    [Senate Hearing 118-172]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                             S. Hrg. 118-172

                                THE PGA-LIV DEAL:
                       EXAMINING THE SAUDI ARABIAN PUBLIC
                      INVESTMENT FUNDS INVESTMENTS IN THE
                                 UNITED STATES

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                    PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS

                                     OF THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                   HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                               SEPTEMBER 13, 2023

                                   __________

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov

                           Printed for the use of the
            Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

                      [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    53-703 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2023

            COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

                       GARY C. PETERS, Michigan, Chairman
    THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware           RAND PAUL, Kentucky
    MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire         RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
    KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona              JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
    JACKY ROSEN, Nevada                  MITT ROMNEY, Utah
    ALEX PADILLA, California             RICK SCOTT, Florida
    JON OSSOFF, Georgia                  JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri
    RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut      ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas

                       David M. Weinberg, Staff Director
               William E. Henderson III, Minority Staff Director
                  Christina N. Salazar, Minority Chief Counsel
                         Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
                       Ashley A. Gonzalez, Hearing Clerk

                    PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS

                          RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Chairman
    THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware           RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
    MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire         RICK SCOTT, Florida
    ALEX PADILLA, California             JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri
    JON OSSOFF, Georgia,                 ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas

                       Jennifer N. Gaspar, Staff Director
                     Brian Downey, Minority Staff Director
                          Kate Kielceski, Chief Clerk

                                C O N T E N T S

                                     ------
    Opening statements:
                                                                       Page
        Senator Blumenthal...........................................     1
        Senator Johnson..............................................     5
        Senator Marshall.............................................    19
    Prepared statements:
        Senator Blumenthal...........................................    29
        Senator Johnson..............................................    32

                                   WITNESSES
                             Tuesday, July 11, 2023

    Benjamin Freeman, Ph.D., Director, Democratizing Foreign Policy
      Program, Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft...........     8
    Brian Murphy, Ph.D., Managing Director, Logically AI, Inc........    10
    Joey Shea, Researcher, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates,
      Human Rights Watch.............................................    12

                         Alphabetical List of Witnesses

    Freeman, Benjamin:
        Testimony....................................................     8
        Prepared statement...........................................    34
    Murphy, Brian, Ph.D.:
        Testimony....................................................    10
        Prepared statement...........................................    37
    Shea, Joey:
        Testimony....................................................    12
        Prepared statement...........................................    41

                                    APPENDIX

    Recent Headlines on Saudi Arabia's Human Rights Atrocities poster    50
    Saudi PIF's Current and Prospective Sportwashing Targets poster..    51
    Saudi PIF's Total Assets and Unknown U.S. Investments chart......    52
    Examples of Saudi PIF's U.S. Investments poster..................    53
    Senator Blumenthal's FBI redaction...............................    54
    Senator Blumenthal's PSI Member memorandum.......................    71
    Senator Blumenthal's The Intercept...............................    83

                               THE PGA-LIV DEAL:
                       EXAMINING THE SAUDI ARABIAN PUBLIC
                      INVESTMENT FUNDS INVESTMENTS IN THE
                                 UNITED STATES

                                  ----------

                         WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2023

                                       U.S. Senate,
                  Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations,
                        of the Committee on Homeland Security
                                      and Governmental Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:12 a.m., in
    room 562, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard
    Blumenthal, Chair of the Subcommittee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Blumenthal [presiding], Carper, Hassan,
    Padilla, Ossoff, Johnson, Scott, Hawley, and Marshall.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BLUMENTHAL\1\

        Senator Blumenthal. This meeting of the Permanent
    Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI) is called to order. Thank
    you to all of you for being here today. Thank you to my partner
    in this effort, Ranking Member Ron Johnson of Wisconsin.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Senator Blumenthal appears in the
    Appendix on page 29.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        At our last hearing, we began this inquiry into Saudi
    Arabian public investment fund's unprecedented deal with the
    Professional Golfers Association of America (PGA) Tour. Many
    Americans were outraged when we learned, quite astonishingly,
    that an authoritarian foreign government with a horrific human
    rights record entered into an agreement that would allow it
    effectively to take over an entire American sport.
        Our Subcommittee swiftly initiated this inquiry to learn
    more about not only how this takeover was allowed to happen,
    but why, what it means for the future, and not only for golf,
    but other cherished American institutions, and what that means
    for our own freedoms.
        Sports have tremendous power. Power to do good.
    Professional athletes often serve as Ambassadors for our ideals
    and role models for our children. But as I said in our first
    hearing in July, this inquiry is about much more than the game
    of golf. It is about more than sports. It is about the need for
    transparency so Americans can understand when valuable foreign
    investment becomes a vehicle for malign foreign influence.
        As our inquiry has progressed, we have found that there are
    many reasons to be concerned. While we received important
    information from the PGA Tour, which sent two representatives
    to testify at our first hearing, the institution that is
    attempting to take over American golf, the Saudi Public
    Investment Fund (PIF), has refused to cooperate.
        In fact, they have refused to make any witness available to
    testify or to produce a single document. We can only infer that
    this means that Saudi Arabia intends to gain the benefit of our
    freedoms while avoiding the obligations of our laws.
        The PIF is run under the ``chairmanship and guidance'' of
    Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), the effective Saudi
    leader. Saudi Arabia's use of sovereign wealth fund resources
    to attempt to gain influence in the United States should
    trouble us all. Under Crown Prince bin Salman, Saudi Arabia
    remains a brutal regime, utterly resistant to criticism, devoid
    of any right of free speech, and ruthless in its response to
    anyone who questions it.
        Saudi Arabia is a country where 2 months ago, Mohammed al-
    Ghamdi, a retired teacher, was sentenced to death for
    criticizing the government on YouTube and other social media
    accounts, including on Twitter accounts that had a total of
    just 10 followers.
        Saudi Arabia is a country where in the past year border
    guards have killed hundreds of Ethiopian migrants and asylum
    seekers, many of whom were children, as they tried to cross the
    border with Yemen.
        The PIF has been implicated in some of Saudi Arabia's most
    abhorrent atrocities. The PIF itself is the leading developer
    of Neom, a futuristic city planned for the desert and
    centerpiece of Crown Prince bin Salman's Vision 2030.
        When members of the Huwaitat tribe who live near the
    planned city resisted forced eviction from their homes, three
    tribe members were captured and sentenced to death by the Saudi
    government, while three others were sentenced to decades of
    imprisonment.
        Another man from the same tribe was reportedly killed in
    his own home by Saudi Special Forces. The PIF also played a
    central role in the brazen kidnapping and murder of Washington
    Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi, having taken ownership of the
    planes that were later used to transport Khashoggi's assassins
    to Turkey, where they carried out that horrific act.
        The PIF's planes were used to transport the killers of
    Jamal Khashoggi by private flights. I would be remiss if I did
    not mention Saudi Arabia's role in the September 11 attacks on
    our country. This week marks 22 years since those horrific
    attacks.
        Not only did 15 of the 19 hijackers come from Saudi Arabia,
    but in the years since, evidence has come to light, compelling
    and mounting evidence, revealing that the Saudi government may
    have known or knowingly aided some of these hijackers.
        The Saudi government must take responsibility for its role,
    and our own government must be transparent about what actually
    happened. That is why earlier this week, along with Ranking
    Member Johnson, I wrote to the Attorney General (AG) and the
    Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director demanding full
    transparency over everything they know.
        The families of 9/11 victims need and deserve
    accountability, and they are entitled to answers, all of
    America is entitled to answers about Saudi Arabia's role in the
    9/11 attacks. I am encouraged that the Department of Justice
    (DOJ) and the FBI have responded. They provided us with an
    initial set of documents which are unfortunately still highly
    redacted.
        But they have said that they are committed to working with
    us going forward. They have a lot more work to do to provide
    full transparency, and the proof will be in how they do that
    work. Without objection, I would like to enter into the record
    the FBI's initial production in response to our subpoena,\1\
    which removed certain redactions from documents regarding Saudi
    Arabia's role in the 9/11 attacks. Without objection, so
    ordered.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The information referenced by Senator Blumenthal appears in the
    Appendix on page 54.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As many experts have noted, Saudi Arabia's investments in
    golf, as well as its other investments in global sports,
    represent an attempt to sports-wash the horrific record that it
    has on human rights and influence how the kingdom is perceived
    around the world.
        At a time when authoritarian regimes are gaining power and
    people around the world are losing freedom, it is important
    that we stay vigilant against anyone who wants to protect,
    promote, or normalize autocracy.
        Saudi Arabia's bid to buy professional golf in America is
    not just one investment in a vacuum. It is instead part of a
    web of growing investments in this country. They are largely
    unknown, and they are almost entirely without oversight.
        Since our July hearing, this Subcommittee has looked
    closely at the Saudi government's investments in the United
    States, and we have been troubled not only by what we have
    seen, but what we have not seen.
        The PIF's United States investments go far beyond golf and
    have grown exponentially in the past 5 years. The little
    information that is publicly available shows that PIF's U.S.
    investments were a little over $2 billion in 2018.\2\ Today,
    just 5 years later, they stand at more than $35 billion.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ The Saudi PIF Total Asset chart appears in the Appendix on page
    52.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The PIF has made investments in electronic vehicles,
    gaming, entertainment, and more, with significant potential
    implications of control over those companies. In fact, last
    year, it formed a wholly owned United States subsidiary based
    in New York.
        That information is based on what can be discerned from
    very meager public sources. We have no way of knowing whether
    PIF has other investments in private equity, privately held
    companies, or other areas where public disclosure is not
    required. The $35 billion that we know of may be just the tip
    of the iceberg.
        As we will hear today, commercial investment has been used
    by foreign governments like China and Russia as part of a
    larger influence and disinformation campaign. What we know so
    far about Saudi Arabia's investments show the hallmarks of a
    similar effort.
        While we have laws that require the review of foreign
    investments that pose direct threats to our national security,
    and we require agents of foreign governments to file
    disclosures, our current laws largely leave commercial
    investment by foreign governments in the shadows--invisible.
        These gaps may leave room for sophisticated regimes to
    engage in influence campaigns without any scrutiny or public
    knowledge. I want to be clear, the United States has a long and
    proud history of welcoming foreign investment. Open investment
    is central to our economy and has helped to spur innovation.
    Time and again, we must continue to open our arms and our
    markets.
        But we also ought to demand transparency so that we can
    understand the strings that are attached to certain
    investments, especially those that come directly from
    authoritarian regimes. With this inquiry, we hope to explore
    the extent to which Saudi Arabia is exploiting these loopholes,
    and how other countries like China may do so as well. We also
    hope to learn ways in which we can start to close those gaps.
        The PIF has offered none of the transparency necessary to
    understand its goals or the extent of its influence efforts.
    This Subcommittee has repeatedly sought cooperation from the
    PIF with our inquiry and they have persistently refused. The
    PIF's refusal to co-operate is an affront to our authority and
    to our institutions.
        Congress has a Constitutional responsibility to regulate
    American commerce, and an inquiry into PIF's investment in the
    United States is well within this Subcommittee's mandate. That
    is why today I issued a subpoena to the PIF through its U.S.
    subsidiary for records concerning the PIF's investments in the
    United States.
        I also provided a memorandum to Members of the Subcommittee
    providing further detail on the need for this subpoena. Without
    objection, I would like to enter that subpoena memorandum into
    the record.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The memorandum referenced by Senator Blumenthal appears in the
    Appendix on page 71.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As I wrote to the Governor of the PIF last month, it cannot
    have it both ways. If it wants to engage with the United States
    commercially, it must be subject to United States law and
    oversight. That oversight includes this Subcommittee's inquiry.
    The PIF and the Saudi government cannot take advantage of our
    democratic freedoms and cloak themselves in dictatorial
    secrecy.
        They can use democratic institutions, but they cannot
    leverage them to promote suppression and oppression. I look
    forward to hearing from today's witnesses, each of whom brings
    expertise and experience with different concerns surrounding
    the PIF's investment.
        I hope you will be able to shed light, not only on why this
    inquiry must continue and it will continue, but also how we can
    address risks that may exist from other countries similar to
    Saudi Arabia as we move forward. With that, I will turn to the
    ranking member for his opening statement.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHNSON\1\

        Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On Monday, this
    Monday at 7:46 a.m. Central Time, I was in the Milwaukee
    airport awaiting my flight to D.C. when the entire terminal
    stopped and stood silent for 60 seconds to somberly commemorate
    the 22nd anniversary of the horrors of 9/11.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Senator Johnson appears in the
    Appendix on page 32.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Over the weekend, I also saw a report about students born
    after 9/11 acknowledging the tragedy that changed our world
    forever. I was grateful those students had at least been taught
    that piece of history and that it made a powerful impression on
    them. For those of us who were alive on that day, we will never
    forget where we were, who we were with, and what we were doing
    when we first heard about that brutal attack.
        For those of us who were also live almost 60 years ago, on
    November 22, 1963, the moment in time when we heard of
    President Kennedy's assassination has also left an equally
    indelible imprint on our memory.
        In addition to creating those indelible memories, those two
    national tragedies have something else in common, significant
    information our government uncovered during investigations of
    these crimes have been kept hidden from the American public.
        Even though a law was passed in 1992 to require the release
    of all documents related to John F. Kennedy (JFK's)
    assassination by the year 2017--five years have passed since
    that deadline and key portions of the historical record remain
    hidden from public view.
        Why? What is so sensitive that both Republican and Democrat
    Presidents, together with a host of unelected bureaucrats
    serving in intelligence agencies and Federal law enforcement,
    feel that the American people can't handle the truth.
        A similar cover up is occurring with what the U.S.
    Government knew and when it was known regarding the 9/11
    attacks. I realize that 22 years is a lot less than 60 years,
    but almost 3,000 Americans lost their lives that day, and their
    families, together with the rest of the public, deserve to know
    what the government knows. It has been over 2 years since
    President Biden issued an Executive Order (EO) to declassify
    documents connected to the 9/11 attacks.
        More than 1 year past the March 22 deadline for those
    agencies to complete their declassification reviews, the
    government has declassified and released only a little more
    than 4,000 pages of documents, many, if not most, of which are
    heavily redacted. Here is just a small little sampling.
        The problem of those redactions is it pretty well renders
    the documents incomprehensible. The real information is kept
    from the American public. During the Subcommittee's July 11th
    hearing, I entered into the record an 11 page document handed
    to me by representatives families that lost loved ones on 9/11.
    That document, entitled Operation Encore, was only a small
    subset of the records the U.S. Government has released pursuant
    to President Biden's Executive Order.
        As you can see, it is also heavily redacted. It is a little
    bit harder to fan that one. We found in that hearing on July
    18--Chairman Blumenthal and I wrote to the Department of
    Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation demanding
    unredacted copies of all the records that had been released
    pursuant to the Executive Order, including the 11 page
    document. Because both agencies failed to respond, Chairman
    Blumenthal and I reiterated our request for this information
    this past Sunday.
        On Monday, the FBI finally responded in what they claimed
    was a good faith effort to assist the Subcommittee in its
    inquiry. Here is what we received. We got five extra pages,
    also heavily redacted, and we got a key to the redactions,
    which is publicly available anyway.
        I do not consider that a good faith effort, and quite
    honestly, in their letter to us they had this statement,
    ``accordingly, we respectfully request the Subcommittee not
    disseminate or otherwise disclose these documents or their
    contents without prior consultation with the FBI.''
        I just view that as a sad joke. If the DOJ and FBI continue
    to withhold these relevant documents, I hope this Subcommittee
    will use every authority we have to compel compliance through
    our legitimate congressional oversight.
        Why should unelected bureaucrats be able to access and view
    these records without redactions, while duly elected Members of
    Congress, who have full authority to view classified documents,
    why are we kept in the dark? Freedom can only thrive in an open
    society with a government that is honest and transparent with
    its citizens.
        My time in Congress has taught me that our Federal
    Government is far from living up to that requirement. Again,
    Mr. Chairman, I appreciate our cooperation on this. This
    inquiry started with certainly an event that interested me, the
    PGA is trying to come to agreement with the PIF.
        I think the inquiry is expanding well beyond that. I would
    say that the first step in our inquiry needs to be to continue
    to cooperate and use the full authority of this Committee to
    get the government to finally come clean and be transparent
    with what they know about what happened on 9/11.
        I think that alone will be very valuable. Where this goes
    beyond that, I think you might have even higher goals. It will
    be interesting to see where this progresses.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Johnson.
    I will commit to you that we will use the full authority of our
    Subcommittee to get as much information to be made public as we
    can. We are not letting this issue go.
        Senator Johnson. Let me also say there have been plain
    things in my investigations where information means classified.
    Some things do need to remain classified, but we ought to have
    access to it. We go down the sensitive compartmented
    information facility (SCIF) and we read it. That can inform us.
        There is no reason whatsoever that this should remain
    outside of our review. We have that same authority. I would say
    we have higher authority than many of the bureaucrats that have
    access to information. At a minimum, even if they do not make
    it available for public display, we ought to be able to go and
    review it in the SCIF.
        Senator Blumenthal. We are going to arrange a classified
    briefing. We are talking to the FBI about dates. If necessary,
    we will use other tools. But let me also commit that not just
    you and I as Member of this Committee, but also the public
    should learn more. I have frequently said how over-
    classification, excessive secrecy is damaging to the public
    interest. Our adversaries often know more than the American
    people.
        Senator Johnson. Right. Completely agree, and I look
    forward to working with you on that. Thanks.
        Senator Blumenthal. Let me introduce the witnesses and
    thank you for your patience. Benjamin Freeman is the Director
    of the Democratizing Foreign Policy Program at the Quincy
    Institute, where he investigates money in politics, defense
    spending, and foreign influence in America.
        Dr. Freeman is the author of the Foreign Policy Auction, a
    book that seeks to systematically analyze the foreign influence
    industry in the United States. He has earned a Ph.D. in
    Political Science at Texas A&M University.
        Brian Murphy is Managing Director at Logically AI, where he
    works with U.S. Government agencies, companies, and others to
    help combat misinformation and disinformation.
        He previously served as both Principal and Acting
    Undersecretary for the Office of Intelligence and Analysis
    (OI&A) at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). In these
    roles, he was responsible for the conduct of key intelligence
    activities supporting DHS and the intelligence community (IC).
        Dr. Murphy was a special agent with the FBI for nearly 20
    years. During that time, he led the FBI's national level
    counterterrorism programs, including developing and
    implementing the FBI's program for counterterrorism. Dr. Murphy
    holds a Ph.D. from Georgetown University and a Master of Arts
    in Islamic Studies from Columbia University.
        Joey Shea is a Researcher in the Middle East and North
    African Division at Human Rights Watch, where she investigates
    human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab
    Emirates (UAE). In this role, she oversees Human Rights Watch's
    work on Saudi Arabia, documenting the government's repression
    of civil society and a range of other violations.
        Prior to joining Human Rights Watch, Ms. Shea was a Non-
    Resident Scholar in the Middle East Institute and a Non-
    Resident Research Fellow at the Tahrir Institute for Middle
    Eastern Policy. We welcome all of you.
        Now, as is our rule, I am going to swear you in. If you
    would please rise. Do you swear that the testimony you are
    about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
    the truth, so help you, God?
        Dr. Freeman. I do.
        Dr. Murphy. I do.
        Ms. Shea. I do.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. Dr. Freeman, we will begin
    with you.

