. We will continue to stay in close 
touch with U.S. stakeholders on their concerns to ensure that China 
adheres to the obligations set forth in the agreement.

    Question. Please describe what your priorities would be in a 
potential Phase Two agreement with China in IP.

    Answer. We do not have plans to negotiate a Phase Two agreement. We 
are focusing on enforcing the terms of the Phase One agreement while 
also raising with China our concerns with its state-centered and non-
market trade practices that were not addressed in the Phase One deal. I 
intend to use the full range of tools we have and develop new tools as 
needed to defend American economic interests from harmful policies and 
practices.

    Question. President Trump's team completed seven rounds of FTA 
negotiations with the United Kingdom, but the Biden administration has 
not resumed those negotiations or sought to conclude them.

    Do you agree that the UK is a valuable trading partner with strong 
intellectual property standards on par with U.S. standards, and that it 
would be in the national interest to complete these negotiations and 
ratify a free trade agreement?

    Answer. I understand that Ambassador Tai is currently in the 
process of reviewing the state of the UK negotiations and that any path 
forward would be done in consultation with Congress, and will reflect 
the Biden administration's commitment to a trade policy that is worker-
centered. If confirmed, I will be a vigorous advocate on behalf of 
United States innovation and intellectual property interests, including 
when conducting trade negotiations.

    Question. The Biden administration has displayed a troubling lack 
of initiative in pursuing new trade agreements, either bilaterally or 
multilaterally, with allies.

    Do you agree that the most effective way to isolate the impact of 
China's forced technology transfers and other IP theft is to establish 
agreements with other nations on IP protections?

    Answer. If I am confirmed, one of my first priorities would be to 
open up the toolbox that we have at USTR, evaluate the existing tools, 
decide whether new tools are needed, consider where they can be used 
most effectively, and consult with the committee on how we do that. I 
will also consult closely with this committee on future trade agreement 
negotiations.

    Question. How will you use your position to apply pressure on China 
to choose between changing its practices or facing a degree of economic 
isolation?

    Answer. As Ambassador Tai highlighted in her October speech on the 
U.S.-China trade relationship, the United States is currently raising 
its concerns with China's non-market approach to trade and the economy 
directly with China. Where China does not make needed changes, we are 
prepared to use all tools at our disposal, including the development of 
any new tools that may be necessary, to seek to pressure China and 
protect U.S. interests. I will support that work in any way possible.

    Question. What would you recommend to the President and to 
Ambassador Tai as the appropriate next step to strengthen IP 
protections among allies and partners?

    Answer. I understand how protecting U.S. innovation through 
intellectual property rights is key to our Nation's economic success. 
If confirmed, I will be a vigorous advocate on behalf of United States 
innovation and intellectual property interests, including through 
outreach to allies and partners, and look forward consulting further 
with members to prioritize the most urgent issues.

    Question. What role should new trade agreements play in securing 
strong IP protections with our trading partners, particularly countries 
in the Indo-Pacific with whom we don't have an FTA?

    Answer. If confirmed, I will be a vigorous advocate on behalf of 
United States innovation and intellectual property interests and will 
consult closely with this committee on any future trade agreement 
negotiations, including with countries in the Indo-Pacific.

                                 ______
                                 
                 Questions Submitted by Hon. Todd Young
    Question. Intellectual property (IP) protections play a vital role 
in the American enterprise. It is because of IP protections that our 
businesses stand out and lead the world in innovation. However, our 
businesses rely on market access to prosper and due to the unfair 
concessions they have to make, particularly at the hands of China, many 
jobs and business models are under threat.

    How will you seek to hold China accountable for unfair actions, and 
advocate for critical IP protections?

    Answer. If I am confirmed, one of my first priorities would be to 
open up the toolbox that we have at USTR, evaluate the existing tools, 
decide whether new tools are needed, consider where they can be used 
most effectively, and consult with the committee on how we do that.

    Question. Do you believe there is a sense of urgency to address 
instances of malpractice?

    Answer. I understand how protecting U.S. innovation through 
intellectual property rights is key to our Nation's economic success. 
If confirmed, I will be a vigorous advocate on behalf of United States 
innovation and intellectual property interests and look forward 
consulting further with members to prioritize the most urgent issues.

