[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE PLIGHT OF AMERICANS DETAINED ABROAD
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND
ACCOUNTABILITY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
June 13, 2024
__________
Serial No. 118-121
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http://docs.house.gov,
or http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
55-919 PDF WASHINGTON : 2026
=======================================================================
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey GREGORY MEEKS, New York, Ranking
JOE WILSON, South Carolina Member
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania BRAD SHERMAN, California
DARRELL ISSA, California GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
ANN WAGNER, Missouri WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
BRIAN MAST, Florida AMI BERA, California
TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
MARK E. GREEN, Tennessee DINA TITUS, Nevada
ANDY BARR, Kentucky TED LIEU, California
RONNY JACKSON, Texas SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
YOUNG KIM, California DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota
MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR, Florida COLIN ALLRED, Texas
BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan ANDY KIM, New Jersey
AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN, SARA JACOBS, California
American Samoa KATHY MANNING, North Carolina
FRENCH HILL, Arkansas SHEILA CHERFILUS-McCORMICK,
WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio Florida
JIM BAIRD, Indiana GREG STANTON, Arizona
MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
THOMAS KEAN, JR., New Jersey JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
MICHAEL LAWLER, New York JONATHAN JACKSON, Illinois
CORY MILLS, Florida SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
RICH McCORMICK, Georgia JIM COSTA, California
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas JASON CROW, Colorado
JOHN JAMES, Michigan GABRIEL AMO, Rhode Island
KEITH SELF, Texas KWEISI MFUME, Maryland
RYAN K. ZINKE, Montana BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois
JAMES C. MOYLAN, Guam
Brendan Shields, Majority Staff Director
Sophia Lafargue, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Oversight and Accountability
BRIAN MAST, Florida, Chairman
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania JASON CROW, Colorado, Ranking
DARRELL ISSA, California Member
TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee DINA TITUS, Nevada
FRENCH HILL, Arkansas COLIN ALLRED, Texas
MIKE WALTZ, Florida ANDY KIM, New Jersey
CORY MILLS,Florida SHELIA CHERFILUS-McCORMICK,
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas Florida
MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
Parker Chapman, Subcommittee Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
REPRESENTATIVES
Opening Statement of Subcommittee Chairman Brian Mast 1
Opening Statement of Subcommittee Ranking Member Jason Crow...... 3
WITNESSES
Statement of Hon. Rena Bitter, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of
Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State..................... 4
Prepared Statement............................................. 7
Statement of Hon. Roger D. Carstens, Special Presidential Envoy
for Hostage Affairs, U.S. Department of State.................. 12
Prepared Statement............................................. 14
Statement of Rajiv Maan, Director, Hostage Recovery Fusion Cell,
Federal Bureau of Investigation................................ 23
Prepared Statement............................................. 25
APPENDIX
Hearing Notice................................................... 52
Hearing Minutes.................................................. 54
Hearing Attendance............................................... 55
Questions for the Record
Questions submitted to Roger D. Carstens by Chairman Brian Mast.. 56
THE PLIGHT OF AMERICANS DETAINED ABROAD
----------
Thursday, June 13, 2024
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Oversight and Accountability,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:33 a.m., in
room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brian Mast
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Mast. All right. The Subcommittee of Oversight and
Accountability will come to order.
The purpose of this hearing is to examine the Consular
Affairs Bureau, the Office of Special Presidential Envoy for
Hostage Affairs, and the Hostage Recovery Fusion Cell to
understand how these three entities work together to safely
bring home Americans who have been detained or held hostage
overseas.
And I will now recognize myself for an opening an opening
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BRIAN MAST
I would like to take a moment to recognize the families and
now those who are my friends I've had the opportunity to get to
know over this year and other years who are here or are at home
watching. Many of you participated in our roundtable recently
on detained Americans and are the reason that we are here
today, continuing this drum beat.
I'd also like to recognize the Kamalmaz family. We're all
devastated to hear that Majd had died while being held hostage
by the Assad regime.
We're all very sorry for your loss and we marvel at your
family's strength, something that None of us really can
understand going through until we have.
Today we push forward with him in our prayers as we work to
bring every American home. The American detainees that we
discussed at our roundtable are just some of those that are
around the world that are being held, and while I'm glad that
we have gotten other Americans home in recent years I have many
questions about whom the Biden administration has prioritized
and who was left behind.
Why did President Biden trade Viktor Bout, the Russian arms
dealer who conspired to kill Americans, for Brittney Griner but
failed to secure Paul Whelan or Marc Fogel's release at the
same time?
These are questions that Americans want to know the answer
to. Why did President Biden trade five Iranian spies and
provide easier access to billions of dollars in exchange for
five Americans but other Americans were left behind?
These are questions that Americans and families want
answers to. The administration pays attention to famous and
politically well connected but there are those that feel that
those that are not politically famous or well connected don't
get the same treatment.
Americans want answers to those things. Those whose loved
ones are with us today must fight tooth and nail to get
meetings, and I know that the individuals that work in these
fusion cells--these individuals here I can attest for them that
they spend hours, late nights, early mornings, whatever it is,
to speak to the families of hostages whenever it is that they
have a question or need to hear about something.
But there are lingering questions that remain. I spoke with
our witnesses before this hearing and it is to your testament
that you communicate regularly with families. But we cannot
deny the powerful testimony from those who feel that their
loved one's case is not prioritized by or even in the mind of
the President.
That's their feelings. That's how they feel, and I hope
today we can identify why that is and present solutions for
declassifying information if need be or providing more
substantive status updates if that's what assists the families
in ensuring that the families have access to the full suite of
the U.S. Government to help them through these not just--you
know, quite often not difficult days or weeks but more often
months and years.
I'm also deeply concerned that Americans are increasingly
becoming targets overseas because foreign adversaries have seen
that the U.S. Government will cut deals.
In 2015 the Obama administration established Presidential
Policy Directive 30--PPD 30--which says that the U.S.
Government will make no concessions to individuals or groups
holding U.S. nationals as hostages.
``It is the United States policy to deny hostage takers the
benefits of ransom, prisoner release policy changes, or other
acts of concession. The policy goes on to State why this is
important, because it protects U.S. nationals and strengthens
national security by removing a key incentive for hostage
takers to target U.S. nationals,'' unquote, stopping the
practice and denying malicious actors money, personnel, and
resources.
In these deals with some of our most dangerous adversaries
the Biden administration has directly negated this policy and
as policy warns may be incentivizing malicious actors to detain
Americans as leverage for money or personnel or for other
resources.
Venezuela, Iran, Russia, China, and others have gotten
exactly what they wanted simply by taking Americans hostage and
waiting for the administration to make an offer or negotiate in
a number of different ways to the offer that is finalized.
I am sure we will debate that point but we cannot deny that
Americans are targeted by our adversaries. So I would also like
to hear about the deterrence that we are offering so that
Americans are not detained by our adversaries.
One, five, 10 years from now what will we have done to
assure Americans walk this earth freely without fear of
wrongful detention because our adversaries know that the full
force of the United States of America will come crashing down
on them if they harm our American citizens?
As we speak dozens of innocent Americans are wrongfully
detained or held hostage around the world including eight who
were taken by Hamas during the October 7th terrorist attack.
Each of them should know that an American is coming for them.
Whether it's an American diplomat or an American door kicker it
should be known that there is an American coming for you if you
are held abroad.
I look forward to working with all of you to ensure that
you have what you need to cut through the bureaucracy and bring
Americans home.
I know this is work that tears at your heart as you're
working with them because you do have to speak with the
families on a daily, weekly, nightly, monthly, whatever it be,
basis and have to carry the burden of somebody is detained
under your watch.
And so I do look forward to hearing what you have to say
about this, understanding the personal nature in which you are
tied to your work.
I now recognize Ranking Member Crow from Colorado for any
opening statement that you may have.
OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER JASON CROW
Mr. Crow. Thank you, Chairman Mast, for organizing this
important hearing.
I'm grateful for your partnership on this issue and for
taking onboard my suggestion from last year that we hold a
public session on this deeply challenging topic.
I also want to thank our distinguished witnesses for being
here today and for the work that you and your teams do every
day on behalf of the American people and the families of those
detained or held hostage. Your jobs are not easy but the entire
nation is grateful for your service.
And, finally, before I lay out what I hope we can achieve
with today's hearing I want to address the families directly of
which we have many in this room today.
I want to acknowledge that no amount of empathy that we
express and no promises anyone makes today will change the fact
that your loved ones are not here with you right now. It won't
change the fact that instead of sitting with you around the
dinner table tonight they are held hostage in prisons far from
home.