          TESTIMONY OF BENJAMIN FREEMAN, PH.D.,\1\ DIRECTOR,
      DEMOCRATIZING FOREIGN POLICY PROGRAM, QUINCY INSTITUTE FOR
                         RESPONSIBLE STATECRAFT

        Dr. Freeman. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal, and thank you,
    Senator Johnson, for having me here today to testify and for
    your commitment to this critically important issue. I am also
    pleased to join my esteemed fellow witnesses on this panel, and
    we are eager to answer your questions about the PGA LIV deal
    and the Saudi Public Investment Fund.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Dr. Freeman appears in the Appendix
    on page 34.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I am the Director of the Democratizing Foreign Program at
    the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. Our focus is
    minimizing the influence of special interests on U.S. foreign
    policy. But critically to this hearing, I have been analyzing
    Saudi Arabia's influence in the United States for more than 15
    years.
        Based on that experience, let me start by saying, we would
    be naive to believe that the PIF's actions related to the PGA
    Tour are not part of the kingdom's much larger lobbying, public
    relations (PR), and broader influence operations in the United
    States. Saudi lobbyists have made the case for this deal to
    Members of Congress.
        Their public relations firms have made the case for the PIF
    to mainstream media outlets. This is part of the Saudi lobby's
    influence operations in the United States. I also think we
    would be naive to believe that this is just another business
    deal. Last month at this Subcommittee's hearing, the PGA Tour
    witnesses made that abundantly clear. There is no business case
    for this deal.
        As those witnesses said, and I will quote, ``the LIV is an
    irrational threat, one not concerned with the return on
    investment (ROI) or the true growth of the game of golf.''
    Then, if the Saudi government is not buying into a profitable
    investment, what are they buying? In short, they are buying our
    silence. They want to muzzle Americans critical of the regime
    and they want to rebrand themselves.
        They want Americans to associate Saudi Arabia with golf and
    not with 9/11. All of this is especially important now as the
    United States is considering offering the Saudi government
    security guarantees as part of a normalization agreement with
    Israel. This is a major foreign policy decision that can mean
    committing U.S. troops to fight and possibly die for the Saudi
    dictatorship.
        The stakes could not be higher, so I thank this Committee
    for investigating this now. At its core then, this is not a
    business deal. This is an influence operation. It is meant to
    shape U.S. public opinion and U.S. foreign policy.
        We do America a disservice if we do not evaluate it
    accordingly, especially given that censorship and the silencing
    of dissidents is part of the Saudi business playbook. U.S.
    businesses operating in Saudi Arabia, for example, they face
    rampant censorship.
        Our own U.S. International Trade Commission conducted a
    survey of U.S. businesses working abroad and they found the No.
    1 censor was China, but right behind China, American businesses
    reported the most censorship in Saudi Arabia.
        Saudi government is also a major financier of Twitter, now
    X, and a Twitter employee has been convicted of spying on Saudi
    dissidents through the platform. The Saudi government has also
    made major investments in Hollywood.
        This, too, has resulted in direct censorship by the Saudi
    regime, specifically when Oscar winning documentarian Bryan
    Fogel was working on a documentary about the assassination of
    Jamal Khashoggi. It was virtually blacklisted in Hollywood.
        Even when the film did make it out, Saudi trolls launched a
    coordinated effort to tank its online review scores. Of course,
    we already know about the agreement that we are discussing here
    today between PIF and the PGA Tour containing that non-
    disparagement clause, which is explicitly designed to silence
    criticism of the Saudi regime.
        When asked to explain this non-disparagement clause, PIF
    representatives once again refused to appear before this
    Committee, and as Senator Blumenthal mentioned, refused to
    provide the documents that were requested of them.
    Unfortunately, I have to report that this is not at all unusual
    for Saudi influence efforts in the United States.
        Not playing by the rules is part of the Saudi lobby's
    playbook. Two years ago, The Washington Post reported that the
    Saudi embassy operates a ring of what they called fixers that
    helps Saudis charged with crimes in the United States literally
    flee justice and literally flee this country.
        The alleged offenses of the Saudis the embassy helped flee
    include possession of child pornography, rape, and even murder.
    Of course, as we have discussed, just 2 days ago was the
    anniversary of the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Yet the victims'
    families, some of them I believe are here with us today, have
    still been denied justice from the Saudi government after two
    decades of fighting for it.
        A major reason for that is because the Saudi monarchy has
    spared no expense to avoid accountability, spent millions of
    dollars on this, and even stooped so low as to trick U.S.
    military veterans into lobbying against the 9/11 victims'
    families.
        If this goes through, this is not just about golf. This is
    a crown jewel in the Saudis' reputation laundering efforts and
    it will be used as part of their larger influence operations in
    the United States. This is not happening in a vacuum.
        China is watching. What we do today will be seen by
    authoritarian regimes abroad. If we once again do nothing, this
    could become a blueprint for how to garner influence in the
    United States, open the floodgates for even more foreign
    domination of U.S. sports, and it can be used as a tool for
    broader influence over our government, our media, and the
    American public.
        I thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I very
    much look forward to discussing this further.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Dr. Freeman. Dr. Murphy.

        TESTIMONY OF BRIAN MURPHY, PH.D.,\1\ MANAGING DIRECTOR,
                           LOGICALLY AI, INC.

        Dr. Murphy. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with the
    Committee today. As my colleague said, it is a privilege to be
    here with the both of them in front of this Committee speaking
    about this important topic.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Dr. Murphy appears in the Appendix on
    page 37.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This hearing is about the Public Investment Fund of Saudi
    Arabia, as we know. I will offer two interrelated points
    upfront. First, foreign owned public investment funds are a
    positive commercial mechanism. That is, so long as they are
    done transparently. The topic of foreign backed covert
    influence campaigns impacting the homeland is not a new
    problem.
        The Constitution granted each citizen the right to the
    freedom of speech. This same privilege was intentionally not
    extended to other nations. That includes friends and foes alike
    because such a privilege in the hands of a foreign country was
    considered a national security threat.
        This is a threat that we now often call disinformation. It
    is a cheap and efficient way for foreign nations to utilize
    technology to support a full spectrum of influence operations
    that they conduct in the United States.
        Conversely, it is healthy to have foreign nations
    transparently present their points of view to the American
    people. When the source of the information is identifiable, an
    individual has the opportunity to judge the messenger and the
    message more clearly. Disinformation can be an ambiguous term.
    I use three criteria to determine if content can be considered
    disinformation.
        First, the identity of the content originator is
    intentionally masked. Second, the released information is
    content intended to influence an outcome. Third, the originator
    has a predetermined political, military, economic, or social
    objective. What makes disinformation a national security threat
    is its covert nature.
        People do not have the chance to judge for themselves the
    true origins and hence the motives of the information center.
    As we consider disinformation, it is important to recognize it
    is just one aspect of a much broader foreign influence campaign
    that nations bring against the United States.
        Nations very much understand the additional protections
    offered for their operations if they can work through and with
    American businesses and U.S. people. Behind all of these
    campaigns, of course, is money, and Saudi Investment Fund is
    reported to be approximately $780 billion.
        While I am not here to address the full scope of the Saudi
    fund's intention, I can say that a sizable fund such as that
    offers an opportunity for a foreign government to purchase
    influence and utilize proxies within America to conduct
    influence operations. What a government can purchase to exert
    influence can come in the forms of financing existing U.S.
    businesses, purchasing companies outright, contracting with
    firms that specialize in consulting, and creating U.S. jobs.
        After such transactions are completed, what and who is
    behind a narrative is often no longer clear. There are, of
    course, a number of laws and regulations already on the books
    to provide daylight to foreign influence in the United States.
        We have the Foreign Registration Act, the Committee on
    Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), and the
    Foreign Investment Risk Review and Modernization Act (FIRRMA),
    just to name a few.
        However, something like a foreign investment fund does
    present a potential loophole. Something like the Saudi
    Investment Fund provides the opportunity for foreign government
    to hide further who is behind its influence campaign.
        There is much on the record regarding the Saudis' influence
    campaign in the United States, such as the indictment my
    colleague spoke about of two Twitter employees and a Saudi
    national in 2019 who were working at Twitter, and the well-
    documented Saudi efforts to cover up the murder of Jamal
    Khashoggi and try to influence the U.S. people about how that
    murder went down.
        However, because there is much more publicly available
    information on similar activities by other countries such as
    China, examining some of these use cases also is important. I
    am not suggesting the nature of the relationship of China and
    Saudi Arabia with the United States are the same, but we do
    know that Saudi Arabia does copy some of the same tactics used
    by China.
        The Chinese scheme to covertly influence Americans is to
    use a full spectrum of Chinese government, political, economic,
    and military levers to shape information so that other
    governments and local populations conform to their strategic
    objectives.
        Over the last week, the RAND Corporation and Microsoft
    issued reports indicating the Chinese authorities' intentions
    to use AI to covertly influence American people and
    policymakers. The U.S. Government is generally more attuned to
    how Chinese investments in the United States can undermine
    national security.
        For example, influence campaigns in the United State
    associated with sister city relationships, academic
    partnerships, economic activity, and Chinese law enforcement
    officers in the United States have all been identified as part
    of their broader panoply of influence operations. Some
    parallels how the Chinese and Saudi use their financial
    positions to try to influence and shape the U.S. perception can
    be seen in sports, as being discussed today.
        Both countries have exerted a level of influence through
    the U.S. industry to conduct sports washing. Sports washing is
    a form of disinformation to promote or demote stories about a
    country through their U.S. athletes and their U.S.
    organizations they now control.
        To bolster their activities in one area of influence
    operation, both countries also utilize social media to create
    accounts that appear to be Americans, but very much are
    operated by these repressive governments and designed to sow
    disinformation.
        In conclusion, foreign owned public investment funds are a
    positive commercial mechanism, but as I said in the beginning,
    they need to be transparently identifying how that money moves
    through the United States so that people can get the full
    transparency they need to make informed decisions. Thank you.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thanks very much, Dr. Murphy. Ms. Shea.