    Question. Do you believe there is value in the United States 
setting forth principles to promote integrity within digital trade?

    Answer. Our approach to digital trade will be to pursue growth that 
is inclusive, fair, sustainable, and advances the quality of life of 
human beings.

                                 ______
                                 
               Questions Submitted by Hon. John Barrasso
    Question. Strong intellectual property protections in the United 
States are critical for the invention and manufacturing of innovative 
medicines and medical technologies. It is not a coincidence, therefore, 
that the United States leads the world both in terms of inventing and 
manufacturing these products and providing intellectual property 
protections that incentivize innovation. I remain deeply concerned 
about the administration's efforts to waive IP protections for COVID 
vaccines. I think this is a mistake and one that should corrected.

    How do you intend to protect American intellectual property abroad 
and ensure that our trading partners value the important contributions 
of America's innovative industries;

    Answer. I understand how protecting U.S. innovation through 
intellectual property rights is key to our Nation's economic success. 
If confirmed, I will be a vigorous advocate on behalf of United States 
innovation and intellectual property interests and will consult with 
members on how to best do that.

    Question. And do you think the pursuit of a Trade-Related 
Intellectual Property Rights waiver will impact future investment and 
research in the United States?

    Answer. There is this tension between the need to reward innovation 
through intellectual property, and the equally important objective of 
being able to ensure access to the products of that innovation. It has 
been and will continue to be a struggle to get the balance right. And 
if confirmed, I'd work very closely with you and others on the 
committee to make sure that we're getting as close to that balance line 
as we can.

                                 ______
                                 
                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Ron Wyden, 
                       a U.S. Senator From Oregon
    The Finance Committee meets this morning to discuss an important 
set of nominations that spans three Federal agencies and at least two 
continents.

    Maria Pagan is President Biden's nominee to serve as a Deputy U.S. 
Trade Representative and our envoy to the WTO in Geneva. Ms. Pagan 
brings to her nomination nearly 3 decades of experience in 
international trade law. She currently serves as USTR's Deputy General 
Counsel, which puts her right at the heart of just about every effort 
to ensure that our trade laws and agreements are protecting American 
workers and businesses and giving them a shot to get ahead. She has 
valuable experience litigating disputes before the WTO, which makes her 
the right choice for this job.

    Chris Wilson is President Biden's nominee to serve as USTR's Chief 
Innovation and Intellectual Property Negotiator. It's the first time a 
nominee for this role has come before the Finance Committee since the 
committee created this position in the Trade Facilitation and Trade 
Enforcement Act of 2015. It was long overdue.

    Getting trade done right in the modern economy means fighting for 
manufacturers, farmers, and ranchers, as well as fighting for the high-
wage, high-skill jobs and businesses of the modern economy. It also 
means ensuring that our policies balance the interests of IP owners, 
innovators, technology users, and the public at large. Mr. Wilson 
brings to his nomination 20 years of experience at USTR, during which 
he has represented American workers and businesses in negotiations all 
across the globe. All that experience makes him an ideal choice to be 
the first-ever Chief Innovation and IP Negotiator.

    Joshua Frost is President Biden's nominee to serve as Assistant 
Treasury Secretary for Financial Markets. It's a challenging job that 
deals with a variety of subjects including debt management, the housing 
market, and the health of our financial system. Mr. Frost has more than 
20 years of experience in a variety of roles at the Federal Reserve, 
including more than 12 years at the open markets desk. He has overseen 
programs aimed at preventing another financial crisis and responding to 
the COVID-19 economic crash. He is a natural fit for this position 
that's all about protecting the integrity and the stability of our 
economy and financial system.

    Dr. Brent Neiman is President Biden's nominee to serve as Deputy 
Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Finance and 
Development. This job deals with the most tangled, complicated policy 
questions having to do with the global economy. One of the big 
challenges Dr. Neiman will be working on, if and when he's confirmed, 
is how to help solve the interruptions of global supply chains that are 
continuing to pop up as the pandemic continues to infect people around 
the world.