I know that no matter what we say when we leave here today
that fact will remain. Nevertheless, I want you to know that we
stand with you, that your voice and your advocacy matters, and
that we will fight for you and with you for your loved ones
with everything we have until you are reunited.
So for today one thing I'm hoping that we can accomplish is
to better understand with the help of our witnesses, No. 1,
what do we do to warn Americans about traveling to certain
high-risk countries, so prevention on the front end; if a
detention happens how do we arrive at the appropriate
determination?
What is that--what are the different determinations and
then what are the time lines for those determinations and what
did the determinations unlock in terms of resources and support
for families as well?
Third, I would like to hear from you an honest assessment
of just how big of a threat this is--how many more Americans
are being affected today as compared to years prior, and I hope
with my colleagues here that we can do this in a nonpartisan
way.
I come to you all with open mind and open heart to have a
robust discussion about a difficult area--in an area that we
can always improve on. But I want to make clear also that every
single president, every one, Republican and Democrat, has
engaged in deals to return Americans.
So I hope that we don't make this into a partisan exercise
looking at one party or one president over another because
every president, rightfully so, has made deals and has done
everything to return Americans and I just wanted to provide
that context at the outset.
So with that, I look forward to the discussion today and
return back to you, Chairman.
Mr. Mast. Thank you, Ranking Member Crow.
Other members of the committee are reminded that opening
statements may be submitted for the record. We are pleased to
have a distinguished panel of witnesses before us today on this
important topic that lead the charge on what we are discussing
today.
First, we have Hon. Rena Bitter, who is serving as the
Assistant Secretary of Consular Affairs. We have had the
opportunity to speak numerous times. It's good to see you back
here again today.
From 2016 to 2020 she was the U.S. Ambassador to the Lao
People's Democratic Republic and has held many senior Consular
Affairs positions such as counsel general in the Ho Chi Minh
City, consular chief in Amman, Jordan, and nonimmigrant visa
chief in London.
Next, we have Hon. Roger D. Carstens, who is serving as the
Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs since 2020.
Prior to his time there Ambassador Carstens was Deputy
Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights,
and Labor, and Ambassador Carstens is a retired Army lieutenant
colonel who served in Special Forces but most important to Mr.
Crow and myself served in the First Ranger Battalion. Rangers
lead the way.
And, last, we have Mr. Rajiv Maan, who is the director of
Hostage Recovery Fusion Cell at the FBI. Mr. Maan began his
career in law enforcement in 1994 and since has dedicated much
of his career to counter terrorism matters.
Thank you for being here, each and every one of you, today.
Your full statements will be made a part of the record. I'll
ask you to keep your spoken remarks to 5 minutes in order to
allow time for member questions and I now recognize Assistant
Secretary Bitter for her opening statement.
STATEMENT OF RENA BITTER
Ms. Bitter. Thank you, Chairman Mast, Ranking Member Crow,
and members of the committee. Thanks to all of you for the
opportunity to discuss the State Department's highest priority,
the safety and security of U.S. citizens abroad.
In the Bureau of Consular Affairs we are the public face of
that effort for millions of Americans every year. Today, more
Americans than ever before have passports and can travel
internationally more than at any time in our history.
If any of our fellow citizens encounter an emergency
overseas including an arrest or detention it is our consular
teams who are on the front lines supporting them.
However, the role of the Bureau of Consular Affairs in
serving the traveling public actually begins before Americans
leave our borders. The most important way that we fulfill our
responsibility to U.S. citizens is through our public travel
advice.
Our travel.State.gov website, which gets more than 700
million hits every year, features country specific pages where
Americans can find up-to-date unbiased information about their
destination so they can make informed decisions about their
safety and security while traveling abroad.
On these pages we make sure Americans are aware that
they're subject to local laws when traveling abroad and we
highlight ways in which local law may differ from our own.
Nevertheless, last year about 6,000 U.S. citizens were arrested
around the world on charges ranging from minor infractions to
murder.
In these cases our goal is to ensure that U.S. citizens
receive the fairest possible treatment under local law and that
they're being cared for appropriately by local authorities. We
seek immediate access and visit U.S. citizens as soon as we're
aware of the arrest. We provide lists of English-speaking
lawyers, translators, and other support.
We'll make sure that their medical needs are being met and
if they want we'll make sure that they can be in touch with
their families.
Throughout the pretrial phase of any U.S. citizen's
detention we conduct regular visits and maintain close contact
with their lawyers and family to ensure that the case is
progressing normally under local law and to assure no abuse or
mistreatment.
We do this for any U.S. citizen regardless of the nature of
the crime they're accused of. Throughout our close monitoring
of each American's case our embassy officials, who are familiar
with legal systems in their host countries, continually review
the circumstances of the detention to ensure that the American
is fairly treated under local law and to detect whether there
are any Levinson indicators that might suggest wrongful
detention.
This monitoring does not stop at the pretrial phase. Last
year our officers made 7,600 prison visits to detained
Americans including 1,700 prisoners serving long-term sentences
abroad. Of those, the Secretary has determined a handful to be
wrongfully detained.
In helping the secretary make that determination the Bureau
of Consular Affairs is a partner in what is a whole of
department effort involving, at a minimum, the Bureau of
Consular Affairs, the Office of the Special Presidential Envoy
for Hostage Affairs, our missions abroad and our partners in
the State Department's regional bureaus.
Again, the Secretary of State makes the ultimate
determination and once he does the lead is transferred from
Consular Affairs to SPEHA.
When the Secretary makes a wrongful detention determination
and Ambassador Carstens and his team lead the department's
efforts to seek release our consular officers continue their
visit to these detained Americans to advocate for their health
and welfare.
We do so until the moment any U.S. citizen wrongfully
detained or not and regardless of the nature of the crime is
released and comes home to their family.
As I mentioned, there are 1,700 U.S. citizens serving
prison sentences overseas. As a proportion of the department's
caseload wrongful detentions are quite rare. In most places
U.S. citizens--in most places that U.S. citizens travel to the
risk is almost nonexistent and, to return to the top of my
comments, is reflected in our travel advice.
Here I want to also address the families. We know whatever
statistics we provide do not provide comfort to U.S. citizens
who are arrested or to their families under any circumstances
overseas.
We can assure them, though, that whether their family
member is determined to be wrongfully detained or not that our
posts overseas are monitoring their situations, their well
being, and advocating for the best possible treatment during
what we know are very difficult times.
Thank you very much, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bitter follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Mast. Thank you, ma'am.
I now recognize Ambassador Carstens for his opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF ROGER D. CARSTENS
Mr. Carstens. Chairman Mast, Ranking Member Crow, and
members of the committee, thank you for holding this hearing.
I've spoken to many of you before and I appreciate the
attention and support Congress has given to Americans held
hostage and wrongfully detained overseas.
My name is Roger Carstens and since March 2020 I've had the
honor of serving as the Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage
Affairs, or SPEHA. The work we do in my office is hard.
One of the hardest but also most rewarding parts of this
job is connecting with the families of Americans held captive
and especially with the returnees when they come home. I see
that many of them are in the audience behind me today and it's
good to see them here.
The average person does not understand the amount of pain
that families go through. It's a daily thing and every day is
tough. They're wondering whether their loved one's health is
failing. Are they being mistreated? Are they being fed? Are
they ever going to come home?
In many of these cases these families suffer through this
for years. I'm grateful for the relationships that we've built
with these families and building a trust-based relationship
with these families and the U.S. Government that's a win.
But the only time you really win is when an American who's
been held captive steps off a plane onto U.S. soil and falls
into the arms of one of their loved ones and it's a special
thing to witness.
A husband and wife reconnect, a mother and son, a father
and daughter--it's so personal and intimate to watch that you
almost feel like you should avert your eyes and look away.
It's the only time that we can say that we've actually got
our job done. This gets to the bigger picture of why we're here
today. A fundamental value shared by everyone in this room and,
I hope, every American is that we all care for the well being
of our fellow Americans.
What brings us together is the U.S. government's commitment
and, yes, the obligation to secure the release of our fellow
Americans held captive around the world and that's what's at
the heart of today's hearing.
SPEHA and the broader hostage recovery enterprise was
created in response to tragic events 10 years ago. Terrorist
groups including ISIS abducted Americans, subjected them to
deprivation and torture, and tragically murdered them in the
most inhumane ways possible.
And then when the family members of these Americans reached
out for help, the U.S. Government did not have ready responses,
did not operate in transparency, and in some cases even
threatened them with prosecution for providing support to
terrorists as they considered options to bring their loved ones
home.
These tragic deaths of Americans were a wake-up call. In
2015 President Obama fundamentally changed the U.S. approach on
hostages and wrongful detentions. He created SPEHA as well as
the Hostage Recovery Fusion Cell and the National Security
Council's Hostage Response Group.