    TESTIMONY OF JOEY SHEA,\1\ RESEARCHER, SAUDI ARABIA AND UNITED
                   ARAB EMIRATES, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH

        Ms. Shea. Good morning, Chairman Blumenthal, Ranking Member
    Johnson. Thank you for convening this hearing on Saudi Arabia's
    Public Investment Fund. My name is Joey Shea, and I cover Saudi
    Arabia for Human Rights Watch.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Shea appears in the Appendix on
    page 41.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Human Rights Watch is an independent, non-governmental
    organization (NGO) that monitors human rights issues in over
    100 countries, and we have been documenting human rights abuses
    in Saudi Arabia since 1997.
        I will focus my remarks today on the human rights abuses
    linked with Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund, but first, a
    note on those abuses associated with the PIF's chairman, Crown
    Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Since coming to power, the Crown
    Prince has overseen the worst period for human rights in the
    country's modern history. He has overseen a historic and
    unprecedented crackdown on freedom of expression.
        The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) found that he ordered
    the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, and he also served as
    the commander of the international coalition that carried out
    scores of indiscriminate and disproportionate airstrikes on
    civilians and civilian objects in Yemen, some with U.S.
    weapons.
        Now, Human Rights Watch has extensively documented the
    Crown Prince's consolidation of political and security power
    since 2017, and the dire implications for human rights. In
    tandem, the Crown Prince has also consolidated economic power,
    most notably via the PIF. Now, the Crown Prince, the Saudi
    government, and the Public Investment Fund are inextricably
    interlinked.
        This raises serious concerns for U.S. businesses that are
    engaging with the Public Investment Fund and the possible links
    that this may create with abuses in Saudi Arabia, particularly
    as the fund expands its investments in the United States, in
    key sectors of the American economy.
        MBS wields significant control over the PIF and exercises
    unilateral decisionmaking without transparency nor
    accountability. The restructuring and dramatic expansion of the
    PIF in recent years has consolidated to a historic degree vast
    economic power under the Crown Prince alone.
        Now, the PIF's 5 year program strategy ostensibly lays out
    a robust governance and operations framework. However, recent
    media reports suggest that the Crown Prince can easily
    circumvent these institutional safeguards. The PIF has been
    ranked as amongst the least transparent, least accountable, and
    with the least credible governance structures in the world.
        The Public Investment Fund under Mohammed bin Salman has
    facilitated human rights abuses and has benefited from human
    rights abuses, including the 2017 corruption crackdown that
    involved the arbitrary detention, ill treatment, and extortion
    of property from current and former government officials,
    rivals within the royal family, and prominent businessmen.
        The corruption crackdown involved detaining dozens of
    people and pressuring them into handing over assets in exchange
    for their release outside of any recognizable legal process.
    Court documents obtained by Human Rights Watch show that in
    2017, one of MBS's advisers ordered Yasir Al-Rumayyan to
    transfer 20 companies that were seized during the crackdown
    into the Public Investment Fund.
        There is a serious risk that these companies were
    transferred without due process. The court documents also
    indicate that one of the companies that was transferred was Sky
    Prime Aviation, which is the charter jet company that owns the
    two planes that transferred Saudi agents to Istanbul, where
    they murdered Jamal Khashoggi.
        Over the past several years, the Saudi government has
    embarked on an aggressive campaign to deflect from the
    country's image as a pervasive human rights violator by hosting
    high profile celebrities and sporting and entertainment events.
        The agreement between the PGA Tour and the PIF effectively
    enables the Saudi government's sports washing, in part because
    it places the Saudi government in an unprecedented position of
    ownership, control, and influence over an entire sports league.
        Now, despite Saudi efforts to deflect from its image as a
    pervasive human rights violator, human rights violations
    continue. Last month, Human Rights Watch documented the mass
    killing of Ethiopian migrants and asylum seekers by Saudi
    border guards, which, if committed, is part of a deliberate
    strategy by the Saudi government to murder migrants, would
    constitute a crime against humanity.
        Now, based off of our research into the links between the
    PIF and human rights abuses, we are urging the adoption of
    legislation to increase scrutiny of foreign acquisitions of
    U.S. businesses, particularly to identify the human rights
    risks and corruption risks prior to the acquisition. Thank you.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you all. I will begin the
    questioning. We will have 5 minute rounds and we will have a
    second round. I want to begin, Dr. Freeman, by digging down a
    little bit into what you have called faux grassroots campaigns.
        You have written extensively about Saudi influence efforts
    across the United States. Can you tell us what you mean by that
    concept of faux grassroots campaign and what the Saudi
    objectives are in using them?
        Dr. Freeman. Yes, Senator. This is a tactic that we have
    seen the Saudi influence operation used post Khashoggi.
        As I referred to it, when they started losing the battle on
    K Street, they took the battle to Main Street America, and they
    have hired a number of public relations firms in the heartland
    of this country. What these organizations do is try to organize
    PR type events for Saudi Arabia. They work with everything from
    local chambers of commerce, small businesses, even small Etsy
    shops, and even a high school newspaper journalists we have
    seen them contacting.
        There is seemingly no one they will not reach out to, to
    spin press in local jurisdictions, create positive events for
    the Saudi regime, including having the Saudi Ambassador and
    other embassy spokesperson go out and talk to folks in middle
    America.
        What they do then with these events that they help to
    orchestrate, those events sort of get laundered back to us in
    D.C., where other firms who work for the Saudis, they then take
    the news clippings from those events, the positive press, the
    stories, the radio interviews that they helped to orchestrate
    themselves, and then they send those back to folks on the Hill,
    to you and some of your colleagues even, and they try to make
    it appear as if these events are all happening organically.
        That there is just this upsurge in support for Saudi Arabia
    from your constituencies, your State, your local jurisdictions,
    when in fact, all of this is just being created by the folks
    who are on the Saudi's payroll. That is why I refer to it as a
    faux grassroots operation.
        Senator Blumenthal. This question may seem to have an
    obvious answer, but maybe you could put it on the record. How
    does the Saudi takeover of the sport of golf, it is using LIV
    golf to take over the PGA Tour, fit into that strategy?
        Dr. Freeman. I would say it increases the availability of
    opportunities for that faux grassroots operation. Now, every
    time then there is a local PGA event, immense opportunities for
    sports washing, for creating those local stories that they
    become so good at, and it raises the profile of a PGA event.
        I hail from the great State of Florida where the PGA is
    based, and golf is up there with football in terms of its
    importance. Whenever there is a PGA event, it gets news
    coverage. If the Saudis are able to influence that and spin
    that narrative back here to us in D.C., it can be a very
    powerful weapon in their influence operation.
        Senator Blumenthal. The Saudi logo, the Saudi merchandise,
    the Saudi promotions all fit that faux grassroots strategy. Dr.
    Murphy, you have spent your career helping to protect our
    nation against national security threats. Why does the Saudi
    tactics and strategy here trouble you?
        Dr. Murphy. I think it troubles me for a couple of reasons.
    One, what has been said here today by my colleagues myself is
    what they are trying to accomplish, which is to whitewash the
    parts of the Saudi efforts that are against the norms under
    which we live.
        The murder of Jamal Khashoggi is unfortunately an easy one
    to point out. They are trying to create that image so that as
    policymakers go about their work, there is an obfuscation about
    what Saudi Arabia is really about.
        It is a complicated relationship that the United States has
    with Saudi Arabia, and that is not unique, but at the same
    time, this kind of laundering of information tries to change
    that relationship.
        Senator Blumenthal. Ms. Shea, I mentioned, and I think you
    did as well, the links between the PIF, the Crown Prince, and
    the human rights abuses that so trouble us here. There are
    filings in a Canadian court action. I know you are aware of
    them.
        They have been reported first by Cable News Network (CNN),
    and later acquired and reviewed by Responsible Statecraft and
    Insider and other outlets, that reveal that Sky Prime Aviation
    was transferred to PIF on December 22, 2017.
        Two Gulfstream jets owned by Sky Prime Aviation shuttled
    Khashoggi's assassins in and out of Istanbul less than one year
    after that transfer of ownership occurred. More than
    circumstantial evidence here.
        This kind of complicity could not have happened without
    knowledge at the highest levels of the Saudi government. Would
    you agree?
        Ms. Shea. The PIF is chaired by Mohammed bin Salman. The
    council that over seized the board of directors of the PIF is
    also chaired by Mohammed bin Salman. He is the prime minister
    of the country. As I stated before, he exercises unilateral
    decisionmaking power over the PIF's decisions and investments,
    and it would be deeply surprising if he did not know about
    this.
        Senator Blumenthal. Based on your experience, Dr. Murphy,
    would you agree?
        Dr. Murphy. I think the CIA assessment has led us to that.
    I have confidence in that assessment, and I do agree.
        Senator Blumenthal. Dr. Freeman.
        Dr. Freeman. I agree as well.
        Senator Blumenthal. I will turn to the Ranking Member for
    his questions and then come back after he finishes.
        Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, let
    me state, I find the Saudi Arabian human rights abuses
    abhorrent, as I think we all do. If I was to evaluate how many
    billions they spent doing their sports washing, it does seem
    like they are getting very good value for their dollar. This
    hearing is evidence of it.
        Would you disagree with that? I understand the other full
    events. I understand how they could try and do this, but it
    does not seem to be working too well. Would you agree with
    that, Dr. Freeman?
        Dr. Freeman. Thank you for the question, Senator. I think I
    would agree with that if we look at this as a short term
    investment for them. Certainly, the PIF's investments of the
    last few years in golf are just absurd. You pay Phil Mickelson
    more than he has made in his entire career----
        Senator Johnson. By the way, when was the PIF established?
    How long have they had the sovereign wealth fund? Do you know?
        Dr. Freeman. Oh, I defer to my colleagues on that.
        Senator Johnson. Anybody?
        Ms. Shea. 1971. From 1971 until 2015, the PIF was housed
    under the Ministry of Finance. In 2015, there was a decree that
    was issued that transferred the PIF from the Ministry of
    Finance----
        Senator Johnson. It has taken them since 1970 to buildup
    this wealth fund, $700, $800 billion. Is that correct?
        Ms. Shea. The PIF has grown tremendously since 2015.
        Senator Johnson. But that is about the value right now,