    He'll also work on the issue of currency manipulation, which is a 
subject this committee takes very seriously. He'll have a leading role 
in the effort to make sure that multinational corporations can no 
longer hide their profits in shadowy tax shelters around the globe 
instead of paying a fair share. Dr. Neiman is currently the Edward 
Eagle Brown professor of economics at the University of Chicago's Booth 
School of Business, and his decades of research have contributed to his 
expertise on international macroeconomics, finance, and trade. He's an 
excellent choice for this difficult job that handles a lot of tough 
issues.

    Sam Bagenstos is President Biden's nominee to serve as General 
Counsel to the Department of Health and Human Services. Mr. Bagenstos 
has worn a lot of hats in public service through his career. Currently 
he serves as General Counsel to the Office of Management and Budget. 
From 2009 to 2011, he was Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General 
for Civil Rights. He's argued cases before the Supreme Court dealing 
with protections for pregnant workers and Americans with disabilities. 
An expert in civil rights law, he is currently on leave from his 
position as the Frank G. Millard professor of law at the University of 
Michigan Law School. At HHS, he'll work closely with Secretary Becerra 
and his team and provide legal advice on all the Department's efforts 
to make health care more affordable, strengthen Medicaid, uphold the 
Medicare guarantee, and ensure that vulnerable people in this country 
are protected and cared for.

    I want to congratulate all five nominees and thank them for joining 
the committee today. After Senator Crapo makes his opening remarks, 
I'll have a few routine questions that we ask all nominees, and then 
I'm looking forward to our discussion.

                                 ______
                                 

                             Communications

                              ----------                              


            Families and Friends of Care Facility Residents

            Arkansas' Statewide Parent-Guardian Association

                          15 Eagles Nest Trail

                        Norfork, Arkansas 72658

                            November 9, 2021

U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance

Dear Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Crapo, and Members of the 
Committee:

In your busy schedules, review of credentials for the office for 
General Council of Health and Human Services (HHS) may be rather ``cut 
and dry;'' however, for families with personal stakes in the 
nomination, the process produces high anxiety. We ask: if Samuel R. 
Bagenstos is confirmed, will he use his office to undermine and 
ultimately eliminate the long-term care programs upon which our 
vulnerable loved ones rely?

We respectfully request that the Senate Committee on Finance not 
confirm Samuel R. Bagenstos to be General Counsel of the Department of 
Health and Human Services (HHS).

Who we are

Families and Friends of Care Facility Residents (FF-CFR), Arkansas' 
parent-
guardian association, is a 501(c)3 organization which advocates for a 
range of care options for persons unable to care for themselves based 
on the realities of the individual and their families. Most FF-CFR 
members have loved ones who receive residential treatment services in 
Medicaid certified intermediate care facilities (ICFs), the specialized 
residential treatment programs for persons with life-long cognitive and 
other developmental disabilities.

We are familiar with the nominee, Samuel R. Bagenstos, because of his 
actions as Deputy Attorney General for Civil Rights in the Department 
of Justice from 2009-2011.

Department of Justice Civil Rights Division--Arkansas Case

In 2010, Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice (DOJ) brought two 
lawsuits in our state: one against the Conway Human Development Center 
(CHDC) and the other against all of the state's other developmental 
disabilities centers (HDCs). Arkansas' five human development centers 
(HDCs) serve over 800 residents from throughout the state. The majority 
of HDC residents are non-verbal and function in the profound range of 
cognition. There is no cure for their life-long cognitive 
deficits/developmental disabilities. During the stressful years DOJ 
spent investigating and litigating against Conway HDC, the center was 
at all times in compliance with its federal and state Medicaid 
certification regulations. Not one Conway center family from the over 
400 residents joined with DOJ in its claims that their family members' 
civil rights were violated and not one area medical provider or 
hospital representative familiar with the center's at-risk residents 
and their behavioral and medical needs testified to support DOJ's 
claims of poor care. After a six-week trial in the fall of 2010, the 
federal court dismissed the DOJ case against Conway HDC in June 2011. 
Earlier, in 2010, the court had dismissed the DOJ case against all of 
the state's other HDCs. The cost to our state in defending Conway HDC 
against DOJ was $4.3 million and $150,580.00 in court costs. Our state 
cut and sold timber from public lands and used the Conway center's 
bequest funds to meet the litigation costs. We will never forget the 
Herculean effort our state made in defending the state's developmental 
centers against the Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice's 
deinstitutionalization case in Arkansas.