These groups within the executive branch, together with
Congress, the families, civil society groups, the private
sector, the media and others make up the hostage recovery
enterprise, a group of individuals and organizations committed
to bringing Americans wrongfully detained and held hostage back
home.
In SPEHA I have three primary missions: one, bring home
American hostages and wrongful detainees; two, support their
families; and three, come up with a way to prevent, deter, and
otherwise counter bad actors from engaging in this horrific
practice.
Congress has been a vital partner in our efforts to bring
Americans home. The 2020 Levinson Act codified SPEHA and also
provided discretionary criteria for the Secretary of State to
make wrongful detention determinations.
Today, when an American is detained abroad our consular
officers know to look for indicators that the detention may be
wrongful. If the Secretary of State determines that it is, we
make all the appropriate efforts to bring that person home.
Every wrongful detention case is unique. Sometimes the
facts are clear and we can quickly determine that a detention
is wrongful. More often we have limited access to a country,
its decisionmakers or information, and it takes time to get a
full picture of what's going on.
It's important that we get this decision right. If we do
not, we risk jeopardizing the legitimacy of other cases and
could make it more difficult to get other wrongfully detained
Americans home.
We ultimately need to end the practice of hostage
diplomacy. The United States is not the only country to have
its citizens arbitrarily detained for political leverage. The
nature of this problem is global and so, therefore, should be
the solution.
As we work with like-minded countries to develop a
collective response for now and the years ahead we are
confident that if we get a critical mass of partners together
to raise the cost of using foreign nationals as bargaining
chips we will be able to effectively deter bad actors and end
arbitrary detention as a tool of diplomacy.
If you come away with one message today I want it to be
this. If you're an American and you hold a blue passport and
you're wrongfully detained or taken hostage overseas your
government will work to secure your release.
We will partner with your family, providing resources and
information about your case. The Biden administration has
brought home 47 Americans and this accomplishment was only
possible with the bipartisan support of Congress.
I welcome the opportunity to answer your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Carstens follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Mast. Thank you, sir.
I now recognize Director Maan. I recognize you for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF RAJIV MAAN
Mr. Maan. Good morning, Chairman Mast, Ranking Member Crow,
and other members on the subcommittee. Thank you for having me
here today.
I am FBI Section Chief Rajiv S. Maan. I'm the director of
the Hostage Recovery Fusion Cell, the HRFC. The Hostage--the
HRFC is the government's dedicated interagency coordinating
body at the operational level for the recovery of U.S.
nationals held hostage abroad.
In 2014 the Obama administration called for a review of the
U.S. government's response to hostage taking. This was
initiated following public outcry from families whose sons and
daughters were taken by terrorist organizations overseas and
felt frustrated the U.S. Government was not doing enough to
bring the loved ones home and poorly communicating with them
about those efforts.
The hostage review policy looked at four areas--government
coordination, engagement with families and external
stakeholders, intelligence sharing and collection, and U.S.
policy response to hostage taking.
As a result of the review in 2015 the President issued
Executive Order 13698 and Presidential Policy Directive 30. The
executive order and PPD--30 established the HRFC along with the
Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs--SPEHA.
This was further established under statute--the Robert
Levinson Hostage Taking Accountability Act. The HRFC consists
of professionals from the FBI, Departments of State, Defense,
Treasury, Justice, and the U.S. intelligence community.
The HRFC's primary responsibilities are to identify and
recommend hostage recovery options and strategies to the
President through the National Security Council; coordinate
efforts of the U.S. departments and agencies to develop and
execute strategies including potential recovery options as well
as engagements with families; assess and track all hostage
takings for U.S. nationals abroad and provide regular reports
to the President through the NSC; provide a forum for
intelligence sharing; provide appropriate support and
assistance to hostages and their families in a coordinated and
consistent manner and provide the families with timeful
information on their cases; make recommendation to the
executive departments and agencies to reduce the likelihood of
U.S. nationals being taken hostage abroad and coordinate with
departments and agencies regarding congressional, media, and
public inquiries pertaining to hostage events.
The HRFC coordinates with the SPEHA office on all
diplomatic lines of effort. One of HRFC's most important
component is our family engagement team. Headed by our family
engagement coordinator this interagency team consists of FBI
victim service coordinators, operational psychologists, case
agents, crisis negotiators, as well as State Department
consular affairs officer.
The team directly engages with and supports families
providing information, crisis intervention, and appropriate
resources and referrals to families affected by hostage taking.
Our family engagement team is also the lead node in
collaborating with families as we develop comprehensive
strategies for the successful recovery of loved ones.
There are two main instances in which the HRFC is the lead
for developing a strategy for recovery when a U.S. national is
taken abroad.
The first is when a U.S. national is being held against his
or her will by a nonState actor such as a terrorist group or
network this individual is designated as a hostage.
The second is an unacknowledged detainee. That is when a
U.S. national is being held against his or her will by a State
actor or nonState actor and they have not acknowledged to the
United States, to the family, or other entities they are
holding that person.
We work very hard with our host countries to establish and
maintain good relationships all over the globe. We work closely
with interlocutors and SPEHA in diplomatic efforts. In my 28
years in law enforcement I've never seen intelligence
collection and sharing as well as interagency cooperation the
way the hostage enterprise is now.
Intelligence analysts are vetting shared intelligence. Law
enforcement officers from the FBI and other agencies are
looking in the lead and the families are included in the
process the way they were not 10 years ago.
It is a great honor to be part of the HRFC. HRFC is
grateful for the strong support of Congress, in particular this
committee.
Thank you for inviting me here today. I'm available to
answer any questions you have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Maan follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Mast. I want to thank all of you again for your
testimoneys, and not just here but your willingness to do a
classified testimony with our members as well following this.
It's going to be very important for a number of the questions
that can't be answered in here to be answered in the SCIF.
So thank you again for your willingness to make time for
that. I'll now recognize Ranking Member Crow for 5 minutes.
Mr. Crow. Thank you, Chairman.
You know, there's a debate that is often raging on the Hill
about, you know, the tradeoff between making deals to return
hostages or the wrongfully detained under the understanding
that the United States should not leave people behind versus
the notion that making deals might incentivize folks to detain
more Americans.
So I would love your views on that issue and whether you
think, you know, we should continue to try to find ways of
making deals when necessary to get our people home and the
impact of us stopping that policy on your jobs and how you
think we would address that if we were not to approach deal
making.
Mr. Carstens. Ranking Member Crow, I hope you don't mind if
I jump in and take that first.
Mr. Crow. Yes, please.
Mr. Carstens. These are always hard decisions. I think you
take a case like what we had to do in Russia or what we've done
in Venezuela we actually spend years sometimes trying to divine
what the other side wants, having very tough conversations with
them.
At times we come up with options that we present to the
other side that are either given a yes, no, or a maybe, and as
we struggle to get through this at times you'll find that it's
going to be that one thing that's going to make this trade come
home.
Either you do it or that person doesn't come home, and in
some of these cases it's turned out to be a person for person
trade. In some cases, like Venezuela, for example, we've
brought home well over 15 people for the trades of three
different people. The two people on one occasion and one
Venezuelan on another has resulted in the return of multiple
Americans.
To an extent it's always unpalatable because the decisions
are hard but, really, the alternative is those Americans don't
come home.
But in doing this we have very vigorous discussions within
the State Department--excuse me, the interagency, and we even
asked the intelligence community to opine to get a sense that
if the United States returns someone who's held by the U.S. to
their home country as a part of a trade we want to get a sense
of what level of danger they present to the United States and
its partners and allies after their release.
In the cases that we have made the decisions we felt
reasonably comfortable that the person going back would not
have some sort of residual threat to the United States and our
partners and allies, and though the deals are tough, again, it
brings Americans home.
Why do the other side usually ask for criminals who've done
some pretty evil things? It's hard to determine. But I do know
that at the end of the day we value the individual and we get
that individual back.
They might value the hardened criminal or drug trafficker
and they get that person back but an American goes home to
their family.
Mr. Crow. Any other thoughts on that?
Ms.. Bitter. Thank you, Ranking Member Crow.
I'll just add that this is something that we think quite a
lot about and one of the ways that--in working with Roger that
we try to support the efforts is through--again, through our
travel advice.
The travel advice is meant to provide unbiased up-to-date
information so Americans can make good decisions about their
safety and security abroad. We recently added an indicator for
countries that do participate in wrongful detention so that
Americans at least can be aware.
Again, there aren't that many countries that participate in
this but where there are we're trying to make sure Americans
are aware before they travel.
Mr. Crow. Mr. Maan?
Mr. Maan. Sir, the--SPEHA's office is the lead role in
wrongful detention. We, too--the HRFC as well puts out
advisories through our outreach to businesses, faith-based
groups, and other members through travel advisories to warn
them of such travels so they're not taken hostage or detained
abroad.
