[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]