    about $700, $800 billion. As I stated in my opening comments,
    our government is not being honest. They are not being
    transparent. If you really take a look at who is doing the
    majority of the covering up for the Saudis right now, I would
    say it is the U.S. Government. Would you disagree with that,
    Dr. Murphy?
        Dr. Murphy. I do not know the reasons why, and they are
    incomprehensible----
        Senator Johnson. That was going to be my next question. I
    mean, first of all, do you agree? It seems like our Federal
    Government is probably doing more covering up for the Saudis
    than the Saudis are doing for themselves.
        Dr. Murphy. I do not have the full facts, but I would agree
    with you. On the face of it, it seems incomprehensible that
    they would not release 20 plus years later information related
    to 9/11. Having been on the other side of these discussions,
    there is a time factor that is often very instrumental, so I
    think I do agree with----
        Senator Johnson. Again, the question is, why? Why would our
    government cover up for the Saudis? I do not know, I think the
    answer is somewhat obvious. We buy a lot of their oil. Quick,
    back of the envelope, a calculation from my staff, about $16
    billion a year.
        I do not know how much of that $700, $800 billion of PIF
    investment is, U.S. consumer dollars, but we have invested that
    money. I think, the point I am trying to make here is being
    realistic, what would you rather have them do with our money?
        The Biden Administration, because of the Khashoggi murder,
    entered the office pretty hostile. The reaction of Saudi Arabia
    then was to run to the Chinese and start selling them oil using
    Chinese currency.
        The greatest threat we face being $33 trillion in debt is
    to have the U.S. dollar no longer the world's reserve currency.
    This is how you move down that path of losing that status.
        Would that not part of the rationale that the United States
    in terms of our foreign policy, is somewhat sensitive, trying
    to maintain some kind of relationship, as well as a
    counterbalance to Iran in the region?
        There are some real politics playing in here, correct? Dr.
    Freeman, it looks like you want to say something.
        Dr. Freeman. Yes, Senator. I think I agree with a lot of
    that assessment. I think when we are talking about Saudi
    investment in America, not all of their investments are created
    equally. I think both you and Senator Blumenthal in your
    opening remarks made that clear. The troubling part of the
    PIF's investments related to this deal are an utter lack of
    transparency, and we do not have insight into where these
    investments are going.
        Senator Johnson. Part of the problem is, what could they
    really do about it. In our previous hearing, we had testimony,
    we saw emails that if the PGA does not do a deal with PIF, PIF
    is just going to double down and they will, again, eventually
    they will provide contracts to the best golfers in the world
    and destroy the PGA. Again, golf is not just a U.S. sport, it
    is a global sport.
        That was the point I was trying to make the last hearing,
    is the PGA is looking at an existential threat. It is not a
    fair fight. There are $1.5 billion entity versus a $700 billion
    entity.
        I am trying to look at the reality situation. What can we
    do about this? Do we pass a law, do we stop buying Saudi oil?
    Do we pass a law and say, we are not going to let Saudi Arabia
    take our money and invest in the United States we are going to
    make them invest that in China. What is a practical solution to
    this problem? With the underlying basis that we all find their
    human rights abuses abhorrent.
        Dr. Murphy. Senator, I think that I do not have the perfect
    solution. But what I would offer is that, as my colleagues
    said, these are long time campaigns, and the investment or the
    takeover of PGA is just one of a much larger organizational,
    whole of government from Saudi Arabia exercise to conduct
    influence operations. I think we cannot just look at it as----
        Senator Johnson. But my question is, what do we do about it
    where we are not cutting off our nose to spite our face? Where
    what our solution is, the cure is worse than the disease?
        Dr. Murphy. I think transparency is a good start and this
    hearing is a great forum to exercise that in.
        Senator Johnson. We will go back to transparency starts
    with within our own government, to become transparency to cough
    up what they know. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. The record will reflect that
    at least two of the witnesses are nodding in approval about
    greater transparency from our own government. But I do think
    that Senator Johnson raises a very important point, what do we
    do about it, and that is the goal of these hearings.
        My initial reaction to what we have heard so far is that
    there are gaps and loopholes in the reporting of foreign
    government investments in this country. We are not talking
    about foreign investors, private individuals. We are talking
    about the Sovereign Wealth Fund, the Public Investment Fund.
        The Russian or Chinese disguised and concealed funds that
    may be shell corporations run by oligarchs. Some of them have
    been seized. There is litigation about it. But transparency,
    greater disclosure, is certainly one avenue we ought to pursue.
        I am going to come back to this issue, but I really want to
    follow up on a point that Ms. Shea commented on. The growth in
    the PIF, my understanding is that the growth has been most
    concentrated in the last few years, correct?
        Ms. Shea. Yes.
        Senator Blumenthal. When it was in effect, under the
    control of the Crown Prince, correct?
        Ms. Shea. Yes, absolutely. As I mentioned, between 1971 and
    2015, the PIF was housed under the Ministry of Finance. After
    2015, it was when King Suleiman came to power, he created the
    Council on Economic and Development Affairs (CEDA), which MBS
    headed since its creation. The PIF was then moved to be under
    CEDA, this Committee. Starting in 2015, we saw a dramatic
    expansion of the PIF.
        Senator Blumenthal. You commented, I think, I may not be
    quoting you exactly, but the PIF and the Saudi government are
    inextricably intertwined. The Governor of PIF, Al-Rumayyan is a
    close confidant and very good friend of the Crown Prince. Could
    you comment on other ways that they may be linked together, as
    you said, inextricably?
        Ms. Shea. Yes, absolutely. Yasir Al-Rumayyan and MBS are
    very closely, personally linked. As I mentioned, recent media
    reports have suggested that the institutional safeguards that
    the PIF writes about and sort of relies upon are easily
    circumvented by the Crown Prince.
        There was a documentary that was produced by Major
    Broadcasting Cable (MBC), a Saudi government backed
    broadcaster, where Al-Rumayyan himself details an incident at
    the beginning of 2020 during the crash in the markets of
    Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), when MBS wanted to invest
    heavily in a range of different interests.
        This move was opposed by the board of directors, and MBS
    went beyond the board, circumvented these safeguards, and went
    directly to the King. Rumanyyan details how the King issued a
    decree that allowed these investments to go forward, even
    though they had been opposed by the board.
        Beyond this example, in countries such as Saudi Arabia,
    where there is so much power concentrated under MBS himself,
    political power, economic power, security power, these
    institutional safeguards are very weak.
        Senator Blumenthal. The parallel has been drawn to China
    and Russia. Perhaps, Dr. Freeman, Dr. Murphy, Ms. Shea, you
    could expand a little bit on that point.
        Dr. Murphy. I think that if we consider how money is used
    by China in their Belt and Road initiative, again, a part of a
    much broader campaign, there are some parallels with the Saudi
    Investment Fund here.
        What happens is over an extended period of time, as
    investments become much more entwined with that company's
    business and the company runs into crisis, there is leverage
    that China, for example, will play against other businesses and
    countries.
        That pattern by Saudi Arabia is likely to be repeated, as
    we have seen in other areas. These funds are used as part of
    their full spectrum campaign to exert leverage.
        Senator Blumenthal. Dr. Freeman.
        Dr. Freeman. Yes, Senator Blumenthal. I very much look at
    this as authoritarian regimes learning from other authoritarian
    regimes' efforts to garner influence in the United States. We
    have seen this in sports with the National Basketball
    Association (NBA) and China, I think was a good test case. The
    Saudis were watching that deal.
        They saw the effect they could have on censorship of the
    NBA and its players there. But we have also seen this in U.S.
    higher education, too. This Committee has done a commendable
    job of looking into foreign investments in higher education as
    well. You sort of see an arms race there amongst authoritarian
    regimes too, trying to garner more and more influence in U.S.
    higher education.
        China at the forefront, but Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and other
    authoritarian regimes garnering influence there. That is why I
    think it is critical when we look at this deal to realize that
    this could become a blueprint for China, for Russia, for
    another authoritarian regime trying to take over a U.S. sport.
        Senator Blumenthal. The impact is not just in this country.
    The Chinese use the Belt and Road strategy in Africa and
    countries elsewhere in the world. The takeover of golf has
    implications in terms of misinformation and disinformation, not
    only in the United States, but across the globe, does it not?
        Dr. Murphy. Absolutely, without question. The cognitive
    domain by which the Chinese, or in this case the Saudis, try to
    dominate, is critical for their foreign policy. Their military
    diplomacy efforts--not diplomacy, but military strategy as
    well.
        They are trying to either weaken what they would view as an
    adversary nation's ability to respond or get them to change
    their policies and positions on things. It is highly
    intertwined.
        Senator Blumenthal. I will finish with this question and
    then I will turn to either Senator Marshall, if he is ready, or
    back to Senator Johnson. Senator Johnson quite aptly asked you
    about whether Saudi Arabia is getting its money's worth given
    the proceedings before this Subcommittee.
        These proceedings are not in any way the result of a
    request from Saudi Arabia. They have done everything, the PIF
    has done everything they can to, in effect, deny us information
    that we are seeking from them. Your distinction between the
    short term effect and the long term effect, I think, is also
    apt.
        As important as we think these hearings are and some of the
    publicity, my hunch is that the PIF and the Crown Prince are
    anticipating that memories will be short, especially among golf
    fans and the public in general, and that what remains is the
    washing, whether you call it sports washing, whitewashing, of
    the atrocities that is the goal here.
        They are not looking at what the bottom line is quarter by
    quarter in return on investment. They are looking to the
    public's impression of the Saudi brand, correct?
        Dr. Freeman. Senator, I think that is absolutely right. If
    you look at this as a business investment, it is one of the
    worst business investments you could possibly think. The ROI
    here is just nonexistent.
        I completely agree with you on that, Senator Johnson. I
    think, too, when you look at this, this is a long term
    influence investment. It might take years, it might take
    decades. It is going to be very subtle.
        If they wanted a short term investment in influence, that
    is where the lobbying, the PR firms, you can spin the immediate
    news cycle. Investments in this, like investments in higher
    education for authoritarian regimes, they are long term efforts
    to garner influence in the United States.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. Senator Marshall.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARSHALL

        Senator Marshall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. thank you to our
    witnesses for being here today. I continue to believe that the
    legal business dealings of private corporations should not be
    the subject of yet another hearing of this Subcommittee and
    that we should be more focused on the pressing issues I hear
    about every time I go back home.
        It is skyrocketing inflation, it is the price of gas, it is
    groceries, a historic border crisis, the safety and security of
    their families. At the same time, I have nothing but praise for
    the PGA and the LIV golf programs.
        I love to see opportunities for our young adults to do
    other things than play video games and be on social media. I
    think golf is one of those things that any young American can
    get out and enjoy. It has become a communication opportunity
    for businesses. I would love to see the competition out there.
        I know many fans prefer PGA and others prefer the LIV
    format, the music and the upbeat nature of it. More of a team
    concept as well. I know many of the players like this
    opportunity as well.
        When I go back home, and I think about home again and why
    this hearing might be important to me, though, is of all the
    things my dad could not stand, it was a hypocrite. Some one for
    saying one thing and doing another or trying to pull the speck
    out of another person's eyes when there is a log in your own
    eye.
        My first question is for Ms. Shea. Human Rights Watch, the
    organization you are representing, believes that gender
    identity is an integral part of ourselves and should never lead
    to abuse.
        First question, at what age would Human Rights Watch
    believe that a child should be exposed by an adult to sexual
    content in schools? Second, does Human Rights Watch believe it
    is child abuse for an adult to encourage, perform, or
    administer hormone treatments, transition surgeries, or double
    mastectomies to minors?
        Ms. Shea. Thank you for your question. I cover Saudi Arabia
    and the UAE exclusively for Human Rights Watch, so I am
    unfortunately not in a position to answer your questions, but I
    will speak to my colleagues in our gender and lesbian, gay,
    bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) division and get back to you
    with an answer.
        Senator Marshall. In general, has Human Rights Watch
    supported those types of endeavors, to your knowledge?
        Ms. Shea. As I said, I cover Saudi and the UAE.
        Senator Marshall. I understand that. But you have no
    knowledge on such a critical issue of human rights that you do
    not know what your own organization represents.
        Ms. Shea. As I said, I am very happy to check with my
    colleagues.
        Senator Marshall. You have no knowledge whatsoever of what
    the Human Rights Watch position is on this issue?
        Ms. Shea. As I said, I will check with my colleagues, and I
    will get back to you.
        Senator Marshall. But, so you do know, but you are not
    going to tell us what their position is.
        Ms. Shea. I cover Saudi Arabia and the UAE----
        Senator Marshall. You have been coached well. Human Rights
    Watch is opposed to the Florida law--so you do know this.
        They are opposed to the Florida law, the Parental Rights
    and Education Act, which prohibits instruction about sexual
    orientation and gender identity in kindergarten through third
    grade and require that such instruction be age appropriate or
    developmentally appropriate.
        Recently in Florida, it was discovered the books across
    several counties were in violation of law, including the book
    genderqueer, which depicts graphic sexual contact. Does Human
    Rights Watch believe this kind of content is appropriate for
    young children to see in the school?
        Ms. Shea. As I said, I cover Saudi in the UAE, and my
    research concerns the human rights abuses that are associated
    with the Public Investment Fund. I am happy to go back to my
    colleagues and provide you an answer in writing.
        Senator Marshall. But you do acknowledge that the Human
    Rights Watch is opposed to this Florida law.
        Ms. Shea. As I said, I cover Saudi and the UAE, and I would
    be happy to go back to my colleagues. I am part of the Middle
    East North Africa division, and my research is focused
    exclusively----
        Senator Marshall. I was not here for the rest of the
    hearing. What exactly are your human rights concerns with Saudi
    Arabia?
        Ms. Shea. We have deep concerns over the Crown Prince's
    human rights records.
        Senator Marshall. Specifically, can you tell me
    specifically what those are?
        Ms. Shea. Absolutely. The Crown Prince, Mohammed bin
    Salman, has overseen a historic, unprecedented crackdown on
    freedom of expression. Just last month I mentioned previously
    that we documented the mass killings of migrants and asylum
    seekers with explosive weapons by Saudi border guards.
        We found that if these killings were part of a deliberate
    strategy by the Saudi government to murder migrants, it would
    constitute a crime against humanity. A few weeks ago, I also
    documented a case, Mohammed al-Ghamdi, who was handed down a
    death sentence based purely on his peaceful Twitter activity.
        Senator Marshall. I will close with this. Again, I think it
    is the pot calling the kettle black. We have our own
    Administration cracking down on freedom of expression,
    censoring many thoughts through all the COVID situation as
    well.
        I just feel like we are a hypocrite when we are sitting
    here, and we are not holding all countries on an equal
    standard. We pick and choose who we think is violating human
    rights. We need to look in the mirror and take care of our own
    Constitutional rights and protect them as well. Thank you so
    much.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Senator Marshall. Senator
    Johnson.
        Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When we are
    talking about foreign policy issues, when we are talking about
    conflict between nations, I do not know about you, but I always
    feel a great deal of sympathy for the people that are being
    ruled by authoritarian regimes.
        In our first hearing, PGA board member Jimmy Dunne made, I
    think, a pretty powerful statement. This came from the heart.
    Jimmy is part of the 9/11 families, and he understands.
        What he does not want is whatever we do here, there are 18
    million Saudis under the age of 32 that were not around during
    9/11. Had obviously no involvement. He does not want them to
    think that America hates them. It is a quandary. We are talking
    about a long term influence peddling scheme.
        I know the Kingdom is trying to at least convey that they
    are trying to modernize the Kingdom and they are offering
    greater human rights. You would like to think that is true. You
    would like to think that Saudis are going to realize greater
    human rights.
        Again, I find their human rights abuses abhorrent. I am not
    being an apologist for it, but I am wishing the best for the
    Saudi people. Do you want to comment on that, Dr. Freeman?
        Dr. Freeman. Yes, Senator. I think it is very important
    whenever we have these conversations, we distinguish between
    the actions of the government of Saudi Arabia and the citizens
    of Saudi Arabia for all the reasons you just mentioned.
        Most of the citizens there, as you mentioned, in all
    authoritarian regimes, they feel the pain of those
    authoritarian regimes worse than anyone does. We should not
    hold any actions the Saudi government does against those
    citizens. We have to keep our focus on that regime.
        Senator Johnson. I think as we were talking about
    solutions, I think transparency probably is the best solution.
    I am concerned anybody is--when we start talking about
    misinformation, we just saw the court decisions in Missouri v.
    Biden, where our government, I think unconstitutionally, and
    that is what the courts are ruling, influenced, tried to
    censor, what they termed disinformation, misinformation.
        I always go to Louis Brandeis, who probably about a century
    ago said that the solution for mis and disinformation is not
    censorship, but more free speech. I come down on that, and that
    falls in line with transparency.
        If we are going to really look for a solution on this
    thing, I think it really would lie in terms of transparency
    surrounding the investment of sovereign wealth funds in
    general, because again, this is not just an issue with China is
    probably the worst abuser here.
        They are the ones that have most infiltrated our society.
    They put the most pressure on U.S. citizens, or U.S.
    corporations where they are trying to do business and trying to
    expand trade, that type of thing.
        I am intrigued by that. Do you have any comments on that or
    any ideas in terms of how you would enact better transparency?
    I think you would target sovereign wealth funds, correct? Or
    would you target foreign investors in general?
        Ms. Shea. We think that it is important for there to be
    increased scrutiny over foreign investments in the United
    States, and particularly looking at the human rights and
    corruption implications of foreign investment in the United
    States. I am quite confident that most American businesses do
    not want to become complicit in human rights abuses----
        Senator Johnson. So again, you say greater----
        Ms. Shea. I think that----
        Senator Johnson. When you say greater scrutiny,
    specifically, what would you require? Disclosure of what the
    investment is? I am trying to drill down the detail. What do
    you want disclosed?
        Dr. Murphy. I think part of it is, if you look at parallels
    and they are different. I am in a private industry myself, so
    of course I do not want government involved in every aspect of
    transactions.
        But where there are critical infrastructure, the 16
    critical infrastructure sectors designated by the government,