Mr. Crow. And with my remaining time, there's often a
misunderstanding between hostages and wrongfully detained and
what will set off a wrongful detention determination. Would one
of you be able to just provide a very quick, high-level
synopsis of the differences of those two and what tracks one
case in one direction versus another?
Mr. Carstens. I'll see if I can be quick in case someone
wants to jump in.
So, essentially, generally a wrongful detainee that's
someone that's taken by a nation State, for example, Russia,
China, Iran. A hostage is someone that's taken by a terrorist
group. Think ISIS, think JNIM, or something along those lines.
In terms of the wrongful detention, information comes into
the State Department and we sort through it and look for these
indicators of wrongfulness. Oftentimes that information comes
from the embassy forward but it also might come from family
members, the intelligence community, the media.
As that information comes in we start to build a case and
try to create a picture to determine whether that's wrongful or
not, and if the information and taking a look at the totality
of the circumstances surrounding that case indicates
wrongfulness we send it up for the Secretary of State to render
a decision.
Raj, you might want to cover the hostage side of the house.
Mr. Crow. And by wrongful you mean that there isn't
actually a legitimate reason for somebody to be detained if
they haven't committed a crime or something within that country
or area. Is that accurate?
Mr. Carstens. Ranking Member Crow, sometimes they actually
might have done the crime or there might be some ambiguity.
We're not entirely sure.
But in taking a look at the Levinson criteria provided to
us by Congress in the 2020 Levinson Act we're able to kind of
wrestle with that.
So even though someone might actually be guilty of
something or there might be some ambiguity, it could be the way
that they've been treated, the fact that they didn't have fair
trial guarantees, the fact that their human rights or their
fundamental rights were violated.
In the totality of those circumstances it might start to
give the feeling of wrongfulness and that's when the case would
go forward and once someone's determined----
Mr. Crow. So it could be even if there is an underlying
crime or act it also includes process--if there isn't a
legitimate process as well that could cue off the wrongful
detention determination?
Mr. Carstens. That's exactly right. That's exactly right.
And once someone--I should say once someone's determined to
be wrongful at that point the whole weight of the U.S.
Government can start advocating for that person's return. Prior
to that, prior to wrongful detention, the cases stay in the
consular bureau and Assistant Secretary Rena Bitter will manage
that case.
And I don't know if you want to talk about the cases that
are not yet wrongfully detained.
Ms. Bitter. Sure. I'll just highlight one thing although
you, Roger, covered it quite well and I do want to give Raj a
chance to weigh in.
When somebody is wrongfully detained, as Roger says it's
the weight of the U.S. Government really advocating for their
release. If somebody is not wrongfully detained, if they have
committed a crime, if there is no--if they're under the
totality of the Levinson circumstances--under those totality of
the circumstances there's no indication that they're wrongfully
detained--then what we're doing is advocating for the fairest
treatment under local law and for their well being and for
their--the best possible treatment that they can obtain.
Mr. Crow. Thank you. That's helpful. I'm out of time. I
thank the chairman for the additional minutes. I yield back.
Mr. Mast. Absolutely. The chair now recognizes
Representative Moran for 5 minutes.
Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to each
of the witnesses here today for this important discussion.
My heart simply goes out to all those men and women abroad
that are being detained inappropriately and to their families.
I know it's a great burden on each one of those families when
this happens.
Ambassador Carstens, I want to start with you and ask you a
couple of questions in particular about our--some adversarial
countries like Iran and Venezuela. Tell us what we are doing
specifically to take away the incentives for hostages to be
taken in the future.
Mr. Carstens. Congressman, I appreciate that question.
We think deterrence is very important. We have got to come
up with a way that raises the cost for these countries taking
our citizens.
I think it's going to take some time to build it but I
think we're already on already on that path that 1 day will get
us to the point where we raise the cost so high that they'll
stop taking our citizens.
Right now we're working with our partners and allies, most
specifically the Canadians, who, through their arbitrary
detention initiative have brought countries to the fore,
signing the declaration against arbitrary detention in State to
State relations, currently signed by 76 countries and the
European Union trying to reestablish that norm that taking
citizens and using them as political bargaining chips is just
not something we should be doing.
We have also established, along with the Canadians, an
independent legal panel made up of high-level jurists who can
start looking at some of the legal remedies that we might have
to also put this problem to rest.
Mr. Moran. And let me ask you about one of those. One step
that might be taken is creating an official designation for
maybe what's called, quote, ``State sponsor of arbitrary
detention.'' Is that something you guys have discussed within
the agency?
Mr. Carstens. You know, I think that's being discussed
right now by the independent legal panel. These are things that
we have also talked to or talked about with lawyers not only
within the State Department but the interagency.
We have also reached out to places like the Atlantic
Council and CSIS to have these legal discussions because right
now there are legal tools available and agreements available
that we have not put into the service of stopping this problem
and they're probably ones that we're going to have to tie into,
and we may actually be coming back to Congress in the next year
to ask for more authorities that allow us to have more of a--a
more muscular legal response to this being done.
Mr. Moran. Okay. You talked about the Levinson Act earlier.
That's one of the tools. Are you using sanctions that are
allowed under the Levinson Act to help deter and get back our
hostages?
Mr. Carstens. You know, we have done so 15 times. I think
you've probably noticed that we have leveled sanctions against
groups in Iran. We have leveled sanctions against groups in
Russia.
We have leveled sanctions against specific individuals in
JNIM, and the idea is that if we can level a sanction to get
some sort of justice and accountability or effect a return
that's a good move.
I have to confess, sometimes it's hard to level a sanction
when you're currently in the negotiating space and you're
trying to figure out if a sanction is leveled what kind of
pressure will that bring to bear--will that get someone back or
will that push that farther away.
But to date we have definitely used that sanctioning
authority given to us by Congress.
Mr. Moran. Have you also considered the possibility of
amending the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to allow for
private suits against countries that have a State sponsor of
arbitrary detention designation? Have you guys considered that?
Mr. Carstens. Congressman, we have been talking about that
for 3 years and that's absolutely something that we wrestle
with, so yes.
Mr. Moran. What's your opinion about that? Do you think
that's a good idea?
Mr. Carstens. I almost feel like I--I wonder if I should
say that we wait until we get an official decision on that
before I render it. But, to my mind, I would lean toward it.
I mean, if a country is allowing its--if a country is
behaving to the point that it's taking citizens as bargaining
chips that's something that has to be addressed. But I imagine
that the greater legal minds--I didn't go to law school. I
wasn't smart enough to get in. But I imagine that the lawyers
that we have employed in trying to research this will come up
with an answer that makes sense and we'll try to progress
forward.
Mr. Moran. I wasn't smart enough either but somehow I did
get into law school. I'm curious also about one other possible
tool in your toolbox because that's really, I think, what we're
talking about is giving you tools in your tool box----
Mr. Carstens. That's exactly it, yes.
Mr. Moran [continuing]. To get our hostages back. What
about amending Title 18, making wrongful detention a crime, and
allowing suits against foreigners in those instances?
Mr. Carstens. I feel like you've been talking to my team
because that's something that we have also been talking about.
I will tell you, as we go forward I don't think we have
been shy about reaching out to Capitol Hill. We're happy to
work with members of your staff and others to see if we can
develop and create some more positive ways to use legal tools
in the service of trying to stop this thing.
But let me throw one thing at you real quick. To our mind,
there is the sanctioning authority. But we feel like there are
tools out there across all elements of national power that we
could take and put into service of trying to stop this or maybe
we need to come back to Congress and ask for authorities.
But it can't just be diplomacy. We have to think in terms
of intelligence, the military, law enforcement, economic tools.
All elements of national power could probably put in some
sense into the service of trying to make this go away and we
look forward to working with you and your team as we go forward
and explore those.
Mr. Moran. I agree with those comments and I think what
you'll find on this panel today is this is a very bipartisan
issue and one that we can work together.
If there are legislative suggestions I would ask you to
bring those to us specifically so that we can work through the
legislative process and give you some more tools in the tool
box so that we can protect our citizens when they are abroad.
Thank you all for your work.
Mr. Carstens. Thank you, sir. Thank you.
Mr. Moran. I appreciate it. I yield back.
Mr. Mast. Thank you, Mr. Moran.
The chair now recognizes Ms. Titus for 5 minutes.
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You heard earlier stated that this administration tends to
play favorites and they will go to save some hostages before
others including celebrities, and I think the basketball player
Brittney Griner was mentioned.
I'd just like for the record for you to tell us whether
that is, indeed, a policy or a practice.
Mr. Carstens. Congresswoman, thank you for that question.