Department of Justice Civil Rights Division--Georgia Case

From the nominee's statement to Committee on Finance: ``I am especially 
proud of work I did to reach a historic agreement with then-Governor 
Sonny Perdue in Georgia to expand that state's community-based services 
system.''
          --Samuel R. Bagenstos to U.S. Senate Committee on Finance

On October 19, 2010, DOJ entered into a comprehensive Settlement 
Agreement with the State of Georgia and Georgia officials, resolving 
the United States' complaint alleging that individuals with mental 
illness and developmental disabilities confined in State hospitals were 
unnecessarily institutionalized and subjected to unconstitutional harm 
to their lives, health, and safety in violation of the ADA and the U.S. 
Constitution. The agreement, without trial, required that Georgia cease 
all admissions to state-operated facilities for persons with cognitive 
and developmental disabilities and transition residents from licensed 
specialized long-term care facilities to ``home and community'' 
programs. Georgia families learned in the news that their loved ones' 
homes were being closed and people unable to care themselves were 
placed in the crucible of risk and uncertainty.

By the Numbers

498--Georgia Department of Behavioral Health and Development 
Disabilities patients in 2014 who died in community care.

500--Georgia Department of Behavioral Health and Development 
Disabilities patients in 2013 who died in community care.

The Augusta Chronicle
Saturday, March 21, 2015
This article was written by Sandy Hodson

The Augusta Chronicle requested the investigative reports of all 2013 
deaths of developmentally disabled people living in community-based 
care homes. The reports were prepared by the state's Department of 
Behavioral Health and Developmental Disabilities.

The investigation began in earnest after the project was selected in 
2014 for a National Health Journalism Fellowship, a program at the 
University of Southern California's School for Communication and 
Journalism.

The Chronicle used several Open Records Act requests to obtain 
investigative files on some of the 82 unexplained deaths in 2013 among 
the department's patients in community care, which was then focused on 
just those with developmental disabilities.

The Chronicle used other Open Records Act requests to discover that 
nearly 1,000 patients had died in community care in the past two years 
and that a majority of the unexpected deaths are among patients with 
developmental disabilities. (Emphasis added.)

Conclusion and Request

It is critically important to the nation that states have in place a 
range of treatment services to meet the diverse needs of the population 
with disabilities, including licensed institutional programs for those 
unable to care for themselves and who require close care for their 
health and safety. From his actions while in leadership at the Civil 
Rights Division within the Department of Justice, the nominee does not 
agree.

We respectfully request that the Senate Committee on Finance not 
confirm Samuel R. Bagenstos to be General Counsel of the Department of 
Health and Human Services (HHS).

Carole L. Sherman
Co-Chair, Public Affairs Committee
Mother and guardian of John, age 52, who functions on the level of a 
young toddler

                                 ______
                                 
                 Letter Submitted by Rebecca Underwood
November 8, 2021

U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance

Dear Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Crapo, and Distinguished Members of 
the Senate Finance Committee.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony for the record.

I write as the mother of an adult son with profound neurological 
impairment coupled with complex medical issues who is receiving 
comprehensive and synchronized medical care in an intermediate care 
facility for individuals with intellectual disabilities to oppose the 
nomination of Mr. Samuel R. Bagenstos as General Counsel for the United 
States Department of Health and Human Services.

Mr. Samuel Bagenstos testified during his confirmation hearing on 
Tuesday, October 26, 2021, before this Committee that he was 
``especially proud of work'' he did to reach a historic agreement with 
then-Governor Sonny Perdue in Georgia ``to expand that state's 
community-based services system.'' Mr. Bagenstos failed to mention, 
though, that the ``historic agreement,'' reached during his time at the 
United States Department of Justice, was obtained through his pursuit 
of callous and indiscriminate civil rights litigation that harmed the 
legal and medical interests of Georgia's most disabled citizens.

As a result of this 2010 Settlement Agreement \1\ negotiated behind 
closed doors in Georgia families and legally authorized decision-makers 
were stripped of their right to choose between institutional or 
community based services in defiance of the Social Security Act. The 
Agreement required all individuals with intellectual and other 
developmental disabilities to be removed from state operated 
institutional services within a five year time frame. These individuals 
were forced into a community based system which proved to be incapable 
of handling the intensive needs of the patients. The trail of shattered 
and destroyed lives through abuse, neglect and unnecessary deaths has 
been well documented by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Augusta 
Chronicle, and Athens Banner-Herald.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ United States v. Georgia, No. 1:10-cv-00249-CAP (N.D.Ga.).