    they have some oversight because they are instrumental in our
    national security.
        When it is a public investment or private investment into
    something that could impact that, you have to fill out lots of
    forms and there are lots of rules and regulations in there.
    This is a loophole, these public investment funds and others
    like them.
        We have a repeatable process. It will not look exactly the
    same. If I want to do business with the U.S. Government, I
    would have to, as a foreign company, I have to fill out those
    forms. Very similar here. I think there is a process there
    which does not give away all the business records and secrets
    of a business strategy----
        Senator Johnson. Almost like a Foreign Agents Registration
    Act (FARA). You have to register you are making this
    investment. Because I will say, and I will conclude on this, I
    am highly concerned if Congress all of a sudden inserts itself
    into a process of saying, we are going to identify a U.S.
    business that we are going to say it so iconic that no foreign
    government or, we are going to say who can and cannot invest.
        Again, Saudis have, I do not know how many different
    investments do they have in the United States? It is probably
    hundreds, right? I mean, you are saying $35 billion, I think is
    what I heard the figure.
        Yes, I just do not want Congress picking and choosing
    going, no, this is the business that we are going to rule out
    investment by x, y, and z company. We have something that,
    again, sort of lay the groundwork. If there is a need for
    transparency, make it somewhat uniform and hopefully not
    particularly onerous. Effective, but not onerous. Does that
    make sense?
        Dr. Murphy. It does to me. I think that most of that
    sentiment I would agree with, right. The first step is of
    transparency. Where the government line is needs to be balanced
    with the revenue aspects of private companies and what private
    companies bring to bear and the goodness that they will bring
    to the economy.
        Senator Johnson. All right. I do appreciate your statement
    that in general, foreign investment in the United States is a
    positive sign. If people are not willing to invest in your
    country, you are doing something wrong with your economy.
        It is not always good, but it is a good sign that
    foreigners want to invest because foreign investment creates
    jobs in America. I think we need to keep that foremost in our
    brains as well.
        Dr. Freeman. If I could add, Senator. I think your
    reference to the Foreign Agents Registration Act is very apt
    here. FARA is a statute that does not stifle any speech. It
    does not pick winners and losers, like you mentioned.
        Having something like that here, where you get the basic
    information, you get what is behind the deal, you get that
    contract. We see where the money is going. Exactly what is part
    of this arrangement. Unfortunately, the PIF has not provided
    any of that.
        Senator Johnson. I just got a note from my staff that the
    U.S. Sports Academy (USSA), we have just subpoenaed them.
    Apparently, they did file under FARA, so they have done that. I
    got it right here. I am just asking these questions. I mean,
    just a legitimate question. Anyway, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. Ms. Shea, I want to follow
    up on a point. Senator Johnson alluded to the human rights
    record in Saudi Arabia and the claims that the Crown Prince has
    inaugurated a new era of freedom. My colleagues come back and
    say, my goodness, how wonderful things are. Women can drive. In
    your opening statement, I believe you have said something quite
    to the contrary, and I wonder if you could expand on it.
        Ms. Shea. Absolutely. As I said, under Crown Prince
    Mohammed bin Salman, the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia
    has dramatically deteriorated. I mentioned this report about
    abuses from Saudi border guards against Ethiopian migrants
    crossing the border. We have been documenting abuses along this
    migration route since 2014.
        There have always been egregious violations, arbitrary
    detention. But the violations that we documented in this report
    were mind boggling, even to our own researchers. The dramatic
    deterioration along that route was significant and notable, not
    only just in their treatment of migrants and asylum seekers,
    but as well on freedom of expression.
        Last summer we documented a case of a Leeds University
    student, Salma Al-Shehab, who was sentenced to 34 years based
    off of her peaceful Twitter activity, and this at the time was
    an unprecedented sentence. Just a few weeks ago, as I
    mentioned, we documented a sentence of a death penalty sentence
    being meted out for tweets as well.
        There is a documented deterioration in human rights abuses.
    For women's rights as well. Even though women can drive, the
    women's rights activists who had lobbied for years for that
    right were detained, arbitrarily arrested, tortured while they
    were imprisoned in the weeks before the driving ban was lifted.
        We have seen women's rights in particular are being used by
    Mohammed bin Salman as an example of his reform, but the
    reality could not be further from the truth. They passed the
    law on personal status last year, and this law only codified
    discrimination against women.
        Senator Blumenthal. Your point about transparency, I think,
    is very important. That transparency ought to include coming
    clean about human rights abuses that may be occurring in the
    country that is reporting.
        Saudi Arabia ought to be coming clean about what its role
    was in the Khashoggi murder, what its role is in the killing of
    migrants attempting to come from Yemen, what its role is in the
    torture and imprisoning of journalists, as well as dissidents.
    I think that point deserves to be made.
        Ms. Shea. Accountability as well. Accountability for
    apparent war crimes in Yemen. Accountability for the murder of
    Jamal Khashoggi. We have seen time and again Mohammed bin
    Salman and Saudi authorities not being held to account for
    abuses that are clearly documented. While at the same time,
    these abuses continue to get worse.
        Mohammed bin Salman is 38 years old, he just turned 38, and
    we expect that he is likely going to be in power for many years
    to come. He is increasing his economic power immensely and, as
    I said, has unilateral control over the PIF. I think that this
    is deeply concerning.
        Senator Blumenthal. There has been a reference here to a
    number of acronyms, FARA, CFIUS. The requirements of CFIUS
    apply to national security threats. In other words, an
    investment that may pose a threat to national security is
    required to be reviewed. Maybe just for the benefit of whoever
    is listening here and for the American public, why is that not
    enough?
        Dr. Murphy. To me, I do not know if the question is not
    enough. It is just that the cognitive dimension of influence
    operations is generally not thought about as being one of the
    review criteria in the CFIUS process.
        It is largely based on kind of how the country thought
    about threats before we saw AI, before we saw these cognitive
    influence operations proceed. I think the regulations and rules
    are there. It is just that we do not take this use case and use
    CFIUS as a model maybe to run it through.
        Having been in those rooms, it is very rare that something
    in the entertainment industry, sports industry be thought of in
    that way because it is looked at a very discrete purchase or
    transaction, and not part of a full spectrum foreign adversary
    campaign against the United States.
        Senator Blumenthal. The idea is that when a foreign
    government, and not just the government, but as we have talked
    about, if it is an instrumentality of the government, it is
    operating as an agent of the government, the Kingdom and the
    Crown Prince benefit from its investment.
        As Dr. Freeman has pointed out so well, the point of those
    investments are not what ordinarily drives entrepreneurs,
    namely return on investment. It is an instrumentality, and
    agent of the State, and seeking to elevate the State's image
    abroad, engage in disinformation and misinformation, and it
    therefore is a threat, potentially, to our national security
    through that misinformation campaign.
        We ought to know whether a foreign government or its
    instrumentality is investing not just in public companies that
    are registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
    (SEC), but also private entities, and others. I think Senator
    Johnson referred to China as, and I am quoting, ``the worst
    abuser.'' But we frankly do not know who are the worst abusers
    because we do not have that information, correct?
        Dr. Freeman. I think that is absolutely right, Senator. I
    think to your point and to Dr. Murphy's point too, these long
    term influence operations, our laws on the books are really not
    good for providing us with transparency of them, whether it is
    CFIUS, or you know, whether it is FARA, or any of these other
    laws we have.
        They are more focused on short term issues of influence,
    sort of lobbying, public relations, direct national security
    threats, spying, espionage, that sort of thing. We are, as a
    Nation, rather ill equipped to get at these sort of soft, long
    term influence operations.
        To Senator Johnson's earlier point, that could be an issue,
    too, that we explore in terms of how do we fix these problems
    going forward. How do we counter these long term influence
    operations.
        Senator Blumenthal. FARA applies to lobbying, which is
    different. Even though it does seek to influence our political
    process, it is not the kind of more massive disinformation or
    misinformation campaign, the faux grassroots campaign, for
    example, that you describe. Is that correct, Dr. Murphy?
        Dr. Murphy. I am not a lawyer, but yes, I think that is
    correct. That there is enough--just the way that we think about