Under the Biden administration, we have brought back 47
Americans, and if you were to take a look at who's come back
you'd find an entire tapestry of what makes this country great
and that is you will find people that are poor, rich, well
connected, not well connected, people that are famous, not
famous, black, white, Asian, Hispanic, Muslim, Christian,
agnostic, atheist. It's this entire array of everyone who makes
up our country.
And so even though I can get--I can understand the
perspective of someone who's outside looking in, to my mind we
work just as hard to take care of someone who lives maybe in
almost--in an economically poor situation in maybe the rural
South just as we would for someone who might come from wealth
and who might be connected in the Northeast. We don't care.
If that case is wrongfully detained we are going to pursue
it like bulldogs and we do not prioritize based on wealth or
connections or anything else. So we're going to work just as
hard for someone who has no connection, no wealth, and no way
to think they'd get it done as we will for someone who might be
on the opposite end of the spectrum.
This is an American problem and if you have a passport and
are taken hostage or wrongfully detained you're all my number-
one priority and we're going to somehow find a way to get the
job done.
Ms. Titus. Thank you. I appreciate it and respect that.
You know, as we address the big questions of how to define
different categories of people who are detained and how to
perhaps disincentivize it and how to serve the people while
they're detained, there's some little things that we shouldn't
forget. I don't want to trivialize that but I would just want
to bring up something small that could make a difference.
You know, when a person comes home we don't want them to be
subjected to a lot of bureaucratic red tape and one of the
things that exists that is astounding to me because there are
waivers for people who are victims of terrorist attacks or
natural disasters.
Excuse me, I'm sorry--I can't talk. But when a person comes
back from being illegally detained they have to pay late fees
on their income taxes.
Mr. Carstens. I hope you don't mind if I jump in on that
one, too. So----
Ms. Titus. You go right ahead. You know where I'm going
with this.
Mr. Carstens. Oh, I do. I mean, I remember driving home one
night at, like, 9 or 10 at night. Yes, I work late. And I was
talking to Jason Rezaian and we talked about this
specifically--this had to be 3 years ago--and Jason was
highlighting the fact that the IRS wanted him to pay his taxes
and then there were, you know, late fees associated with that.
And so we jumped right in on that and within short a short
time we have an official liaison from the IRS that my office
speaks to quite often and we're trying to work through those
issues.
I know Capitol Hill--Congress--you've been working with
Jason to create something which takes away those fees that are
associated with that. But this is something that's important to
us, that when you come back we're going to help you cleanup the
admin mess, and we have been working within the entire
interagency to address that.
But, additionally, we're trying to also get ahead of that.
We're very grateful for what you've done to give us that--a
push in that direction. So grateful you brought that up.
But these are the things that plague us, too. One thing
that we do is that if someone is declared wrongfully detained
or if they're declared a hostage, at least on the wrongful
detention side we will provide a letter that they can take to
their creditors, they can take it to the bank, and explain that
this might not be the person whose credit card you keep
charging interest or someone whose mortgage you closed down
because this has been officially designated as wrongfully
detained by the U.S. Government.
So we're trying to work through all these things. I think
we have a lot more work to go and I personally look forward to
working with you and your teams to find better ways to solve
these problems.
Ms. Titus. Well, thank you.
I know that you can apply for a waiver and maybe the IRS
will grant it or not, but I think we ought to just put that in
statute and there--I have a bill to do that, and you see that
this is a cross-government approach.
You see three agencies sitting before us, and I'm glad you
have a liaison with the IRS but I think if we formalize that we
can have it as a policy and that'll just take one less little
thing off the plate that people have to worry about when they
come home.
Thank you. Thank you for your help on that. I yield back.
Mr. Mast. Thank you, Ms. Titus.
I'll recognize myself for 5 minutes. Primarily I'm going to
speak to you right now, Mr. Carstens.
You have the perspective of--just time wise of multiple
administrations and I want to start with this and maybe even go
beyond the administrations that you've worked in.
Carrots and sticks are things that you deal with in trying
to get back those wrongfully detained, and when you look at
this how many of those nations in either administration would
you say were recipients of U.S. carrots already--U.S. aid, U.S.
grants, U.S. whatever--from a number of different agencies?
How many of these countries whether it's the 40 you've
dealt--40-plus you've dealt with in the Biden administration or
previously that are already receiving some kind of American
support?
Mr. Carstens. Mr. Chairman, that might be a little bit
outside the scope of my duties here but let me see if I can
scratch the itch here.
Most of the countries, I would say, we don't really have a
great relationship. As I think I was joking with you a few days
ago, the Canadians aren't taking our Americans.
It's usually some people that are a little bit tougher on
us, and so we're not necessarily providing, you know,
assistance or aid to those countries.
There are countries like--I think you mentioned Afghanistan
where the United States is working through broader policy
issues, and there might be humanitarian assistance, for
example, that's applied.
But I think in terms of humanitarian assistance, having
spent time in the human rights field as well, we're always very
interested in taking care of the most vulnerable by providing
them with humanitarian assistance regardless of the situation
involved.
But I think in terms of tying it in to the broader policy,
I might actually, in a way, flip that and I would say that some
of the success that my office has had is by trying to distance
itself from some of those broader policy discussions so that we
can silo it off and have those conversations that focus purely
on the hostages.
But your point is well taken.
Mr. Mast. Not that you have the authority to unilaterally
end some level of assistance but----
Mr. Carstens. Correct. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mast [continuing]. Given the Fusion Cell, given
everybody, this is a whole of government approach meant to
bring all options to bear on anybody that is holding Americans
wrongfully. So it still bears as a part of what could be the
negotiation.
And I would ask one more specific question on this before I
move to a different topic. Can you identify specifically any
that you have had to deal with in either administration that
you've worked in where they specifically rejected the idea of
some kind of aid or having some aid taken away from them? Said,
we're not interested in that as a negotiation--we just want
this person or this group of persons, or whatever?
Mr. Carstens. Mr. Chairman, yes, I've had that happen
before. I can think of negotiations where we went in hoping
that a certain policy option--in this case, we decided a policy
option might be the way to go forward and, yet, putting that on
the table the other side wanted to conduct a person-to-person
swap.
I think as we talked we try to take a look at many options
and at times we want to do something that's not necessarily a
person-to-person swap because they're so unpalatable.
But I have had times where we have tried something that's a
little more policy related and the other side has rejected it
and pushed us back into the realm of person-to-person swaps.
Mr. Mast. PPD--30 speaks about incentivizing behavior,
right? We could be incentivizing things in either direction and
so it's certainly a thought that if somebody is rejecting aid
as a carrot or is already receiving aid and does not care if
that is removed we should incentivize that behavior--that we
will recognize that and make sure that that is removed or never
offered to them because that has been their policy.
Like I said, I do want to move to something different. If
you look, again, over your tenures can you give us an idea of
how detainment--wrongful detainment--has evolved over the years
that you've been a part of this directly or even what you've
studied historically with your predecessors?
Mr. Carstens. Mr. Chairman, I think when I was in the Trump
administration we didn't yet have the Levinson Act and it was
more of just trying to make a good, calculated guess as to
whether someone was wrongfully detained or not.
On the hostage side, in a way a little bit easier because
just the process there, which, of course, Raj could talk
about--Raj Maan could talk about.
But when I showed up, you know, we had, roughly, about 30
cases. I think there was a time during the Biden administration
that we went up to 54 cases both of hostages and wrongful
detainees, and here's what's interesting.
Because you talked about that incentivization. If we were
to make a swap then you would think it's common sense,
actually, that our numbers would keep going up--that the other
side would figure out that this was a way to leverage us and
they would keep taking Americans.
But, strangely, I've gone from 54--I'm now in between 20
and 30. So our numbers are actually starting to go down.
One thing I'd love to do as time goes on is really throw
some heavy research resources into this problem set so that
when I say something before a body like this we have the
mathematics and the hardcore research to back it up.
But right now what I can tell you is when I showed up
without the Levinson Act we had, roughly, 30. We went up to a
point of 54 and now we're down hovering between 20 and 30,
depending on how you slice and dice that.
Mr. Mast. Very good. Now--oh, Okay. We do have the request
to add a member. The chair asks unanimous consent that the
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Cloud, be allowed to sit on this dais
and participate in today's hearing.
Without objection, so ordered. Now the chair will recognize
Mr. Allred for 5 minutes.
Mr. Allred. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank you for holding this important hearing and
for your focus on this issue. It is a bipartisan issue, and I
want to thank our panel for joining us.
And, you know, as a father of two young boys I always say
in all of my experience speaking with the families of folks who
are wrongfully detained or are hostages I can only hope that I
would go as far as I know all of you all have gone, whether
that's Deborah Tice who for 12 years has been staying--I just
met with her recently or whether that's Malphine Fogel who I
also met with not long ago. Their commitment to their loved
ones is inspiring to me and has to, I think, remind all of us
to keep going.