While Mr. Bagenstos led final negotiations with Georgia officials 
behind closed doors, families and other decision-makers were unaware of 
the proceedings affecting their family members and wards. The Complaint 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
and the Settlement Agreement were publicly announced at the same time.

The expansion of Georgia's community-based system that Mr. Bagenstos is 
so proud of came through forcing people into the system by denying them 
their right to make informed decisions about their own health care. Mr. 
Bagenstos overrode the informed choices of free Americans to higher 
levels of care in institutional settings by imposing his own opinions 
and values on people he had never met and had never known. He was not 
there when lives were shattered and destroyed through abuse, neglect, 
and unnecessary deaths.

The unprecedented Georgia Settlement Agreement, negotiated behind 
closed doors by Mr. Bagenstos, was further announced as the most 
comprehensive Agreement ever reached and would serve as a template for 
future enforcement efforts across the country.

The Georgia Settlement Agreement that denied thousands of Georgians the 
right to choose higher levels of care in institutional settings was not 
the end of Mr. Bagenstos' imposition of his own opinions and values on 
people he has never met and will never know.

Mr. Bagenstos has also been involved in civil rights litigation to 
remove institutional care from people in Virginia, Pennsylvania, New 
Jersey, and Ohio who have exercised their rights to choose appropriate 
health care supports under the Social Security Act and under the U.S. 
Supreme Court decision in Olmstead v L.C.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ 527 U.S. 581, 607 (1999).

While Mr. Bagenstos has publicly professed his advancement of the 
paired principles that no person should be above the law's constraints, 
nor should anyone be beneath its protections,\3\ his actions speak 
louder than his words. His activities in Georgia to negotiate an 
Agreement, outside of public purview, calling for the eviction of 
cognitively disabled residents from state operated facilities, along 
with his civil rights litigation to remove institutional care from 
cognitively disabled persons in other states, does not indicate his 
intention to protect the rights of individuals who have chosen a higher 
level of care through institutional services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/
Testimony%20Samuel%20R.%20Bagenstos_
Final1.pdf.

Parents and guardians have had to fight back at great financial expense 
to have their voices heard in federal court in order to protect their 
disabled loved ones. Judges have pushed back on the misguided and 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ideological policies espoused by Mr. Bagenstos:

        Ohio:
        Thus the Court finds that the rights of those individuals who 
        do not wish to move from their residence in an ICF, or those 
        who are at serious risk of institutionalization who wish to 
        obtain a residence in an ICF, are directly impacted in this 
        lawsuit. Those rights were not protected until the Guardians 
        filed their Motion to Intervene.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Ball v. Kasich, No. 2:16-cv-282, 2017 WL. 3172778, *9 (S.D. 
Ohio July 25, 2017).

        Virginia:
        In fact, at least 84 of the 155 legal representatives of the 
        current SEVTC residents have made formal pleas to permit their 
        loved ones to remain in the new facility rather than be placed 
        in community housing. Thus, the argument made by ARC and the 
        United States regarding the risk of institutionalization fails 
        to account for a key principle in the Olmstead decision: 
        personal choice.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ ARC of Virginia v. Kaine, No. 3:09cv686, 2009 WL 4884533, *8 
(E.D. Va. December 17, 2009).

        Arkansas:
        Most lawsuits are brought by persons who believe their rights 
        have been violated. Not this one. The Civil Rights Division of 
        the Department of Justice brings this action on behalf of the 
        United States of America against the State of Arkansas . . . 
        alleging that practices at Conway [ICF/IID] violate the rights 
        of its residents. . . . All or nearly all of those residents 
        have parents or guardians who have the power to assert the 
        legal rights of their children or wards. Those parents and 
        guardians, so far as the record shows, oppose the claims of the 
        United States. Thus, the United States is in the odd position 
        of asserting that certain persons' rights have been and are 
        being violated while those persons--through their parents and 
        guardians--disagree.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ United Sates v. Arkansas, 794 F. Supp. 2d 935, 937 (E.D. Ark. 
2011).