    implementing these laws have not really caught up, as my
    colleague said, to where nation-states take advantage of our
    open society and how they do that.
        As the information environment has shifted from the one to
    the many, to the now to the many, to the many, that is a delta
    that we need to take into account as we look at whether it is
    FARA or these other rules and regulations, about how an
    adversary can operate across the full spectrum of capabilities,
    and reach out and touch the American people at any time
    pretending they are Americans or someone else.
        I think, the world has changed so much that some of these
    things we do not think about them to apply them in the current
    situation.
        Dr. Freeman. If I might just add to that. FARA, I am one of
    the worst, harshest critics of FARA. It is a law that was
    enacted in 1938. Most people did not even have a television
    (TV). FARA is so ill equipped to deal with the information and
    technological environment that we live in today.
        The loopholes are extraordinary. The lack of transparency
    is phenomenal. The need for FARA reform right now is immense.
    The longer we go without reforming that, the more vulnerable we
    are to foreign influence operations.
        Senator Blumenthal. Ms. Shea, I think I referred to Neom,
    the planned city that is part of the Crown Prince's vision for
    2030, I believe, and some of the human rights abuses in
    connection with it. Could you expand a little bit on that?
        Ms. Shea. Yes. Earlier this year, United Nations (UN)
    experts reported that three members of the Huwaitat tribe in
    Saudi Arabia are at imminent risk of execution. These U.N.
    experts reported that they were reportedly arrested for
    resisting forced evictions in the name of the Neom Project,
    which is the construction of a 170 kilometer linear city called
    the Line.
        These three individuals were reportedly sentenced to death
    last August, and these death sentences were upheld in January
    of this year. Again, according to these U.N. experts, the
    authorities have reportedly carried out a series of actions to
    evict members of the Huwaitat tribe from their homes and
    traditional lands in three villages in the name of the Neom
    Project.
        Senator Blumenthal. I want to enter into the record a
    document\1\ that is entitled, ``Vice Pulled a Documentary
    Critical of Saudi Arabia. But here it is. Vice's hard-nosed
    coverage on Saudi Arabia changed after the investment deals
    with the repressive Kingdom. A deleted documentary is not
    completely gone, however.'' It is done by The Intercept.
    Without objection, I am going to make it part of the record.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The information referred to by Senator Blumenthal appears in
    the Appendix on page 83.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        You have some knowledge of what happened.
        Ms. Shea. Human Rights Watch has not independently verified
    the claims in this report, but we have, of course, reviewed it
    and the claims are deeply troubling.
        Given the terrible human rights record of Saudi, which we
    have been discussing and as well, of course, MBS himself, which
    are overseeing these abuses and the country's noted record of
    censorship and suppression of freedom of expression, it is not
    at all surprising that the PIF and Saudi authorities would be
    attempting to purchase an American media company in an attempt
    to burnish its image internationally and to repress stories
    that are not in the interest of the Crown Prince.
        Senator Blumenthal. In effect, The Intercept's story states
    that 6 months after announcing this partnership deal with a
    Saudi government owned media company, Vice Media uploaded and
    then quickly removed a documentary critical of Crown Prince
    Mohammed bin Salman.
        That is exactly the kind of potential impact that should
    concern us. I described earlier some of the investments by the
    PIF in a number of entertainment and media companies. We do not
    know precisely--we can hold up the poster. \1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Examples of Saudi PIF post appears in the Appenidx on page 53.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Again, we do not know much about this investment in Vice
    Media. It would not trigger a review under CFIUS or any other
    national security process. Would it, Dr. Murphy?
        Dr. Murphy. Very unlikely that it would. As I have said and
    my colleague has said, we are not thinking about it in the way
    of how adversaries are using information to--quite frankly, as
    a weapon. I do not think it would trigger those. It potentially
    could, but I really find it doubtful that it would.
        Senator Blumenthal. These are some of the sports interests
    that the Saudis have or are developing.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Saudi PIFs current and prospective sportwashing targets poster
    appears in the Appendix on page 51.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        There was a report just recently in The New York Times
    about its potential interest in the sport of tennis, which
    seems to be a ripe takeover target because of its financial
    structure at present and the lack of central governance.
        The potential for its investment in other media companies
    is pretty frightening. But at present there is no review that
    would apply here either under CFIUS or FARA, is there?
        Dr. Murphy. I do not think there is, no.
        Dr. Freeman. No. Not under FARA either. But I would
    completely agree with your point, Senator, that this is what
    these investments buy. It is the sounds of silence. We hear
    nothing critical from all of these entities that are up on that
    board, whether it is Vice News. It is not what we hear, it is
    what we are not hearing that should concern us.
        Ms. Shea. Yes, just to add that the PIF is $700 billion
    approximately, and Saudi Arabia needs to diversify its economy
    away from oil. This is one of the stated aims of the PIF.
        Certainly, we believe that this is true. But when you have
    $700 billion in assets, you can afford to invest in a variety
    of different sectors to achieve a variety of different
    objectives and aims.
        This is why we need greater scrutiny of these acquisitions
    and the evaluation of human rights concerns and corruption,
    because some of the investments may indeed make sound economic
    sense and not be used for the purposes of whitewashing or
    further, repression, but many others may have these as their
    aims.
        That is why regulations are important so that we can
    protect American businesses from becoming complicit potentially
    in human rights abuses.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. Senator Johnson.
        Senator Johnson. Quick summary. I think the overall
    solution here is a free press that holds everybody accountable.
    Not one that is biased, that kind of protects one side or
    advocates for one side.
        I earlier quoted Justice Brandeis--well, paraphrased
    Justice Brandeis, but again, he was deciding a case where there
    was misinformation that could cause public harm. His full quote
    was, ``if there would be time to expose through discussion the
    falsehoods and fallacies to avert the evil by process of
    education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not
    enforced silence.''
        Again, gets right back to the solution, transparency. But a
    free press that by and large exhibits no bias is inquisitive,
    that digs into the truth. If you have Saudi Arabia saying, oh,
    we have this human rights program, or we are opening up all
    these rights to women, but the truth is just the opposite, that
    is what where we need a free press to inform us.
        I am big into transparency. I am big into a free press. But
    one that is unbiased. The solution here is more speech, not
    censorship, not enforced silence. Because we saw, I would say,
    during COVID, the impact of people labeling misinformation the
    truth and the government censoring people, and that did not
    work out too well.
        Right now, we have court decisions saying that was
    unconstitutional. Mr. Chairman, I am enjoying these hearings. I
    think these are raising some important issues. There may be a
    legislative solution here, but the overall solution is more
    speech and a free press that is inquisitive and reports the
    truth.
        Senator Blumenthal. Free speech. All for free speech. Is
    there any in Saudi Arabia, Ms. Shea?
        Ms. Shea. No.
        Senator Blumenthal. No. How about free press?
        Ms. Shea. Not much of that either, unfortunately.
        Senator Blumenthal. Yes, I hate to belabor the obvious, but
    we are dealing here with one of the most repressive autocracies
    on the planet. They are trying to take advantage of free speech
    in the United States to suppress facts they do not like.
        That is why we have issued the subpoena today. More truth,
    more free speech. If you are an investigative reporter, can you
    get access to the facts that we have subpoenaed today, Dr.
    Freeman?
        Dr. Freeman. No, Senator. Not to my knowledge.
        Senator Blumenthal. That is why we are using a compulsory
    process. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, as Justice Brandeis
    said. We thank you for your expertise, your dedication to
    uncovering the truth, each of you and each of your
    organizations. It plays a vital role in the ecosystem of free
    speech and eliciting truths.
        Thank you for being here today. We will continue these
    hearings. We will pursue uncovering as much truth as we
    possibly can. The issues here go beyond golf, they go beyond
    Saudi Arabia, and I think they are of direct interest to the
    American people. Thank you so much.
        This hearing is adjourned. The record will be kept open for
    15 days for any additional comments or questions from my
    colleagues. Thank you very much.
        [Whereupon, at 12:48 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]