Mr. Carstens, I just wanted to begin with you and touch on
our experience together, and thank you for the work that we did
in trying to bring home Brittney Griner.
I want to just have folks out there who might be watching
this to know that in all of our discussions about bringing home
Brittney we also talked about Paul Whelan and Marc Fogel.
This was a situation where we wanted to bring everyone
home, and in this setting I think the most we can say is that
it required us have a partner who would actually do that trade.
And the focus that, you know, I think you and I had over
the course of our conversations and the classified briefings
that you and your team were kind enough to organize was the
understanding that this was going to be an incredibly difficult
swap at some point.
But I think it says a lot about us as Americans that we are
willing to make that swap and also that we'll do anything to
bring Americans home that we're going to keep working on
bringing Paul Whelan and Marc Fogel home.
And so I want to thank your team for their hard work in
that regard and, you know, obviously, watching, you know,
Brittney thrive now and I think that's a testament to your hard
work and we have to keep working on bringing every American
home.
I wanted to come back to something that you mentioned about
this being a global problem and needing a global solution, and
if you could expand a bit upon that to give us some insight
into what you think a broader response, pulling together all of
our capacity both with folks who we agree with and folks we
disagree with to try and set some standards and some rules of
the road and bring to bear international pressure when hostage
taking occurs or wrongfully detained occurrences.
Mr. Carstens. Congressman, thank you for that and I would
like to say that it was an honor to work with you to bring
Brittney Griner home. I know you've also been working with
Deborah Tice and, in fact, if I may out you, you've come to
talk to me about cases that fell outside your jurisdiction.
I think once you get involved in this business you start to
keep coming back to help and I appreciate the broader support
you've given us outside those who live in your district.
I'd also like to say I appreciated your care for Paul
Whelan, too. And you're right, every time we talked about
Brittney Griner we were talking about Paul and others.
And so the enemy gets a vote, as we used to say when I was
in the military, and sometimes you'll find the people that are
holding our Americans they get a vote. They hold the key to the
jail cell, and it's a pleasure to work together with you to
find the ways to break that out.
And I'll say the--it's not the executive branch that brings
people home. It's not my office. It's all of us. When someone
comes home it has the thumb print of Capitol Hill, NGO's,
empowered individuals, partners and allies.
So it was great to work with you on those cases and bring
someone home.
Now, before you accuse me of running out the clock allow me
to answer your question. So I can picture a time when if we can
build a multilateral coalition of 10 and eventually 20 and then
30 countries where we all start working on those toolbox that--
with those tools that Congressman Moran was talking about to
where when someone is taken from a country--let's say that a
Swede is taken by Iran--these countries can come together, make
a determination together that this person is arbitrarily
detained by the country of Iran and then approach Iran with
this suite of tools along lines of effort that we'll 1 day
finally show the Iranians that we're onto their game, we're
coming together, and we're going to make it too costly for them
to do this again.
That day is coming. Now, is it going to happen 7 years from
now or 17 years from now? I don't know. What I can tell you is
I have two people on my team, soon three, that do nothing but
this. I have a deterrence team and 24/7 they worry about
deterrence, and we are on the phone 24/7 with people around the
world trying to pull in this multilateral effort to try to get
this done.
We also appreciate the leadership of the Canadians in this
regard. So we're going to get this done 1 day and it's going to
come from a multilateral effort which is supported by this
legal team that I talked to you about, by reestablishing the
norms and working with you to try to find the ways that we can
partner to gain new authorizations as needed to address this
issue.
Mr. Allred. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, if I could just say
one thing before I yield.
We're going to have a classified briefing and I know
Deborah Tice is likely watching this or will be watching this.
And, Director Maan, I just want to say that I'll have some
questions specifically about Austin's case and hope that in a
classified setting we can have a thorough discussion.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Mast. Thank you, Mr. Allred.
The chair now recognizes Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick.
Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I first want to recognize the families who still have
people who are detained. My heart goes out to them. And also I
want to thank you for your help because we had some
constituents who were detained in Haiti who you've helped their
release and I can't thank you enough for partnering with us and
what you guys do.
My question is that it's evident that the release of
wrongfully detained victims is a complex issue with valid
concerns on both sides. On one hand, there's a long-standing
belief that any engaging in negotiations or trades with hostage
takers would incentivize further hostage taking and wrongful
detention, putting more American lives at risk.
However, the Biden-Harris administration has taken a
notable different approach, facilitating the release of over 47
Americans through various mean including exchanges at a rate
significantly higher than previous administrations.
What, in your view, has been the consequence of these
differences and do you feel Americans are being taken hostage
or wrongfully detained at higher rates because the government
has been willing to make trades?
Mr. Carstens. Congresswoman, thank you for that question.
Again, it almost defies common sense. I think three, four and a
half years ago when I took this job I would have said if we
were to do some of the things that we have done to bring people
home it would incentivize the other side.
But the math just is not adding up. It's actually going
down. It's going the other direction. So I'd love to do more
research on this. I would love it.
We're actually kind of--we're actually working with people
from the RAND Corporation, for example, CSIS, and other places
to try to do the mathematics to determine what is happening
here in this space. But, again, my numbers are actually going
down.
Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. Families who go through the
horror of having a relative wrongfully detained or taken
hostage are suffering immense trauma. Having dealt with
kidnappings in Haiti of members of my own district I appreciate
the work that you've done to provide comfort and resources for
these families.
However, in 2021 Republicans stripped the entire foreign
affairs title containing the CIFA family support legislation
out of the annual State appropriations bill.
It wasn't until 2023 that the House Democrats were able to
negotiate with Republicans to get the provision passed in the
state-authorized package. Can you describe for the committee
how the loss of this provision affected the work of CIFA?
Mr. Carstens. I might start off. I don't know if you want
to jump in either. But I'll say that I think, from our
perspective, this will be a strange answer to the question. But
when I took the job we only had a few people and we had to
really understand how we were going to build it out and how
we're going to approach this problem set, and very quickly over
time, working with my chief of staff, we determined that for my
group we need a case team, a family engagement team, and a
deterrence team, and then we spent the next few years trying to
build it out.
And so I would say that we might not have been well
positioned to think about how to use those resources back then
whereas where we are right now when it came time to talk to
Capitol Hill about what we might need over the next year or so
last year we finally had our act together.
We were able to talk to members of not only our
administration through the OMB process but also members on
Capitol Hill about what those requirements might be and how we
could put them into action.
And the result is what happened in the 2024 NDAA where you
were kind enough to grant us additional authorities,
appropriations are going to follow, and with that in mind we're
able to offer extra assistance and special assistance to people
coming back from detentions but also to take care of their
family members.
We are now, thanks to the help of Congress, able to provide
mental health support and physical health support to the
families of those detained while they're still detained, and
once someone comes back we're still able to continue that
support and also take care of the detainee.
So I think we're in a better place now to, I would say,
manage the process, request the process, and work together with
you to find out what those next needs might be and how best to
work together.
So I'm not sure if that answered the question and I don't
know if--Rena, if you wanted to jump in on that.
Ms. Bitter. Thanks, Roger. And I just want to make sure--
I'm not sure I heard everything that you were mentioning but I
think I heard a question about resources and I really would
love the opportunity to mention that from--you know, from our
perspective the most important thing that Congress can do is to
fund the State Department.
You know, we are just in the Bureau of Consular Affairs,
and I know Roger feels this way too--that we are just the
forward-deployed arm providing public services on behalf of the
State Department.
But it is really everybody in the State Department's job to
support your constituents, and if the department is underfunded
it is just much harder for us to deliver.
Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Mast. Thank you, Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick.
The chair now recognizes Mr. McCormick for--unrelated--for
5 minutes.
Dr. McCormick. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the
witnesses for being here today.
I'm here to address a very serious issue about one of my
constituents. Mr. Carstens, I sent you as well as the President
and Secretary of State a letter on June 4th requesting that the
matter of Tigran Gambaryan detainment be transferred to your
office.
I also wrote and received a response regarding Deputy
Secretary Kurt Campbell's trip to Nigeria asking whether he
discussed Tigran's case with their government. Tigran is my
constituent, his wife and his two kids, and previously he
served as an IRS agent, taking high-level places before working
as a compliance executive at Finance.
As you know, while on travel to Nigeria by invitation by
their government he was arrested, had his passport seized, and
has received appalling treatment with his rights continually
being violated.
He wasn't even charged for a month. He now has malaria.
Should be in the hospital. Not. He's been lied about. We do
have people in contact with him, but absolutely appalling
circumstances. An American citizen.