While no longer under the employ of the Civil Rights Division of the 
United States Department of Justice, Mr. Bagenstos continues to 
demonstrate his disdain for congregate care settings/institutions. In 
an August 31, 2020 opinion piece published in Slate,\7\ Mr. Bagenstos 
refers to the ``inhumanity of our system of shunting away elderly and 
disabled people in isolated congregate institutions''. He goes on to 
opine that ``institutions separated from the mainstream of society--
nursing homes, long-term care facilities, psychiatric hospitals or 
jails and prisons--cause intense harm to the people who are confined 
there''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/08/doj-covid-nursing-
home-inquiry-trump-corruption.html.

Confirming Mr. Samuel Bagenstos as HHS General Counsel would place him 
in a position to continue his relentless pursuit of a misguided 
ideological agenda--
``community-for-all''. Mr. Bagenstos' past civil rights litigations to 
eliminate institutional services for those individuals seeking a higher 
level of care stands in stark contrast to HHS' goal of protecting the 
health of all Americans and providing essential human services, 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
especially for those who are least able to help themselves.

As HHS General Counsel supports the development and implementation of 
HHS' programs by providing legal services to HHS' various agencies and 
divisions, Mr. Bagenstos would be providing legal services to the 
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services which certifies and funds 
the intermediate care facilities for individuals with intellectual 
disabilities (ICFs/IID) which he has spent his career pursuing closure 
of. Mr. Bagenstos would be providing legal services to the 
Administration for Community Living, an HHS agency currently led by a 
colleague of Mr. Bagenstos, another civil rights attorney whose past 
history also includes litigation to eliminate ICFs/IID.

Mr. Bagenstos is an overwhelmingly inappropriate selection for General 
Counsel of the federal Department charged with protecting the health, 
safety and welfare of Americans least able to help themselves. Mr. 
Bagenstos' civil rights career has been dedicated to removing the 
safety net for the most vulnerable Americans. He has trampled on their 
rights resulting in human rights disasters. He fails to validate or 
acknowledge the existence of individuals who need and choose that 
higher level of care in institutional settings.

As the mother and co-legal guardian of our adult son whose 41 year 
survival is attributed to the extraordinary synchronized and 
comprehensive medical care provided in a Medicaid certified and funded 
intermediate care facility, I urge you to thoughtfully consider whether 
Mr. Bagenstos, a civil rights attorney who has endeavored for years to 
close HHS certified and funded facilities for individuals with the most 
profound disabilities, is now the most appropriate and best candidate 
for HHS General Counsel.

I urge you to reject Mr. Samuel Bagenstos' nomination for General 
Counsel for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Respectfully submitted,

Rebecca Underwood

                                 ______
                                 
                        U.S. Chamber of Commerce

                           1615 H Street, NW

                       Washington, DC 20062-2000

                       https://www.uschamber.com/

                            November 2, 2021

The Honorable Ron Wyden             The Honorable Mike Crapo
Chair                               Ranking Member
United States Senate                United States Senate
Committee on Finance                Committee on Finance
Washington, DC 20510                Washington, DC 20510

Dear Chair Wyden and Ranking Member Crapo:

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports the nomination of Christopher S. 
Wilson to serve as the Chief Innovation and Intellectual Property 
Negotiator with the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR).

Mr. Wilson is a highly qualified nominee, with over two decades of 
service to USTR. Throughout his career in the government, he has 
utilized trade policy to further IP protection with key U.S. trading 
partners abroad. Serving in multiple roles within USTR, Mr. Wilson has 
a keen understanding of the landscape of global IP protection, both in 
foreign countries and multilateral institutions. Mr. Wilson's long 
record of public service has prepared him well to advance effective IP 
protection through bilateral dialogues and free trade negotiations with 
other countries.

The Chamber supports the nomination of Mr. Wilson to serve as the Chief 
Innovation and Intellectual Property Negotiator at USTR. We urge the 
Committee to favorably report Mr. Wilson's nomination to the full 
Senate.

Sincerely,

Tom Quaadman
Executive Vice President
Global Innovation Policy Center

cc: Members of the Senate Committee on Finance

                                  [all]