Most recently Tigran contracted malaria while there.
Despite a court order to the contrary he has received less than
adequate treatment and it's time for him to come home.
Special Envoy Carstens, in your view does Mr. Gambaryan
meet the criteria of a U.S. citizen wrongfully detained by a
foreign government pursuant to the Robert Levinson Hostage
Recovery and Hostage Taking Accountability Act?
Mr. Carstens. Congressman, I hope you don't mind. I'll
start off and then Assistant Secretary Bitter may want to jump
in or maybe even Raj.
But I would say that these cases are--they might from the
outside seem opaque, that it's hard for people to figure out
where we are in the map sheet as we go through this and a lot
of that's because the cases are not static. We keep finding
information out over time.
Dr. McCormick. Let me interrupt because I only have so much
time--I have three more minutes--because I'll cite your own
code and that way you can tell me if it applies or not, and
I'll probably just tell you because it's pretty obvious to me.
Mr. Chairman, I asked for unanimous consent to submit to
the record Section 1741 of Title 22 of the United States Code,
please.
Mr. Mast. Without objection.
[The referenced information was not submitted]
Dr. McCormick. Thank you. Let's go through Section 1741 of
Title 22, which you guys are pursuant to. Answer the questions
to Mr. Gambaryan's case if it falls under these eight criteria
listed:
Clause 1(a), do United States officials receive or possess
credible information indicating the innocence of the detained
individual? Yes.
Clause 5(a), is the individual being detained in violation
of laws of the detained country? Yes. We know that for a fact.
Clause 6(a), are independent nongovernment organizations or
journalists raised legitimate questions about the innocence of
the detained individual? Yes.
Clause 7(a), has the individual or the United States
mission in the country where the individual is being detained
received credible reports that detention is a pretext for an
illegitimate purpose? Yes.
Clause 8(a), has the individual detained in a country where
the Department of State has determined in its annual human
rights reports that the judicial system is not independent or
impartial, is susceptible to corruption, or is incapable of
rendering just verdicts.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to insert this
report, 2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices Nigeria,
for the record.
Mr. Mast. Without objection.
[The referenced information was not submitted]
Dr. McCormick. This report finds that Nigeria has arbitrary
arrests or detention, serious problems with the independent
judiciary, and a lot more than that.
There's just one more section. Clause 9(a), is the
individual being detained in inhumane conditions? Yes. Not only
is he not receiving adequate treatment for malaria but in
prison he's being held in a place that was held--built to hold
Boko Haram and ISIS people--terrorists, basically--as a,
basically, a businessman who was coaxed there under false
pretense.
Clause 10(a), has due process of the law been sufficiently
impaired so as to render the detention arbitrary? Yes. Held for
a month, passport confiscated, no charges, no medical
treatment. This is a U.S. citizen.
Clause 11(a), is the United States diplomatic engagement
likely necessary to secure the release of the detained
individual? Absolutely. Abso-freaking-lutely, as we say in the
military.
If he was your parent or your son I would make the case
this would have already been elevated. If it was somebody of
interest to the President or the Secretary this would have
already been elevated.
He is a U.S. citizen. If I was in Rome back in Roman times
and I was Paul the Apostle, say I am a Roman citizen, and all
of a sudden it goes where? To the emperor. Because I'm a
citizen. This guy deserves better.
Secretary Bitter, with it being established that Mr.
Gambaryan meets the criteria of a wrongfully detained U.S.
person. According to this whole code, that's eight sections of
the code.
Can I ask for your advocation to elevate this to where it
belongs so we can actually get something done for this poor guy
who was coaxed in under false pretense to be charged
illegitimately after waiting for a month? Please.
Ms. Bitter. Thank you so much, Representative McCormick,
and I also just want to acknowledge that the statement that you
read the other day on behalf of his wife was very moving, and I
appreciate your reading it into the record and it was really
very meaningful to hear.
I think we are watching this case closely. We talk about
this case quite frequently. And just to back up a little bit,
two things to be aware of. We are aware of his medical
condition. We have asked for humanitarian release based on his
malaria
And also just so you know, our colleagues in Nigeria have
visited him I think at least nine times since he was arrested
just a couple of months ago. We know that there's a hearing
upcoming that we will certainly be attending.
So just to assure you and to assure Mrs. Gambaryan as well
that this is something we are tracking really, really closely.
We're watching the proceedings and we're watching very
carefully his health.
Dr. McCormick. So I'm going to ask you again, will you
advocate to elevate this to Special Envoy Carstens?
Ms. Bitter. Thank you again. The way that we work together
is that we talk about these cases all of the time.
Dr. McCormick. Are you advocating to elevate this, ma'am?
It's a simple question.
Ms. Bitter. No, I appreciate that. I understand what you're
saying, and I just want to be clear that this is something----
Dr. McCormick. I know you're concerned.
Mr. Mast. Mr. McCormick, your time has expired but there
will be another round coming up here that you will have an
opportunity if you wish to continue your line of questioning.
The chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full
committee, Ranking Member Meeks.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me start by thanking our distinguished witnesses for
joining us today: Assistant Secretary of Consular Affairs
Bitter, Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs
Carstens, and director of the Hostage Recovery Fusion Cell, Mr.
Maan.
The issue of wrongful detentions and hostage taking of
Americans overseas is not only a matter of national concern but
also a deeply personal one for the families affected. These
families continue to demonstrate remarkable strength and
resilience in the face of unimaginable circumstances, and their
steadfast advocacy for their loved ones, to me, is very
inspiring.
The Biden administration has made commendable strides in
addressing this issue and has successfully secured the release
I believe at least 47 wrongfully detained Americans and I'm
grateful for tireless work that you put forward.
However, our mission is far from complete. Every American
wrongfully detained or held hostage deserves our focused
attention and relentless effort until they are safely home with
their loved ones, and this is--this will continue to require,
of course, a whole of government approach with coordination
across agencies, Congress, and nongovernmental organizations.
Recent legislative efforts have provided resources to
support the families of wrongful detainees and hostages, and
these measures are crucial in offering the necessary support
and assistance to families during these very difficult times.
I know the process of designating someone wrongfully
detained has become a cause for anxiety for many families and
I'm worried about the potential politicization of this delicate
issue.
Congress designed this process with no timetable set so
that each determination is based on an assessment of each
case's unique circumstances. It is important to remember,
however, that the lack of a determination does not mean a
determination will never be made.
The safety and security of our citizens abroad must remain
our highest priority and I hope it remains a bipartisan one.
Using these cases for political gain creates unnecessary
division and weakens our negotiating position with adversaries
who exploit detained Americans as bargaining chips.
As we continue--and I know I--moving around, a number of
things going on. You've had various testimoneys that you've
gone through.
I hope that, though, we can have a--this hearing creates a
better understanding--for us to better understand the risk of
wrongful detention and how the U.S. Government works
collectively to bring those Americans wrongfully detained or
held hostage home.
But most importantly, I hope we learn that we cannot--that
we can recognize the immense strength and courage of the
families that are involved and recommit to using every resource
in our disposal to achieve the safe return of every wrongfully
detained American.
And before I just yield back I want to pose a quick
question to any of our witnesses who might have a view on this.
I'd like to ask you to clarify some of the details of the
agreement we reached last year with the Iranian regime to
release five Americans held wrongfully in Iran for years in
exchange for moving $6 billion worth of funds from South Korea
to a more securely locked down account in Qatar for
humanitarian purposes.
And so do you feel that the agreement made with Iran
amounted to a ransom payment for the release of American
detainees?
Mr. Carstens?
Mr. Carstens. Ranking Member Meeks, thank you for your
comments and thank you for that question as well, and I
appreciate the support that you've given this entire enterprise
over the last few years and grateful for a chance to be at this
hearing today and answer that question.
I think for starters, and I think you already know this,
that the Office of the Special Envoy for Iran led the
negotiation. In this case my office was responsible for you
could almost say the logistics and the safe movement and
medical care of people coming back from Iran back to the United
States where they went into post-isolation support.
But what I can say about the deal is that right now there
are five Americans that are home with their families in the
United States of America and the $6.2 billion where not one
dollar has spent--it is sitting safely secure in Qatar
overwatched by the Department of the Treasury.
That money was taken from an Iranian-owned bank or account,
I should say, in the Republic of South Korea, moved to a much,
much more restricted account in Qatar where the Department of
the Treasury, as I said, has oversight, and that money can only
be used for humanitarian assistance and used for humanitarian
assistance in such a way that not one dollar will ever go into
Iran.
It could be used with third party vendors who might supply
humanitarian goods such as baby formula, COVID vaccines,
medical equipment, agricultural items.
But, again, to date, not one dollar has been spent. That
money, $6.2 billion, remains secure in Qatar with the
Department of the Treasury overwatch.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you. So would you consider that a win for
us or was it akin to avoiding a hold on those----
Mr. Carstens. If I were to just put it in plain terms, we
got five people for nothing. We got five people back and we
allowed some money to be moved into a much more restricted
account.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mast. Thank you, Ranking Member Meeks.
We're going to move to another round but it doesn't look
like it's going to be a long round of questioning. I'll begin
with my--yes, I'll begin with myself.
We do have two families--representatives of families here,
the family of Alsu, family of Evan--representatives of Evan in
the audience.
And so I did want to say, Ambassador Carstens, if there's--
especially in light of what we see taking place today coming
out in the news, if there's any update that you want to take
time to provide right now I think the audience would appreciate
hearing it. We'd appreciate hearing it.
Mr. Carstens. Let me just briefly--as of today, Evan's
detention and the investigative process has ended. An
indictment has been issued. He has one more appeal that he can
make appealing his detention.
But what's most likely going to happen before the 30th of
June is that Evan will be moved from where he's currently held
in Lefortovo Prison to instead Yekaterinburg and when he gets
out to Yekaterinburg that's where the trial process most likely
will start.
I will tell you that if it's anything like what happened to
Brittney Griner, Paul Whelan, and Trevor Reed there'll be a
period when he leaves Lefortovo where we won't have any contact
with him. It'll almost be like it's gone dark.
But eventually an American or, I would say, detainees
surfaces near Yekaterinburg. We'll have a chance to reestablish
that connectivity from there. Rena Bitter might want to jump in
on this, but the bottom line is that this was not unexpected.
I think we were all hopeful that we were able to broker a
deal with the Russians before this happened. But it doesn't
stop or slow us down. We keep continuing to pursue not only
Evan's freedom but also Paul Whelan's freedom as well.
Did you want to add anything to that? Okay.
Mr. Mast. And Alsu as well if you'd like to give any update
there. Ms. Bitter, you'll have the chance also.
Mr. Carstens. I think it might be better to talk about some
of the details in a classified setting and, again, Rena may
want to jump in on this. But we're taking a look at that case.
I mean, the spotlight is on it.
As you know, the President called for her release when he
was at the Correspondent's Dinner not too long ago, and there
are other ways to garner someone's release, which Rena could
probably talk about.
But it's a case that I probably wrestle with every day but
it's not yet been declared to be a wrongful detention yet.
Rena, do you want to add anything on that?
Ms. Bitter. Maybe in a closed setting.
Mr. Carstens. In a closed setting, if that's Okay. We can
add some more details and some color in the classified setting.
Mr. Mast. We will have that opportunity no doubt.
Mr. Carstens. Thank you.
Mr. Mast. I do want to ask one other question, maybe two,
Mr. Maan, and that is just inevitably there will be classified
conversations that are declassified, I guess, at some level to
have conversations with the family, and who is that authority
that you're seeing prior to this rising all the way to the
level of the President, let's say--a more immediate authority
that's going to make that decision?
Mr. Maan. So declassification goes through ODNI and they'll
reach out to the appropriate agency to get the information
declassified so we can pass it on to the families.
I'm sorry, did that answer your question?
Mr. Mast. You answered it.
Mr. Carstens. Mr. Chairman, can I jump in on that?
Mr. Mast. Please elaborate.
Mr. Carstens. Not necessarily on the hostage side, but on
the wrongful detention side you may not know but I have two
people from ODNI that are embedded in my team. They're actually
with my team.
I've had a member--another member of the intelligence
agency that's embedded in my team full time, and so it's
actually increased our connectivity within from the State
Department to the intelligence side of the house. But the
reason we have this relationship with ODNI, in part, is to
declassify information.
It's actually what the President expects of me. It's what
you expect of us. As possible declassify information and let
the family know what's going on, where we are in that case.
So, again, two people that are embedded on my team that are
working on declassifying information, you know, pretty much all
the time.
Mr. Mast. Would you say in that circumstance that the
information is literally declassified or there's just an access
given?
Mr. Carstens. Oh, it's absolutely declassified. I mean, we
have taken some pretty high-level stuff and just run it through
the ringer.
They've done, I guess you could say, all the equities
checks to make sure that sources and methods are protected, and
then we'll bring the family in and say, Okay, here's some extra
information that you didn't have before just declassified.
Here's what we want to share with you.
Mr. Mast. Okay. I appreciate that.
Any advices that you want to give on where you think
Congress should offer something more to assist with that, to
assist with some resource, some authority, you feel like you
might need to better conduct these operations?
Mr. Carstens. Well, Mr. Chairman, I'll always take more
money so if you--you know, but to be honest, I think----
Mr. Mast. I appreciate that, but I certainly expect a more
thoughtful answer than you want more money.
Mr. Carstens. I think you might have the wrong guy. As I
said, I'm not that smart but I will say the good thing about
this is you asked us to do this and we took that seriously
because we spend so much time with the families and you'll--
sometimes you'll sit there and feel the tension of not being
able to say just a little more.
And so what you asked of us we were, in a way, kind of
eager to do, and so thanks to Congress and the authorities that
you have given us we have been trying to turn that into, I
guess, action and actually have these people with us almost
full time to declassify the information.
So if there are ways that we can come up with that will
speed up the process or increase our ability to provide this
information I'd love to explore that with your teams.
But we hope that we're kind of hitting the mark on your
expectations in this regard.
Mr. Mast. And to go back to just the conversation about
declassification as well, it is important for Pavel to hear--
for other family members, representatives, you name it, to be
able to hear that information.
So we appreciate any work that you can do on those fronts.
Mr. Crow, 5 minutes.
Mr. Crow. Thank you, Chairman.
Currently, nine countries' travel pages are tagged with a D
indicator: Afghanistan, Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, Nicaragua,
North Korea, Russia, and Venezuela.
Ambassador Bitter, could you talk to us for a moment about
the role of these travel advisories and attempts to warn
Americans about the risk of wrongful detention--how you arrive
at these determinations?
Ms. Bitter. Thank you, Representative Crow. I'd be happy
to.
So, first of all, one thing I should say is just to thank
this committee--thank the members of this committee and other
Members of Congress. Our travel advice, again, as I said, is
really the service that we provide to Americans to--before they
leave the country in order to help them make decisions about
their safety and security when traveling overseas.
Many members of this committee have amplified our travel
advice. We work very closely with your constituent services
teams in order to be able to share information that you can
share with your constituents.
We consider your constituents our constituents. We are
always very grateful about that. It's true, one of the things
that we--we advise about all kinds of risks to Americans in our
travel advice: crime, maybe even the State of the medical
system there, natural disasters, terrorism.
And recently working with a broad array of State Department
offices we have included a D indicator to alert Americans when
they may be visiting a country that does participate in
wrongful detention.
The D indicator is--there are really basically two reasons
that we would include it and we very thoughtfully worked with
our colleagues across the department to identify them.
If there is a wrongful detainee and also a credible ongoing
risk of wrongful detention, which is not unique to an
individual person, and in some instances--and you've mentioned
them, for example, North Korea--there may not be a wrongful
detainee there currently but there is a credible ongoing risk.
So if we see that, those two indicators in place, we'll put
a D indicator on the travel advice.
Mr. Crow. Thank you. And currently the House Republicans'
proposal for the State and Foreign Ops bill has a proposed 11
percent cut to the State Department. How would such a cut
impact your staff and your team and your ability to perform the
work at the level that you would envision it to be performed
within the context of wrongful detained and hostages?
Ms. Bitter. Thanks for the question, and, again, it's
within this context but everything that we do we are part of
the State Department and we just happen to be the forward
deployed arm of providing public services.
But it is something that everybody in the State Department
is part of. We rely completely on the strength of the State
Department in order to be able to do what we do.
You're probably aware that we're fee funded. But, again, we
rely on the folks that do the computers, the hiring,
everything. We are--we sit on the platform that the State
Department has. The thinner the platform the weaker it is, the
less we're able to do for your constituents.
And I would be remiss if I didn't also mention that our
bureau, which is fee funded, experienced a $902 million
rescission this year.
Mr. Crow. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. Mast. Thank you, Mr. Crow.
This will continue in a classified setting. I don't
necessarily need a closing statement. I don't know if you need
a--but I'll just close this out in the formal way that we need
to before we move to the classified setting.
I thank the witnesses for their your testimony. I really do
thank you for your testimony today and other members for their
questions. If other members of the subcommittee have some
additional questions for the witnesses we will ask that you
respond to those questions in writing.
Pursuant to committee rules, all members may have 5 days to
submit statements, questions, and extraneous materials for the
record subject to length limitations.
Without objection, this committee and this portion stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:56 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]